[_ Old Earth _] rejecting evolution is NOT a requirement to be a Christian

[JMM]

I believe that accepting the theory of evolution, or at least CONSIDERING it, does not mean compromising or losing your identity as a Christian. Check out this recent article from a couple weeks ago, in which Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury (and a Christian) discusses this. The article was originally about atheists using 9/11 to attack ALL religions, but he also had a lot to say about the evolution/creation thing.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text ... ack-all-r/

Here are the specific parts of this article which deal with creation/evolution:

.....Lord Carey, who was the most senior cleric in the Church of England between 1991 and 2002, conceded that atheists are right to criticise the “pseudo-science†of creationism.

He claimed Christians are playing into the hands of anti-religion campaigners by defending Biblical accounts of the earth’s history, and praised Charles Darwin, the pioneer of evolutionary theory, as “one of the greatest human beings of all timeâ€Â.
.....

In a speech to the University of Gloucestershire, Lord Carey said: “We now live in such a divided and dangerous world, that the most urgent challenge facing us all is to build bridges of understanding and hope. The contribution [of religions] is being hindered, not only by deep misunderstanding between the faiths but, more worryingly, by a troubling polarisation between two intellectual worlds – faith and secularism, or faith and science.
.....

the former Archbishop admitted that he could “sympathise to a degree†with the atheists’ attacks on creationism – which teaches that the world was made by God in days just a few thousand years ago – and intelligent design, which holds that the universe is so complex it must have been made by someone.

He said: “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth.

“The argument for intelligent design may have some appeal for many Christians but is ultimately a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.â€Â

Lord Carey said it was not true that Darwin’s theories about how life on earth evolved had created a permanent divide between science and religion.

“Many of us accept it, and speaking personally, I have always believed it as a well established explanation of the world we live in,†he said.

He concluded that the devout should engage in a more “positive, respectful and criticalÀ way towards science, but also that atheists must concede that religion can benefit believers and society in general.

 

[Caroline H]

I wonder, does he believe in the virgin birth of Christ or does he just pass that off as a "fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"? It also is "a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.†Not to mention all the evidence that points to creationism that has been discussed in many other threads in this forum.

 

[lordkalvan]

I wonder, does he believe in the virgin birth of Christ or does he just pass that off as a "fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"? It also is "a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.†Not to mention all the evidence that points to creationism that has been discussed in many other threads in this forum.

I am puzzled by your apparent implication that the virgin birth of Christ must be evidence that points to creationism being correct. If you do not believe that it is such evidence, why have you linked the two together? Lord Carey is not alone amongst senior Christian churchmen who accept the theory of evolution as not in conflict with their faith:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned the teaching of creationism in schools. In an interview with Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Dr Rowan Williams said the Biblical creation stories do not belong in the same category as evolutionary theory.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries  particularly the United States and his native Germany  between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,†saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,†the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.â€Â

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

The scientists on the Episcopal Church Executive Council’s Committee on Science, Technology and Faith, who wrote the catechism, “are trying to deconstruct the idea that there has to be a conflict,†says Dr. Paul Julienne, a physicist from Fairfax, Va. He and other committee members are preparing a resolution to be presented to General Convention in June that “affirms evolution as compatible with Christian faith.†The committee takes the position that evolution “does not negate a theology that takes Scripture seriously and which understands God to be loving creator.€Â

Source: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/26769_1701_ENG_HTM.htm

 

[Rick W]

I don't know... I participated in a "fact-finding" debate on the issue of the bible and evolution, with another Christian, and with the given that evolution is fact. There were a lot of things that went totally against Christian belief even when Christians believe evolution. After some days...

Looking back on this we haven't gone far at all.

1) We don't know when Creation occurred.
2) Adam was a real person.
3) Adam had parents.
4) Eve was a real person
5) Eve had parents

Got stalled on:

6) Lifespans are not as biblically stated.



If you were to ask me I'd have to say evolution impacts biblical text quite a bit. Maybe more than we're willing to admit.

 

[John]

Adam and Eve had parents?



I don't remember that talk. :rolling

 

[Rick W]

Yeah. Going on the premise that evolution is fact what can then be considered acceptable and still profess Christianity? If evolution is fact then indeed Adam had to have had parents. Now mind you, this is over the course of some days, not just a one-night discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=43&t=34171&hilit=adam+had+parents&start=165

This was NOT a debate but rather a solid discussion of what is acceptable between two Christians IF evolution is first considered to be correct.

 

[John]

O yes That Thread :eyebrow

 

[JMM]

Going on the premise that evolution is fact what can then be considered acceptable and still profess Christianity?

To profess Christianity, we must accept, believe, and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and our Saviour and Lord. What can then be considered acceptable, IMO, is anything that does not negate that. Since the divinity and lordship of Jesus is a religious claim, NOT a scientific one, then I don't see a problem here.

I don't think that Biblical literalism is a requirement to be a Christian. Whether or not Adam had parents, or whether or not Eve was made from his rib, or whether or not Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (fathering Lamech while still young and spry at age 187).....doesn't matter. What's important is that we believe what I stated above about Jesus Christ. Salvation through Jesus is what defines a Christian, NOT Methuselah's alleged age of death or whether Adam had a dad or not.

 

[JMM]

I wonder, does he believe in the virgin birth of Christ or does he just pass that off as a "fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"? It also is "a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.â€Â

He may believe in the virgin birth...he may not...who knows? But whatever his BELIEFS are, I think the point that he was trying to make was that a distinction must be made between scientific claims and religious claims. Science deals with the natural, NOT the supernatural. The supernatural speculations are the job of the local church, mosque, synagogue, etc. I don't think that creation by a supernatural entity, or virgin births (or resurrections, or ascensions, or walking on water, etc.) should be part of the public school science class.....any more than evolution should be taught in Sunday School. The kids can learn about the theory of evolution, and how it works, in school. Then if they want to know where evolution ITSELF came from (or who created evolution), then they can receive an answer to that question at church on Sunday.

Not to mention all the evidence that points to creationism that has been discussed in many other threads in this forum.

Okay, so if you are contending that creationism is a scientific claim (not solely a religious one), then out of the many other threads in this forum that deal with this (I wish I had time to read them all, but unfortunately I don't), what evidence do you feel is the most compelling? And could you bring that evidence to the table so that we can examine and discuss it?

 

[Rick W]

Going on the premise that evolution is fact what can then be considered acceptable and still profess Christianity?

To profess Christianity, we must accept, believe, and confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and our Saviour and Lord. What can then be considered acceptable, IMO, is anything that does not negate that. Since the divinity and lordship of Jesus is a religious claim, NOT a scientific one, then I don't see a problem here.

I don't think that Biblical literalism is a requirement to be a Christian. Whether or not Adam had parents, or whether or not Eve was made from his rib, or whether or not Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (fathering Lamech while still young and spry at age 187).....doesn't matter. What's important is that we believe what I stated above about Jesus Christ. Salvation through Jesus is what defines a Christian, NOT Methuselah's alleged age of death or whether Adam had a dad or not.

Well, there goes a major portion of the bible down the proverbial toilet regardless if you believe it's literal or not. For even those things which are believed as myth become a lie simply to appease an ignorant people who don't know any better to know those stories really are fabrication in text, content and the ideas conveyed.
Now the hard part, which parts of the bible can remain and which can be tossed or at least disregarded? Much of OT writings are even quoted by Christ himself. Therefore portions of the NT can't be believed either.
Many cults are created by doing the same thing... zero in only on salvation and disregard anything else that doesn't fit. Christianity is built on a solid foundation of OT testament writings of which Christ is the cornerstone. Eliminate that foundation and Christianity cannot stand.
If one chooses certain parts as irrelevant then the belief is no longer grounded in scripture but rather a pick and choose philosophy based on one's own theology.

 

[Gabe]

I wonder, does he believe in the virgin birth of Christ or does he just pass that off as a "fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"? It also is "a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.â€Â

He may believe in the virgin birth...he may not...who knows?

I thought I’d make a comment as I have been attending an Anglican church for a few years now. From my time with them, I can tell you that the vast majority in my church (including the Vicar) believe the theory of evolution to be correct, while at the same time they hold to a very literal reading of the four Gospels and Acts. Not accepting a literal reading of Genesis does not necessarily mean denying Christ’s virgin birth, His miracles or the resurrection. Until recently, I never realised that Liberal Christians who deny the virgin birth etc even existed.

 

[John]

JMM i think this short video is a great start. ( i HIGHLY recommend this video)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vl1MClbdC ... annel_page

 

[JMM]

Now the hard part, which parts of the bible can remain and which can be tossed or at least disregarded?

Rick, they should ALL remain. We should never "toss" or "disregard" any part of the Bible. I think that the real question here is: which parts of the Bible are to be taken LITERALLY, and which parts are to be taken FIGURATIVELY? And I think that the answer to that question is: Spirit guidance, and good old-fashioned everyday common sense. We can pray and ask God to reveal to us which parts are literal and which parts are not. And as for common sense.....when someone says to you "I'm so hungry that I could eat a whole cow", do you believe that he/she could LITERALLY eat an entire cow? Probably not. But you do know what he/she is getting at: "I'm extremely hungry for a big burger". The cow reference was an exaggeration to make a point. The Bible is probably doing just that, with some of its seemingly outrageous stories. So a little common sense can go a long way toward discerning which parts are literal and which parts are figurative.

 

[Rick W]

OK. Maybe you're being more liberal may give us a chance to add to this list.
Do you feel that given evolution is true (we'll work under that assumption) the list below is agreeable?

1) We don't know when Creation occurred.
2) Adam was a real person.
3) Adam had parents.
4) Eve was a real person
5) Eve had parents

 

[Caroline H]

I wonder, does he believe in the virgin birth of Christ or does he just pass that off as a "fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth"? It also is "a negation of what science is about, which is to make a hypotheses from what is observable and then conduct experiments in a constant process of testing.†Not to mention all the evidence that points to creationism that has been discussed in many other threads in this forum.

I am puzzled by your apparent implication that the virgin birth of Christ must be evidence that points to creationism being correct. If you do not believe that it is such evidence, why have you linked the two together? Lord Carey is not alone amongst senior Christian churchmen who accept the theory of evolution as not in conflict with their faith:

I was not trying to imply that the virgin birth of Christ attests to the creation account. My point, perhaps poorly conveyed, was that if he is making his assertion based on what he calls a "negation of what science is about" then why wouldn't he apply that same logic to miricles such as the virgin birth. If he is going to pull one portion of the Bible into question because of (assumed) lack of scientific evidence, why not apply it accross the board?

 

[John]

I've had that argument before. If the Creation account is not literal because "Science" says so then the virgin birth and Jesus's resurrection are equally folly, and if the beginning and middle are wrong then perhaps the end of the Bible is wrong as well. ;)

That is why i prefer to believe the entire Bible is accurate. Evolution and Christianity mix like oil and water.

 

[JMM]

OK. Maybe you're being more liberal may give us a chance to add to this list.
Do you feel that given evolution is true (we'll work under that assumption) the list below is agreeable?

1) We don't know when Creation occurred.
2) Adam was a real person.
3) Adam had parents.
4) Eve was a real person
5) Eve had parents

Okay, based on the presupposition that evolution is true, let's have a go at your list. Here are my answers to whether or not each item is agreeable:

1) yes (we don't have to know exactly WHEN God did it, to still believe that He did it)
2) maybe (the Adam and Eve story could have been based on actual people who lived at the time)
3) yes (if Adam was a real person)
4) maybe (same as #2)
5) yes (same as #3)

So while I'm still not ready to completely accept the theory of evolution just yet (it has its share of scientific discrepancies as much as creationism does), I'll just say that IF evolution is true, then all that means is that the Adam and Eve story has some fictional elements to it. Does saying that Adam and Eve were fictional characters (or were real people with parents) mean that I'm no longer a Christian? I don't think so. I've already stated what defines a Christian earlier in this thread.

IF the Adam and Eve story is fiction instead of fact, does that mean that we should discard or ignore this story? Absolutely not!!! Whether fact or fiction, God had a good reason for including it in the Bible, as well as all of the other stories that would be rendered fictional by evolutionary fact. These stories, in this case, are there to teach us some kind of moral lesson, just like when Jesus would use parables to convey a point that He was making. Besides, we all know NOT to add to or take away from what is contained in the Bible (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19), so discarding or ignoring ANYTHING from the Bible (fact OR fiction) is completely and utterly out of the question!

 

[John]

God had a good reason for including it in the Bible, as well as all of the other stories that would be rendered fictional by evolutionary fact. These stories, in this case, are there to teach us some kind of moral lesson,

What, like don't eat bad fruit? :rolling

All joking aside the Adam and eve story shows us (humans) how we fell from grace... not moral issues. My

 

[JMM]

God had a good reason for including it in the Bible, as well as all of the other stories that would be rendered fictional by evolutionary fact. These stories, in this case, are there to teach us some kind of moral lesson,

What, like don't eat bad fruit? :rolling

All joking aside the Adam and eve story shows us (humans) how we fell from grace... not moral issues. My

Commandment #11: Thou shalt not eat bad fruit! Didn't Jesus curse a fig tree at one point?

Seriously though, you're right about the Adam and Eve story. First of all, I didn't mean to imply that fictional Bible stories were ONLY there for moral lessons; God could have any number of good reasons for including them. Secondly, if evolution were true, the Adam and Eve story could still contain some truth to it. Perhaps they DID, in fact, eat that apple and fall from grace.....evolution would not negate that part of the story. Whether or not they fell from grace is the important thing here; whether or not they had parents doesn't matter so much.

 

[Rick W]

Is this a true statement?

1Titus 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.