Evolution/Christianity

[Jennifer5]

How do Evolution and Christianity fit together.... is it possible for both to be right........

The christian school I go to doesn't believe in evolution.... but I don't really understand their logic....:confused:

[SolInvictus]

Ah, one of my specialists (human evolution)...

First, evolution does not exclude a belief in a god(s). Secondly, evolution is simply stated as the process by which species change and adapt over time.
The process of adaptation is known as Natural Selection. Humans are a type of primate, and we all originated (primates) from a common ancestor.

Personally, I see evolution as the process by which God created life. Given the great diversity and complexity of life, evolution provides an understanding of this design.

Link for anthropological understanding of evolution:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://anthro.amnh.org/

[SolInvictus]

Link: http://www.becominghuman.org/
Website on Anthropological Study of Human Evolution

Link2: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm
Website on various Christian views of evolution.

[awediot]

Ah you beat me to it SolInvictus, and did it with less words...;) Now I'm not gonna edit this to be less redundant 'cause I'm lazy. Hope we can share in whatever each has brought to the Truth.

It rather depends on if by evolution you mean, life spontaneously springing forth out of some primordial stew buy chance, or if you simply mean that nature can adapt to changes and transform over time. Another factor seems to be how the particular self-awareness we recognize as unique to humans, came about. We see nature adapt everyday. Insects develope resistance to pesticides as do viruses gain a tolerence of the antibiotics that used to be fatal. Animals process patterns of behavior and learn to avoid danger or find easier food. The physical changes that these internal changes may cause: a thicker hoof, broader set eyes, different stance or gait or use of tools, are wide open to speculation, fascinating and not hugely relevant. The other two ideas, draw the line in the sand as to if you believe a mindful "being" of sorts, a Creator, played a roll, or some as yet to be discovered scientific insight might show us the facts....

Mankind is a different creature than nature. The sentience to see nature as seperate, to discover that we can rebel against it and absolutely isolate the ManMade from the rest of it, gave the World meaning. and Life a purpose. Nature without man may run like clockwork, but there is nothing there to really notice.

Much of the dilemma is about time. Billions of years or thousands? It amazes me how much scientific theory is taken for Fact. The faith that is put in it is the same faith that is used for God, or Buddah, or Higher Powers or the self. Pick what confounds you the least... It often seems that the differences are forced and the argument is consuming time better spent on real dilemmas...

For my own part, I rather like the bumpersticker conclusion to "Thank God for Evolution". Sums it up pretty well. C.S Lewis described the idea of paradisal man, who may have existed for a very long time, reproducing and populating, but still in the whole of nature. They lived as yet unaware, as an animal was, but with the edge God gave this species alone... In his scenerio, Adam and Eve were the first two to be granted this self enlightenment and the same story can go on from there. It is an interesting take on what we may not be sure of... The timing is perephial and doesn't alter in the least the decision we all make to believe in a Creator or not.

Doubt this helped much, but maybe it gave you a little different way to your answer...

[SolInvictus]

Not a problem LOL :-)

[NonLemming]

Whether it took 7 nanoseconds, 7 days, or 70 billion years, creation is still an awesome task. Is it only beautiful if it was really fast? I don't understand how things that take centuries (Grand Canyon) to create are any less sacred than things that are created quickly.

I think Evolution and Christianity go hand in hand beautifully. Creation is still miraculous and sacred for all of the same reasons.

Just my two cents.

[Zerbie]

I find evolution to be one of the greatest works of the creator - what else could put life into motion that way? Life is always moving - something that is truly stationary is dead. What could be more spiritual than the very movement of life in all things, changing, growing, expanding?

[Jennifer5]

Thank you all, this makes me feel like what I've been thinking all along isn't completely off.... I've always believed in evolution... things just wouldn't be that interesting, things would never change.... after all a baby evolves into a toddler and a toddler into a kid, kid into teenager, teenager into adult....... so to me when they say there is no such thing as evolution I just couldn't figure out what they ment......

Thanks:)

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

The problem that many people have with evolution is that they feel it undermines the gospel. The necessity of the gospel message can be traced back to the fall, a story which must be taken literally, they contend, if it is to have any real consequence on the real world and therefore necessitate the gospel.

In other words, the issue is in trying to figure out how real events (the death/resurrection of Jesus) could be necessitated by figurative events (creation and the fall).

Creationists also feel that New Testament authors regard the Genesis narratives as real events.

I should add that we should not allow the majority to pressure us into modifying our beliefs. Change should be a response to patient investigation, not to social pressure. It is my suspicion that this is the root of many Christians' willingness to insert evolution into their theology.

[Jennifer5]

Thanks.... believe me they don't pressure me into modifying my beliefs.... but like any good group the force me to look at what I believe and question them, some times I'll find that what I believe in isn't really MY belief but my parents... so it's good, it just gets confusing some times:)

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

reading more of your posts, I think I can help to clarify some other things as well.

so to me when they say there is no such thing as evolution I just couldn't figure out what they ment......

Evolution is woefully difficult to define. At its core, the term merely implies change over time. It may surprise you that evolutionists and creationists are generally in agreement on this. Species do indeed change over time, even to the extend that they are physically unique from their ancestors or that new species arise. The point of contention, however, is the extent of change that is possible. This is where the evolutionist will define evolution as the addition of new biological information while the creationist will define evolution as the modification of existing biological information. The entire issue is quite complex, but I think that is a good summary of the primary difference between creationist and evolutionist definitions of evolution.

[Jennifer5]

:) thanks:)

[Peter Z]

I know y'all are going to crucify me for this comment. If you'd like, I will stop posting here if you want. This is just my opinion, I offer it as a point of dialogue, not condemnation.

It seems to me that one cannot believe in the process of evolution and claim that there is no choice involved in sexual identity. If you boil evolution down to its absolute bare bones it is the process of a cell trying to create another cell. I know that is a very simplistic explanation, but it is logical if you believe in evolution.

Therefore, to follow this logic to its ultimate conclusion, evolution has created complementary species to create more cells. Thus, if you believe in evolution you should logically believe that you were created to reproduce. Unless human beings can learn to produce asexually (and to quote Jurassic Park, "What's the fun it that?"), then logically speaking evolution has chosen you male or female to reproduce more cells.

[Jennifer5]

I'm not sure I agree with that, but always listening to what everyone has to say:)

[TheSecretsLessTraveled]

Jennifer, I would be interested in your thoughts in the topic: Equality Ride: Common Goals, Semantics, Responsibility

Here you will find the summary of the discussions I had with EqRide members when they visited my campus (Lee University), and I would like to know your feelings on the issues raised.

Oh, and Peter Z, I think there is a disconnect between design and morality.

[awediot]

"It seems to me that one cannot believe in the process of evolution and claim that there is no choice involved in sexual identity."

That may be if evolution were a perfect process. Homoexuality does run contrary to the gay gene theory in that it is a gene prediposed to not reproduce, perhaps the ultimate flaw. But rather than affirm a choice, it may just affirm Gods tweaking with the model.

Can't help but notice He is absent from your theory....I have also heard the idea that its nature population control...We're your rubbers.:rolleyes:

,,,and please do keep posting. I have sensed no direspect. You do seem just opinionated and curious, like the rest of us.

[Peter Z]

it may just affirm Gods tweaking with the model...
Can't help but notice He is absent from your theory

This was intentional. I was speaking from a purely evolutionary perspective. No, I do not believe in macro-evolution. I'm an "early-earth" guy, but not a "7-day literal fundamentalist" guy.

[awediot]

Fair enough. Odd how the persitence of homosexuality is a thorn in that perpective... I can never prove to you it is no choice, or you prove it is. But if it is a subconcious choice made as a toddler and recognizes at 5 or 6, is that still a choice for such an innocent mind that knows nothing of sex? Or if it is a later choice, why do you think people would ever make it, creating a much more difficult existence for the enjoyment of a few different body parts? And why off yourself rather than switch back?

[DoofSFNYC]

The fun thing about human reproduction (aside from the obvious) is that we share our genes in so many interesting ways, and that genes don't necessarily always work together to benefit their "host"... it's all very complicated, basically.

One "confrontational" evolutionary explanation of homosexuality would be that, while the gene to make a daughter a lesbian would harm a girl's chances of reproduction, it may have an affect in a male child that would increase his chances of reproducition (in other words, if there *is* a simple genetic basis for being gay, it's different for lesbians and gays, and benefits their str8 counterparts differently).

Another more intuitive evolutionary argument is that we evolve as groups, not as individuals, and that families with one or two gay adults had more resources to devote to the fewer children of the other straight adults. Since these adults are interralted, the genes that "cause" homosexuality would still be passed along in the sibling's children.

Another interesting idea is that a mother's experience of stress during pregnancy floods the fetus with hormones which change the "wiring" in such a way to create a gay or a lesbian child. Since stress is linked to resources such as food and whatnot, it makes evolutionary sense for a mother who's experiencing stress to create a child who will not neccessarily reproduce (after all, being gay doesn't mean no reproduction, it just lowers the chances).

I could go on and on.... :) None of these will probably emerge as *the* explanation, but they are rather fascinating!

[BillPLed]

It seems to me that one cannot believe in the process of evolution and claim that there is no choice involved in sexual identity. If you boil evolution down to its absolute bare bones it is the process of a cell trying to create another cell.

I am not a biologist or anything remotely close to that ( I am a social worker). However, there is another way to think about this "cell trying to create another cell" issue. Now I might be wrong about this, and if I am I am sure someone will correct me, but here is my point: What happens when cells reproduce too much or too fast? Don't we call this cancer? If we as "collections of cells" were to reproduce too much or too fast it could also be like a cancer on a large scale. Perhaps the "gay gene" is one of nature's ways to balance this out. This is just another way of stating what awediot said about "nature's population control."

[zephyr013]

I believe that evolution doesn't necessarily happen in order to make reproduction more likely, but it happens to increase the frequency of traits that will help protect the gene pool and perpetuate the species.
Perhaps the evolution of gay males occurs because feminine nurturing qualities in a quote unquote strong man would be ideal for being protecting nurturing loving "uncles." Of course the fact that lesbians are "left out" or are somehow less ideal invalidates the idea. But it is a thought.

[Peter Z]

did Bill equate homosexuality with cancer? Or did I misread that?

[SolInvictus]

Actually, current research suggests homosexuality is an evolutionary advantage.

An article from Stanford:
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/february19/aaassocialselection219.html

http://www.nel.edu/22_6/NEL220601R01_Muscarella.htm

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/08/15/3
An interesting article on gay.com - homo/bisexuality as "pinnacle of evolution" due to its positive adaptations and traits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm
Interesting article w/ a neutral view.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/35487;jsessionid=baa-icqU1nvYgV
Current study of the positive influence of homo/bisexuality in evolution.

[BillPLed]

did Bill equate homosexuality with cancer? Or did I misread that?

I was referring to over-population as a sort of large-scale cancer. Homosexuality would then be nature's answer to this cancer. I am sure this is not good science on my part. It is just another way to think about the evolutionary significance of same-sex attraction.

[zephyr013]

These ideas have become my research project for my bio class. Thanks everyone! Good.

[DoofSFNYC]

thanks for doing my research for me!! :) i look forward to reading the articles in depth

[revtj]

I just wanted to state for the record that Darwin himself had deeply held religious faith. His diaries from the Galapogos Islands are filled with spiritual exuberance over his scientific delve into nature's wonders. His intent never involved disputing the bible; that happened much later.

The bible & evolutionary theory do compliment each other in my way of looking at it. It is sad to me that some people try to use their religion as a wedge in every imaginable issue. The dualistic notion of either/or thinking just doesn't match reality.

For example, when we make the distinction between night and day, it is a convenient binary division of concepts. But in truth, there's dawn, noon, dusk and more (depending on how close you are to the No or So pole) within 4 distinct seasons of the dance between the sun & earth.

So, boiling it all down to only one acceptable view (i.e. the literal bible which is assumed by some to preclude evolutionary theory) or another view is a really deceptive train of thought. There are bazillions of possibilities! Nature bears this truth every second of every day! :agree:

[SolInvictus]

My minor is in anthropology & research is a hobby of mine :-)

Glad to help y'all with the research.

[awediot]

Great way to put it revtj. We can expand so many of our own ideas that only enhance and bring down to earth Biblical Truths with no diminishment at all to thier power... It a matter of contually making it realer.

[TheTruth]

First of all, scientist (yes even athiestic ones) cannot even come close to explaining the origin of life on earth. NO you CANNOT be a true Christ follower and a Darwinist. Here's why, as my parents used to tell me as a child "If you'll tell one lie, you'll tell two". Where this becomes important is if you cannot believe the Bible on creation, then why believe it on anything else. It is more important now than ever for Christians to hold to a true Christian World View and to know exactly what it is and how to defend it. If you want the facts that the athiestic scientific community doesn't want you to see, and by the way read some real truth on the matter, I would suggest reading a copy of "The Case for a Creator: by Lee Strobel". Not only is his bood very informative on the subject but he also will direct you to other books on the subject. You may even want to try out www.christiananswers.net .

[Emproph]

First of all, scientist (yes even athiestic ones) cannot even come close to explaining the origin of life on earth. NO you CANNOT be a true Christ follower and a Darwinist. Here's why, as my parents used to tell me as a child "If you'll tell one lie, you'll tell two". Where this becomes important is if you cannot believe the Bible on creation, then why believe it on anything else. It is more important now than ever for Christians to hold to a true Christian World View and to know exactly what it is and how to defend it. If you want the facts that the athiestic scientific community doesn't want you to see, and by the way read some real truth on the matter, I would suggest reading a copy of "The Case for a Creator: by Lee Strobel". Not only is his bood very informative on the subject but he also will direct you to other books on the subject. You may even want to try out www.christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net) .First of all, scientist (yes even athiestic ones) cannot even come close to explaining the origin of life on earth.Which would be God’s fault, and NOT that of the "athesitic" scientists as you imply, since God created the "atheistic" scientists who explain what is actually known.

Science by definition means “KNOW,” as opposed to “believe.”

-Not ‘knowing’ that much about science, I would suggest that you aren’t in a position to be claiming that the belief in evolution is antithetical to Christianity.NO you CANNOT be a true Christ follower and a Darwinist. Here's why, as my parents used to tell me as a child "If you'll tell one lie, you'll tell two". Where this becomes important is if you cannot believe the Bible on creation, then why believe it on anything else.Exactly, I can believe ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING-I-want-to, so can you. The question is, do you care to KNOW FOR CERTAIN? Because I do. In fact, you can start changing my mind by PROVING that the Bible is true, every bit of it. Then I’ll know, and thus be CERTAIN that creation, Adam and Eve, and the physical universe was created in 6 twenty-four hour time slots about 5000 years ago and that the ENTIRE scientific community is wrong.

And thus wrong about everything. If we can't believe in science about evolution, then "why believe it on anything else." In fact let's just deconstruct technology altogether.. If you believe in computers you're anti-Christian, eh?It is more important now than ever for Christians to hold to a true Christian World View and to know exactly what it is and how to defend it.More importantly than that, don’t you realize that we’re mostly homosexual persons here who are fully convinced that we are not “sinful lifestyles” and therefore are inherently anti-Biblical? Why pick this topic to comment on? Why think this topic would reach us? Or do you consider any response to be our acquiescence to your obviously superior beliefs?If you want the facts that the athiestic scientific community doesn't want you to seeThey’re ALL atheists and they ALL don’t want us to see the facts? Really? You're telling me that you are fully aware that every single person in the scientific community is an atheist and furthermore DOESN'T want me to see the facts? How do you KNOW this?
__

Intelligent design?

How is it intelligent to debate whether or not to teach something as science that hasn’t even been determined to BE science yet?
__

By the way, I'm a Christian. And since RIGHT and WRONG are ALL you understand, YOU'RE the one who'se wrong on this one. But it's not about evolution vs. creation. It's about the fact that it has to be something VERSUS something else.

That's human speak, not God speak.

[tdogg]

By the way, I'm a Christian. And since RIGHT and WRONG are ALL you understand, YOU'RE the one who'se wrong on this one. But it's not about evolution vs. creation. It's about the fact that it has to be something VERSUS something else.

That's human speak, not God speak.

Well said Emphroph! One of the problems lies with trying to make it a debate, a battle. It's EITHER creation OR evolution. EITHER lgbt OR christian. We are forgetting then, that most of life is made up of the grey areas - it's not all black OR white. It's black, white, grey and a bunch of other colors all mixed in their.

Perhaps when people cease feeling the need to create a debate for every topic they decide not to agree with, we will move on towards equality and all that entails. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not a mixture. Why DID you post this TT?? What is your true motive?

[hankzzz]

I came from a science upbringing and really don't want to throw science out the window... But I don't believe anybody really knows the complete truth on this. My view on it is that both sides should be presented as theory and that creationism or intelligent design is acceptable to be covered in public school. A true scientist would not feel threatened by an alternative theory; however sometimes ego gets in the way!

As for myself, I simply want to believe... That's about it. I certainly have no concrete proof. It's just a thing called faith ;)

[Steven E. Webster]

I came from a science upbringing and really don't want to throw science out the window... But I don't believe anybody really knows the complete truth on this. My view on it is that both sides should be presented as theory and that creationism or intelligent design is acceptable to be covered in public school. A true scientist would not feel threatened by an alternative theory; however sometimes ego gets in the way!

As for myself, I simply want to believe... That's about it. I certainly have no concrete proof. It's just a thing called faith ;)

Hank,
I'm Christian, I believe in evolution and I have faith in God. However, I have to disagree with you--Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and it would be wrong to present it in a public school science class as though it is a scientific theory. It would be fine to present Intelligent Design in a public school philosophy class or in a class on world religions (that didn't favor one religion over another.)

Evolution is a theory that rises or falls on evidence. Intelligent Design relies on no evidence. It is merely an argument that claims that complexity can't be explained without referring to an "Intelligent Designer" (God). The God I believe in isn't just a God that fills in our gaps in knowledge, as in "we can't explain "X" therefore "X" must be caused by God."

It is important that we not allow ourselves or the rest of the public to be confused about what science is. It is reliance on solid science that helps us to determine the difference between good medicine and quackery. The same folks that are trying to sell us on intelligent design are the same folks that reject the American Psychiatric Association when they say that science does not support the idea that homosexuality is an illness. The scientific method is what debunks the claims of such quackery as "Reparative Therapy." Trust in the scientific method is essential if we are to face the threat of global warming--the opponents of science would like us to believe that global warming does not exist.

Steven Webster

[hankzzz]

Steven,

I'll agree with you that there is no concrete evidence we were created, however I do feel it should be mentioned (and that is about all) when presenting evolutionary theory in a public school. No, I don't feel it should replace evolution teaching. I also feel that there is no evidence to present as subject matter - except the fact that there are gaps in scientific theory. So therefore you could not have an "inteligent design" class on it's own as a science class. The only place where a complete class on this would be appropriate is a private theology school.

Unfortunately, this thing has become a political football.

[BruceChris]

Steve, Hankzzz, I LIKE those last two posts.

Science by definition means “KNOW,” as opposed to “believe.” --- A quote from Emproph

If science is about things that can in some manner be known, and religion is about things that must be accepted on faith, it is difficult to see how there can be any real conflict between them.

Except that if you're a Fundy, you of course have "Faith" that anything that science may say, that brings into question the premises that your beliefs are based on, is automatically wrong, a mortal threat, and of course an attack on religion. :eek: :mad: :eek: :unhappy: :smashy:

I believe that God speaks to us through the findings of science, and I believe that God is not lying to us. And, science is about the physical world, while faith is about non-physical, spiritual matters.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris