[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[Stoneface]

In another thread on this board someone posted regarded the possiblity that evolution and Christianity are BOTH true. Obviously, as a Christian, your programmed response is to say, "No way." But I've been thinking about it and aked a few fellow Christains what their opinion was of a thought that I had. They were VERY quick to ansewr, not even considering the possiblity, and one guy even said, "You know, Rowdy, I like to think that since the bible says man was created in the image of God, that we're the way we're suppose to be."

My thought is this; what is God made man in his image, but man has had to physically adapt to overcome the huge imperfections that have developed since the Garden of Eden. I mean, if the world was perfect, and man was perfect, there was no need for us to change. But after imperfection was introduced into the world, maybe man had to 'devolve' to adapt to his surroundings?

Boy, I imagine I'm about to catch some flack on this one, but I can't see how this theory would, in any way, go about disproving the bible. The bible said we were CREATED in the image of God. It says nothing about REMAINING in the image of God. Does it?

Fire away!

 

[lordkalvan]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact. Your initial premise - that Christians must automatically reject evolution - seems to me founded on misconception. However, I see no reason to disagree with you that if God is the creator of the Universe, then there is no fundamental reason why evolution should not be a tool of that creation to achieve the intended ends.

 

[ChattyMute]

I have never seen why Christianity defies evolution.
If God created everything, then he also created the processes governing Earth. Evolution is one of these processes; therefore, god created it to achieve his means.



Also, most Christians I know realize that evolution is a fact. I've never met a Christian who denied evolution until I came on to some of these boards. So it is definitely not a "a programmed response to say 'no way'".

 

[inhopeofglory]

One verse ought to be enough.

Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

If we are to believe the words of the Bible - if language means anything at all - then the theory of evolution is entirely contradictory and utterly irreconcilable with the truth of Scripture.

The idea of "devolving" - mankind adapting to an imperfect environment, and thus by definition getting worse - is the exact opposite of the theory of evolution, which contends that mankind is the end of a long process of getting better. In fact, the Bible tells us we're not "the way we're supposed to be" - we've had 6000 years of the Curse since the Fall. Humanity is marred and broken by the consequences of sin.

I'm not prepared to go into more detail here, as it will only cause argument and there are already more than enough threads on the subject... but if you'd like a one-on-one discussion, Stoneface, feel free to pm or e-mail me.

 

[Crying Rock]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact

2 or 3 peer reviewed references?

 

[Barbarian]

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.

Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Catholics. Catholics are not required to accept evolution; but they may not deny that it is incompatible with our faith.

If that's not enough, I can bring up the Anglican/Episcopalian, and Eastern Orthodox positions, as well as those of many Protestant denominations.

 

[lordkalvan]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact

2 or 3 peer reviewed references?

Well, you could always start with the published work of Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Ian Barbour and Philip Kitcher; you might also what to consider this site, which lists prominent Christian evolutionists:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html

It also has links to Christian websites that support evolutionary theory.

 

[Crying Rock]

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said while the Church had been hostile to Darwin's theory in the past, the idea of evolution could be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas.

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, added that 4th century theologian St Augustine had "never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish" and forms of life had been transformed "slowly over time". Aquinas made similar observations in the Middle Ages.

Ahead of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Vatican is also set to play down the idea of Intelligent Design, which argues a "higher power" must be responsible for the complexities of life.

The conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University will discuss Intelligent Design to an extent, but only as a "cultural phenomenon" rather than a scientific or theological issue.

Monsignor Ravasi said Darwin's theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, pointing to comments more than 50 years ago, when Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said the "time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation" of Darwin by the Church as the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth approaches.

Professor Leclerc argues that too many of Darwin's opponents, primarily Creationists, mistakenly claim his theories are "totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... anity.html

Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Catholics. Catholics are not required to accept evolution; but they may not deny that it is incompatible with our faith.

If that's not enough, I can bring up the Anglican/Episcopalian, and Eastern Orthodox positions, as well as those of many Protestant denominations.

So no academic references?

 

[Crying Rock]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact

2 or 3 peer reviewed references?

Well, you could always start with the published work of Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Ian Barbour and Philip Kitcher; you might also what to consider this site, which lists prominent Christian evolutionists:

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html

It also has links to Christian websites that support evolutionary theory.

I'll ask a question that is counter to debater's tactics (because I don't know the answer): how many of these proponents of macro-evolution are Catholics?

 

[lordkalvan]

I'll ask a question that is counter to debater's tactics (because I don't know the answer): how many of these proponents of macro-evolution are Catholics?

How is this question relevant? Are Catholics not Christians? However, to answer your question, of the four named, Miller is Catholic, while Collins is described as an evangelical Christian (I do not know which church he belongs to); I know nothing of either Barbour or Kitcher's church affiliations.

 

[Crying Rock]

I'll ask a question that is counter to debater's tactics (because I don't know the answer): how many of these proponents of macro-evolution are Catholics?

How is this question relevant? Are Catholics not Christians? However, to answer your question, of the four named, Miller is Catholic, while Collins is described as an evangelical Christian (I do not know which church he belongs to); I know nothing of either Barbour or Kitcher's church affiliations.

So no pro citations?

 

[RND]

Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Catholics. Catholics are not required to accept evolution; but they may not deny that it is incompatible with our faith.

If that's not enough, I can bring up the Anglican/Episcopalian, and Eastern Orthodox positions, as well as those of many Protestant denominations.

Just because most people, even most supposed Christians, believe in the validity of error does not make the error true.

BTW, steer me right if I'm wrong, but it seems the Catholic church is always getting it wrong when it comes to science and the Bible. Remember Galileo?

 

[Barbarian]

Just because most people, even most supposed Christians, believe in the validity of error does not make the error true.

The point is that creationism is not Christian orthodoxy. It is the view of a small minority of the world's Christians. There's a good reason for that; Christians believe that reality and our faith are not incompatible.

BTW, steer me right if I'm wrong, but it seems the Catholic church is always getting it wrong when it comes to science and the Bible.

Hmm... Copernicus was a Catholic priest. You think he had it wrong?

Remember Galileo?

Heliocentric controversy? Um, let's see...

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Martin Luther Tischreden

You think Luther was Catholic? :o

The Lutherans and Catholics did learn from their errors, however; both denominations acknoweledge that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. Anglicans were much more willing to accept science; by the early 1900s, almost all educated British Christians accepted evolution. Some other denominations are still holding out against science. But as you learned, they are a decreasing minority.

 

[RND]

The point is that creationism is not Christian orthodoxy. It is the view of a small minority of the world's Christians. There's a good reason for that; Christians believe that reality and our faith are not incompatible.

Creationism has been a staple of both the Hebraic and Christian theology since the dawn of the scriptures themselves. Scripture is repleat that God is a creator and that He makes things. The idea that creationism is not part of the intrinsic nature of Bible theology is ludicrous.

Hmm... Copernicus was a Catholic priest. You think he had it wrong?

Copernicus was not a Catholic priest and no, I don't think he had anything wrong. Neither do I think Galileo had anything wrong. The fact of the matter is that the dogmatic and unbending position of the magisterium of the RCC routinely and systematically persecuted those that dared to question the church's false doctrines and knowledge.

[quote:2erw2hib]Remember Galileo?

Heliocentric controversy? Um, let's see...[/quote:2erw2hib] You're obtuse. Jesuit would be my guess. You do know that Luther was referring to Copernicus and not Galileo, right?

[quote:2erw2hib]"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Martin Luther Tischreden

You think Luther was Catholic? :o [/quote:2erw2hib] He was at one time.

The Lutherans and Catholics did learn from their errors, however; both denominations acknoweledge that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

Either that or it proves the still embrace error.

Anglicans were much more willing to accept science; by the early 1900s, almost all educated British Christians accepted evolution. Some other denominations are still holding out against science. But as you learned, they are a decreasing minority.

As I said, just because the majority embrace an error doesn't make the error true. I suspect this is one reason why the path to destruction is so wide.

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote="Crying Rock":34mx11kc]I'll ask a question that is counter to debater's tactics (because I don't know the answer): how many of these proponents of macro-evolution are Catholics?

How is this question relevant? Are Catholics not Christians? However, to answer your question, of the four named, Miller is Catholic, while Collins is described as an evangelical Christian (I do not know which church he belongs to); I know nothing of either Barbour or Kitcher's church affiliations.

So no pro citations?[/quote:34mx11kc]
I don't know what you mean.

 

[Crying Rock]

I don't know what you mean.

You know, a citation from a professional, peer-reviewed journal.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The point is that creationism is not Christian orthodoxy. It is the view of a small minority of the world's Christians. There's a good reason for that; Christians believe that reality and our faith are not incompatible.

Creationism has been a staple of both the Hebraic and Christian theology since the dawn of the scriptures themselves.

No, that's wrong. YE creationism, for example, was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century. And St. Augustine wrote that animals developed from pre-existing "seeds." Early Christians like Augustine saw creation as an ongoing process. You are a creature of God, are you not?

Scripture is repleat that God is a creator and that He makes things.

Of course. The difference between you and most Christians, is that you don't approve of the way He did it.

Barbarian on the notion that it was the Catholic Church that opposed Heliocentrism:
Hmm... Copernicus was a Catholic priest. You think he had it wrong?

Copernicus was not a Catholic priest and no, I don't think he had anything wrong.

He was nominated by King Sigismund of Poland for the Bishopric of Ermland, a position he could not have been considered for, if he was not a priest.

Neither do I think Galileo had anything wrong. The fact of the matter is that the dogmatic and unbending position of the magisterium of the RCC routinely and systematically persecuted those that dared to question the church's false doctrines and knowledge.

That's pretty much what you're doing, for anything that dares to question your own private doctrines.

Remember Galileo?

Yes. But you probably don't know much about that, do you? Galileo got himself in a political dispute, from which even the Pope couldn't shield him.

He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Barbarian muses:
Heliocentric controversy? Um, let's see...

You're obtuse. Jesuit would be my guess.

Then you know nothing of Jesuits. One prominent English prime minister (Gladstone, I think) was nicknamed "the Jesuit" for his cleverness.

You do know that Luther was referring to Copernicus and not Galileo, right?

Wait, you think Luther was a Catholic? Or do you think Luther wasn't denying heliocentrism? The answer is, Luther was a Protestant, and he opposed heliocentrism.

Barbarian observes:
The Lutherans and Catholics did learn from their errors, however; both denominations acknoweledge that there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

Either that or it proves the still embrace error.

No, it turns out that new species evolve from old, (something even many creationists now acknowledge) and the Earth goes around the Sun.

Barbarian observes:
Anglicans were much more willing to accept science; by the early 1900s, almost all educated British Christians accepted evolution. Some other denominations are still holding out against science. But as you learned, they are a decreasing minority.

As I said, just because the majority embrace an error doesn't make the error true.

Neither does a small number of Christians endorsing a doctrine of the Adventists mean that it's true. It merely means that some have wandered from the early Church.

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't know what you mean.

You know, a citation from a professional, peer-reviewed journal.

Of what?

 

[coelacanth]

I don't know what you mean.

You know, a citation from a professional, peer-reviewed journal.

Of what?

Sociology I suppose...

 

[VenomFangX]

Evolution is a fact and it is how God ordained the situation. The amount of evidence for evolution is incredible yet there is very little hard evidence for creationism, if any at all. I think I will ride with logic and the scientists on this one.
yours
VFX