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....

[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.

,,,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]

Originally Posted by Peter Z

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."