Jump to content

Christianity And The Theory Of Evolution By Natural Selection


Recommended Posts

Here's the deal: I am a Christian, specifically Catholic, but I dont neccesarily believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Hence, I believe in "nature" over "nurture".Do any of you, as a member of any denomination of Christianity (or Judism), find this belief at odds with Christian doctrine?Basically: Can you be a fully believing practicing Christian with these views?Is there a midway point?Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, Christianity isn't at odds with evolution or natural selection. The intelligent design/creationism view states that evolution only happened after various forms of life were created.answersingenesis.orgMicroevolution is a given. Macroevolution, the fish to philosophers idea, is what some religion folk contest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, Christianity isn't at odds with evolution or natural selection. The intelligent design/creationism view states that evolution only happened after various forms of life were created.answersingenesis.orgMicroevolution is a given. Macroevolution, the fish to philosophers idea, is what some religion folk contest.
Ok, then. New topic is Macroevolution: from random floating abiotic chemicals to living breathing poker players.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a midway point?
not unless you selectively apply completely different world views to either aspect so they can co-exist. many christians do this, and the only reason they get away with it is because christianity is so culturally ingrained in our society. otherwise they'd get called on it more. in other words the principals that validate evolution (empirical evidence/logic of the scientific method) invalidate christianity, so belief in both is ultimately pointless.however i do appreciate it when christians accept evolution because if nothing else it is the first step to enlightened thinking, which will ultimately kill fundamentalism - which is a (the) major reason the power-hungry fundamentalist right fights so hard to get creationism back in schools.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a midway point. For example, answersingensis.org's position on evolution is that "kinds" of creatures were created and then evolved and speciated.
i totally disagree. they are selectively accepting a small part of the body of evidence for evolution and ignoring or spinning lies about the larger part - including evidence for at least 600 million years of macro evolution that is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. that's not a valid position - it's blatant propaganda mongering.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i totally disagree. they are selectively accepting a small part of the body of evidence for evolution and ignoring or spinning lies about the larger part - including evidence for at least 600 million years of macro evolution that is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt. that's not a valid position - it's blatant propaganda mongering.
Well, all debate and discussion is founded on axioms, often implicit. If you are a Christian, you hold the word of the Bible over the reality perceived and conclusions derived by others. "Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible science (it's been wrong in the past and will be in the future) and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept evolution from a single ancestor are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!" The translation of genesis says that God created different "kinds" of creatures. Science tells us that creatures evolve and mutate and speciate. However, the position of some creationists is that evolution occus, but extra genetic information cannot be created. This position incorporates both Christianity and evolution. The only point where it conflicts with established science is that it posits that new genetic information cannot be added. Mutations can introduce new genes, but they always come from old genes that are consequently gone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This position incorporates both Christianity and evolution. The only point where it conflicts with established science is that it posits that new genetic information cannot be added. Mutations can introduce new genes, but they always come from old genes that are consequently gone.
except there is documented evidence (tons of it) that evolutionary processes DO add new information to genetic systems. again, it is not a "position" to go along with science when part of the evidence fits your agenda, then simply deny or spin lies about rest that doesn't. the only valid positions are to accept all of it, or to deny the validity of science altogether.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so belief in both is ultimately pointless.
I really disagree here. I believe, for the thinking, logic accepting Christian, this comes down to a question of Bible interpretation. How literally (if at all) does one interpret the Pentatauch (first 5 books), specifcally Genesis. I believe in the Big Bang and the abiotic synthesis of chemicals to bacteria, and then the evolution of genetic material and on to the life we know now. However, i believe God planned it and set it into motion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I really disagree here. I believe, for the thinking, logic accepting Christian, this comes down to a question of Bible interpretation. How literally (if at all) does one interpret the Pentatauch (first 5 books), specifcally Genesis. I believe in the Big Bang and the abiotic synthesis of chemicals to bacteria, and then the evolution of genetic material and on to the life we know now. However, i believe God planned it and set it into motion.
Seconded!
Link to post
Share on other sites
However, i believe God planned it and set it into motion.
why?? why is god necessary? and why do you think the christian god did it and not the easter bunny? applying such critical analysis to everything in life to the point that you can accept all of science, but not holding your religious faith to the same standard IS contradictory and pointless. yes faith allows self-delusion that appeases insecurity and feeds the pedestal-craving human ego, but ultimately feeling a need to unnecessarily invoke god (in any form) for self-satisfaction is just a snag in the maturing process of society - one that humanity needs to move beyond soon if long-term survival is the goal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
why?? why is god necessary? and why do you think the christian god did it and not the easter bunny? applying such critical analysis to everything in life to the point that you can accept all of science, but not holding your religious faith to the same standard IS contradictory and pointless. yes faith allows self-delusion that appeases insecurity and feeds the pedestal-craving human ego, but ultimately feeling a need to unnecessarily invoke god (in any form) for self-satisfaction is just a snag in the maturing process of society - one that humanity needs to move beyond soon if long-term survival is the goal.
Oh come on, do you hold all your standards to those same sandards. Your morals, your enjoyments? But then again what would I know because I'm just some insecure pedestal-craving human (can I get some critical analysis into that belief).
Link to post
Share on other sites

why do you think the christian god did it and not the easter bunny? The Biblenot holding your religious faith to the same standard IS contradictory and pointlessHow is it not the same standard? What standard (examples)? If you are refering to possibly Jesus's miracles, well i wasn't there but I believe in them. God is "supernatural" for lack of a better word. Divine. Perhaps we should not apply the same standards for science and God. He exceeds them. He created them.yes faith allows self-delusion that appeases insecurity Yes I agree, though I am not insecure. I choose to believe soley because I believe, like many others. I am simply trying to explain the paradign of someone who is logical enough to believe in science, but faithful enough to believe in God.God Is, and always was. The Big Bang happened. Life happened. Jesus happened. Thats what I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On your pedestal craving comment, crow trobot, i concur about that. I saw your post in another thread about moral values being the result of natural selection and I wholeheartedly agree. Its refreshing to see that someone else understands and appreciates evolutionary pyschology. Have you read The Moral Animal ? If not, i reccomend it highly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible
so you apply scientific/logical analysis to the bible? if you know of any repeatable tests that indicate that the bible is (or even might be) the inspired word of god i'd love to hear about them.
God is "supernatural" for lack of a better word. Divine. Perhaps we should not apply the same standards for science and God. He exceeds them. He created them.
perhaps, but i'm leaning towards the easter bunny doing it.
I choose to believe soley because I believe, like many others. I am simply trying to explain the paradign of someone who is logical enough to believe in science, but faithful enough to believe in God.
i know where you're coming from. i'm saying believing in god because you "choose" to, while perhaps good for you individually, is ultimately pointless and detrimental for human society.
Link to post
Share on other sites
so you apply scientific/logical analysis to the bible? if you know of any repeatable tests that indicate that the bible is (or even might be) the inspired word of god i'd love to hear about them.
No. I mentioned this earlier. I believe parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, i.e. creation, possibly the flood, etc. Hence the beauty of my take on situation. As for the Easter Bunny, hey, it could happen. We landed on the moon, no?I hope you're enjoying this discussion as much as me, this is good stuff.cheers
Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I mentioned this earlier. I believe parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, i.e. creation, possibly the flood, etc. Hence the beauty of my take on situation.
So what criteria do you use for deciding which parts are literal are which are not?What comes first, your belief or the interpretation?
Link to post
Share on other sites
because (whether you want it to or not) it lends support to anti-intellectual & anti-environmental causes, and it perpetuates global social boundaries.
What do you consider yourself, politically/socially/philisophically? Just wondering...I was thinking some sort of unitarian/socialist...I tend to believe that humanity evolves through natural selection...which occurs through competing societies. I feel that you believe more along the lines of a sort of devolution will ultimately bring us toward....whatever you think is best.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what criteria do you use for deciding which parts are literal are which are not?What comes first, your belief or the interpretation?
Wow, I thought this was kind of implied. If it contradicts proven science, obviously, it is not literal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to believe that humanity evolves through natural selection...which occurs through competing societies. I feel that you believe more along the lines of a sort of devolution will ultimately bring us toward....whatever you think is best.
What makes you think that's devolution and not evolution? Evolution doesn't equal progress. I agree that religion lends support to anti-intellectual and anti-environmental causes, and it perpetuates global social boundaries. Also, your analogy that human societies "evolve" isn't very applicable because "gene flow" (exchange of people, ideas, technology, goods, and RELIGION) still occurs. If human societies were genetically isolated, then the analogy would matter more.And even if the analogy was relevant, it would still lack meaning. For instance, societies with people (like Mormons) who have giant families will flourish, not because they are inherently "better" but because they are short-sighted and don't see the ills of overpopulation.
Wow, I thought this was kind of implied. If it contradicts proven science, obviously, it is not literal.
I'm not trying to be provocative, but doesn't much of the Bible contradict science? AKA creation and Adam and Eve and the existence of God and the age of the earth and other stuff?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not trying to be provocative, but doesn't much of the Bible contradict science? AKA creation and Adam and Eve and the existence of God and the age of the earth and other stuff?
Are you serious man? It's okay, maybe you missed something. Much of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, contradicts science. Thats a given. However, my explanation for these discrepancies is that many parts of the Bible are not to be taken literallyWhen I was asked, "using what criteria does one determine which parts should be taken literally and which ones should not", I responded: Obviously, the sections that contradict science should not be taken literally.Your question was kind of stupid, but you dont seem to be a dumb guy, so I'm thinkin you missed something in the earlier posts, reread them. About being provoctive, please, dont hold back.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was asked, "using what criteria does one determine which parts should be taken literally and which ones should not", I responded: Obviously, the sections that contradict science should not be taken literally.
using the same standard you are applying to genesis, pretty much the whole bible is contradicted by science.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...