Many would go so far as to say that the Theory of Evolution is a "threat" to the Christian worldview. Many would also say that Evolution poses no contradiction to it. What is your stance?
Discussion
One important discussion which is closely related to the ce-debate is the ongoing debate between atheism and theism (or, often, Christianity). Please feel free to share your favorite arguments for atheism and/or theism (and why you favor them)!
God says that He systematically created the universe in six literal days. He formed it on Days 1-3 and then filled it on Days 4-6. Evolutionary philosophy says that it all evolved by random chance and a "Big Bang" over a period of billions of years. Both cannot be true. If the theory of evolution is correct, then God is a liar. And God is not a liar.
If proven true, I believe evolution would be a huge threat to Christianity. However, it has not been proven true, and the evidence in support of it is not near conclusive enough to warrant it being proclaimed as fact, which it is. Just because the majority of scientists believe it doesn't make it true, and in this instance, among other things, I think that is due to the fact that the majority of scientists don't want to believe in a God. As S.M.S said, and I agree though, Evolution and Christianity cannot coexist. If one is true, the other is false, to me, that is clear.
You guys probably figured I was going to show up at some time :-P I believe evolution and Christianity can certainly coexist. I think that we can all agree that Christianity is centered around Jesus Christ, His sacrifice on the behalf of humanity, and His glorious, triumphant resurrection. I believe that when one accepts those truths, interpretation issues in other parts of the Bible take a back seat. I think it is important to distinguish between the science of evolution and the belief in Christianity, they are very different ways of observing truth. Science uses methodological naturalism, the idea that claims should be tested and verified in order to be considered "true". Christianity requires faith in what we believe to be "true", so they often operate on different levels. Although I believe there is ample scientific evidence support the theory of evolution, that in no way impacts the core of Christianity for me. Jesus Christ loves me, died on my behalf, has offered me new life, and has accepted me into His body of believers. In my opinion, neither Christianity nor the acceptance of evolution are threats to each other.
It may be true that an adult lifetime of practicing methodological naturalism in one's workplace may cause a delusion that science should provide an answer for everything. Clearly, I disagree with that, but you may be surprised by how many scientists are open to truth beyond the laboratory. Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University has studied the intersection between faith and science for many years. She surveyed about 1700 scientists and interviewed 275 in preparation of a book. Right around 50% of those interviewed identified as "religious". Granted, not all of that group would be truly Christian, but I think that data suggests that it is an overstatement to say "a majority of scientists don't want to believe in a God". Of the 50% that would not identify as religious, there are certainly some militant atheists, but I suspect a good portion of them are simply agnostic.
Science and Christianity are two very different ways of finding truth, and are much more complements to one another than opponents.
I have to say that I truly appreciate the comments of cwh. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I do admire his thoughtful and respectful discussion.
Thank you, SMS, that is very kind of you. I truly believe that what we agree on is much more important than what we disagree on. Our kinship as children of the Lord should allow us to respect one another first, and maybe disagree second. When JES first invited me over, it was with trepidation that I accepted. Perhaps I shouldn't be, but I've been happily surprised by the sincere graciousness I've met here. I hope that any disagreements I pose are never made negatively or offensively, but only as disagreements among family members.
Nice to have you back! you give this forum life, and while we disagree on many important points, It is a pleasure to have you here. You are courteous, which is very refreshing in today's culture. Thank you for always commenting.
Excellent, all. Ultimately, the purpose of the debate here is to find the truth in the matter of Creation v. Evolution, and to do that without quarreling or belittling one another. In the end, only one party can be right over evolution, but I am very glad that we all can disagree over it, and still be very civil to one another in our discussions!
I would not be terribly surprised if both parties have some of it right and some of it wrong.
I'm not an expert in the sciences, but I do know quite a bit about the Hebrew language of the Old Testament. If you let the text speak for itself, there is absolutely no way that you can draw an evolutionary conclusion. The Hebrew text simply will not allow it. Now, you may not agree with the Biblical text and a six-day creation, but you cannot make the text of Genesis 1 say something that it doesn't say. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars (believers and "unbelievers") readily admit that the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is written as a literal, historical narrative.
I am far from unique in my interpretation of the creation account as allegorical. There are a large number of Hebrew scholars that don't interpret Genesis 1 (or 2) as a literal narrative - NT Wright, Scot McKnight, John Walton, Tremper Longman, and Richard Middleton - just a few I know of. I'm not saying that "If NT Wright thinks so, then that's all the proof I need", but just pointing out that my interpretation is hardly revolutionary in its thinking.
You mentioned the number of scientists who are religious, and I have two things about that. 1st, there is a huge difference from merely being "religious" and actually having a God who claims to have created the world. 2nd, many of them probably don't let their faith influence there science much. Then again, I can't look into people's hearts, but that is still how it seems to me. Also, the militant atheists are probably the ones who yell the loudest, so that could easily warp one's perception.
Regarding Genesis, I sincerely believe that if a Hebrew scholar went at the text with a completely open mind, they would be certain that it was written as a historical narrative. However, if you have already decided what you want the facts to say before you look at them, it is easy to make them support your view. I'm assuming most of the scholars you mentioned are theistic evolutionists, do you know if any of them read the Hebrew before becoming of that viewpoint?
Hello, nice to meet you all. You can find out about me here: http://peacefulscience.org/
Jacob, even if we take Genesis 1 and 2 as a historical narrative, it does not contradict with evolution, so I am not really sure how that supports your case that evolution threatens Christianity. peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/
Also, we already know what Hebrew Scholars thought about Genesis. We know that they did not read Genesis at all like modern YECs. Have you read the Book of Enoch yet? They liked to Midrash.
In my view, as a scientist in the Church and Christian in science, nothing in science, not even evolution, threatens the One who rose from the dead. There was a time when my faith was threatened by evolution. The jesus I knew then was a bystander who needed protection by my arguments from science. To the point, this jesus was nothing like the One we find in Scripture. Returning to this Jesus is how I found a confident faith in science. Nothing threatens him here.
S.M.S. I do not think that one would "conclude" evolution from Scripture, any more than one would "conclude" quantum physics from Scripture.
Let us imagine for a moment that God gave Moses a prophetic vision of our origins, in which he saw a God governed process of evolution. Ancient Hebrew does not have words for evolution or for billions of years. How might he have summarized this dream in a few pages of text? Perhaps he might say,
"Let the land (and sea) bring forth plants (and animals) of many kinds." (Genesis 1:11,20,24)
Keep in mind a few grammatical points about the relevant passages.
1. The land (and sea) are grammatically the subject of "bring forth", not God. In this narrative, the land and sea are making the plants and animals, not as a direct act of God as we see in Genesis 2.
2. The right translation of these passages is "many kinds" not "reproducing within their kinds". The use of this word in other Scripture confirms this. http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/39
While Genesis does not teach evolution, it is what I would expect if God had given Moses a vision of evolution in a prophetic dream.
God used what He had already created to continue His creation. He still does. He uses a mother and a father to create a new life. While conception is a miracle, and all life is a gift from God, He still uses what has already been created to continue is creative work. He created Adam out of the dust of the ground.
"After their own kind" means just that in the Hebrew. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. There is no convincing fossil evidence that anything else has ever taken place. Even today, there is no observable, scientific proof that genetic material is ever gained within an organism to make that organism into a different organism. The DNA may be rearranged a bit so that you have a poodle instead of a collie, but they are both still dogs.
A warm welcome, Swamidass!
A problem I see with the Evolutionary creationist paradigm is that God said that his creation was "very good." Evolution requires that there be death, predatory behaviors, and other such things that are not generally considered "very good" before the fall...What are your thoughts on that concept?
(Perhaps cwh would like to weigh in as well?)
Hi guys, there are two main ways that I would answer the questions of "death vs very good". First, this sounds quite a bit like the argument atheists use that reads something like this: "How would a good God demand that the Hebrews wipe out women and children in the conquest of Canaan?" The answer we often supply is that God is preeminent and not subject to our ideas of right and wrong. Would the same answer not also be applicable to the "If creation is very good, why did things die?" argument? Second, I would argue that life is wondrous and beautiful, even if things have to die. David often commented on the beauty of nature and his amazement at life. God's creation is certainly "very good" in my opinion!
Oh, and Hi Josh, very good to see you here!
S.M.S.
Certainly, your personal interpretation of Genesis conflicts with evolution, but the text itself does not. In the end, I trust Scripture over man's fallible interpretation. I am sure you understand.
About "kinds," I am uncomfortable with adding to Scripture meaning that is not there. You seem to be adding meaning that does not exist. This article by a YEC is helpful, http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/39 . If you look at the use of "according to their kinds" we find it is used, for example, in Leviticus in a way that just means "many kinds." If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, we cannot take to have the meaning you ascribe.
J.E.S.
Regarding "very good," I am not sure what the problem is. I agree that God made things "very good" too, but also not "perfect." To be clear, I believe it is "good" as God defines "good," not as we define it. For example, it appears that God finds predatory behavior good in Psalms 104, against our expectation. All this is heightened by Jesus, where we find our normal sense of good, i.e. avoiding suffering and death, are not what motivates the God we find by Him. Jesus, in my view, makes most sense of this. He sees value in the suffering because of the joy set before him. It is "good" because the joy is worth the suffering.
Taking this to an old earth and evolution, we see unimaginable amounts of death and suffering in the past, but we also see unimaginable amounts of life and joy. The God we find in Jesus see so much good in the the life and joy, that it outweighs the death and suffering. So much so, that He gives his only Son over to suffering and death, so that this "good" creation might be "perfected," and death itself would loose its sting.
Though this is not your intention, keep in mind that ignoring this exchange between suffering/joy and life/death, leads to absurd conclusions.
We can, for example, trace forward the expected amount of death and suffering into the future. We expect unimaginable amounts of death and suffering, hundreds of millions of people dying each year. Why is not reasonable to solve this problem by intentionally dropping nuclear bombs everywhere to give everyone a quick death, and avoid all future death? The reason why is that the value of life outweighs the sting of death, even before we take the resurrection of all believers into account.
The same holds on an individual level. Looking ahead, we can often anticipate great suffering in our lives, and the certainty of death. Considering these things, independent of the value of life, becomes solid justification for euthanasia and to never have children because they are all certain to eventually die.
Of course, the God we find by Jesus is different than this. He finds the trade off between life and death, suffering and joy, "very good" because the good outweighs the bad. He values us so much that He willingly entered into the suffering so as to end death itself, and make this world perfect.
If he would not spare his own son from suffering and death, in his love for us, it must change our view of suffering and death too. The suffering/death argument against evolution can only makes sense from a secular (or some other non-Jesus) point of view, but it does not seem consistent with Scripture or with the nature of the God we find Jesus. While Scripture does not teach evolution, and evolution does not lead us to Jesus, I can say that evolution (and an old earth) has given me greater understanding of these truths about the value and purpose of life, and ultimately of Jesus' willingness to embrace suffering for the joy set before him.
Swamidass,
Do you believe there was sin in the world before the fall?
"Of course, the God we find by Jesus is different than this. He finds the trade off between life and death, suffering and death, "very good" because the good outweighs the bad. He values us so much that He willingly entered into the suffering so as to end death itself, and make this world perfect."
Christ would not have needed to die for the sins of the world if Adam and Eve had never sinned, so some of your points do not seem to make sense theologically...Would you mind providing some explanation?
Christ did not "need" to die, because God could have just left us fallen. He only willing lay down his life, because he desired to reconcile us to him from sin. I know this is a picky point, but let us not think that we somehow forced God into giving his only Son for us..
If Adam had not fallen, I wonder if Jesus would have come any way, but not been crucified (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/incarnation-anyway-9780195369168?cc=us&lang=en&) . I also wonder the Yahweh in the Garden, who seems corporeal, was a theophany of pre-incarnate Jesus.
But you asked about sin before the fall. It all depends precisely what we mean by "sin". Romans 5:12-14 is critical here:
"12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the [Adamic] law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."
So, in context, we can see Paul is using "sin" in two ways (it is the same word). Pauls says that sin came into the world through Adam, but sin existed in the world before Adam's sin. The difference, he explains, is that after Adam sin was "imputed" on us, it was held against our account. This gets to a fundamental doctrine. "Adam's Sin," to which we are all know subject, is more than just "wrongdoing," but also includes "transgressing" a divine law. So parsing this out, we can say that "transgression entered the world through Adam, where before there had only been wrongdoing, and this brought death to all mankind."
Even the text of Genesis 2-3 itself requires this. Clearly Eve and the Serpent are doing wrong, before Adam's fall. Clearly there was wrongdoing before the fall.
Regarding death before the fall, there are two solutions.
1. The death he is talking about here in spiritual death, which is more literal to God than physical death. Supporting this notion is that God's sentence on Adam was death that very day. Adam, however, does not immediately die, but lives a long life, perhaps in spiritual death.
2. Remember that the Garden has boundaries. Perhaps there was no physical death within the boundaries of the Garden, because of the Tree of Life. Outside the Garden, without access to the Tree, perhaps there was physical death. Perhaps the way Adam's sin brought death to mankind was by denying us all access to the Garden. Perhaps his intended role was to extend the borders of the Garden to include all mankind, but in his fall he condemned all mankind to death.
Of course, maybe both these two things happened at the same time. Remember, the Garden was a special place on earth, but did not cover the earth. Do not mistake descriptions of the Garden for descriptions of the earth outside the Garden.