Consequences of believing in Evolution

[clue]

There has already been a thread started to discuss specific evidences for/against 2 theories of the origin of life.

I wanted to aproach this topic from a slightly different angle. And my arguments are mainly targeted to a Christian audience, although a belief in any kind of a good higher being might suffice. I will not be presenting any scientific evidence because of my belief that science is limited and can be manipulated for ulterior motives. Anyway, there has already been a thread dedicated to that so you can go read that one if you are so inclined.

So here we go. If you are a Christian and you also believe in Evolution, how do you harmonize Evolution with your idea of:
1. a good God;
2. an honest God;
3. the sanctity of human life above other life forms;
3. the doctrine of sin and the fall;
4. the redemption we find through a Savior.

For I submit that you cannot
1. believe in a good God if he created death, disease, and bloodshed from the beginning;
2. believe in an honest God since he didn't really tell us in a forthright manner what exactly he did;
3. believe that a human life is any more valuable than a chrysanthemum's life;
4. believe in sin or the fall since there wasn't a real Adam and Eve;
5. believe that Jesus died for our sins because there wasn't any sin in the first place.

[Corvus]

I may not be a Christian, but I will play devil's advocate. If Thomas Aquinas could do it, so can I.

For I submit that you cannot
1. believe in a good God if he created death, disease, and bloodshed from the beginning;

The same reason it's possible to believe in a good God who punishes us for the sins of our ancestors. The current belief of some Christian evolutionists is that God started us off as weak, so we can become superior and eventually almost equals of God (factoring in science and social progress) in the future.

2. believe in an honest God since he didn't really tell us in a forthright manner what exactly he did

I don't feel an author is "dishonest" when he uses metaphors. The Jewish people would surely have been familiar with allegory when their poet...er.. I mean prophets wrote down the words they heard. Christ himself would often speak in allegory.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9 ... oakes.html This particular author is on your side, and argues that original sin is very real. The article argues both for and against it, even though it is for original sin. He states in his defence:

"Ad secundum: as to the second objection, as we have seen, the doctrine in its essence does not depend on the historicity of Genesis 1-3 (very few Christians in the world now refuse to admit the figural language of the first three chapters of the Bible). In fact, to historicize it, to read it "literally" (and it is doubtful that even fundamentalists think God takes afternoon strolls in His garden), distorts the point of the doctrine and forces Paul to contradict himself about the physical body being naturally mortal."

Which is an attack against this argument:

But even if we could force Paul to fit Augustine’s procrustean bed by having him assert a doctrine of an imperishable Adam and Eve before the Fall, and even if we could convince ourselves that the combination of Genesis 3 and Romans 5 leads to a doctrine of original sin, the massive discoveries of nineteenth- and twentieth-century geology, biology, and paleontology block our way. Under their combined and massive impact we no longer interpret Genesis 1-3 literally, understanding by "literal" what is meant in ordinary parlance: taking any vivid historical-seeming narrative to be genuinely historical. Now, at least in professional circles, "literal" means something else: interpreting a text according to the author’s own intentions independent of later doctrinal overlays (a meaning of the term "literal" approved by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu).

So it's apparent that it's not possible to take every single word in the bible as literal.

3. believe that a human life is any more valuable than a chrysanthemum's life;

This would only apply if evolution was an accident, and not an intentional stab at creating a self-improving species superior to all others because it's the closest to God's image. So the chrysanthemum is there for the same reason God created Chrysanthemums. Whatever that is.

4. believe in sin or the fall since there wasn't a real Adam and Eve;

Sin would still exist. You might notice the 10 commandments would have been essential to the stability of hebrew society at the time. In this case, sin occurs through God given free will and conscience to discern good and evil (not only to God, but to race). Sin inhibits the growth of the species. Sin doesn't need some special basic sin through which all other sins enter the world. If you're talking about Original Sin, I wasn't aware that when you wrote the words "an appeal to Christians", you were directing your plea to only those people who believe in the same theological concepts as you do. There are over 8,000 sects of Christianity, and not all of them believe in orginal sin. It's also possible to be a Christian and still acknowledge the failings of its prophets. The apostles reveal their failings time and time again. They lose faith, they renounce God, &c. &c.

Original sin is never stated outright in the bible, but is implied somewhere in Romans and sometimes attributed to a part of Psalms. Passages which can be used to refute original sin:

Eze. 18:19-20, “When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Paul himself showing people are judged according to their deeds:

Revelations 20:12, “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.”

Here are some pages by Christians seeking to refute original sin: http://www.eclecticchurch.org/1_Concept ... al_Sin.htm
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

5. believe that Jesus died for our sins because there wasn't any sin in the first place.

The only thing that the Christian side I am currently defending can be certain about is "original sin" cannot exist alongside evolution, and neither can Adam and Eve. So Jesus could well have died for the sins of humanity, to cleanse them and show a different path than the self-destructive one they were on, died to prove his resolve, died to counter the violent authority of the Romans and leading Jewish sects with pacifism. The list goes on. You'd have to see what each of the sects believe.

And now I'm done. I probably won't debate this further, and I hope someone will jump in and take up my cross - excuse the pun.

[clue]

The same reason it's possible to believe in a good God who punishes us for the sins of our ancestors. The current belief of some Christian evolutionists is that God started us off as weak, so we can become superior and eventually almost equals of God (factoring in science and social progress) in the future.

So you are suggesting that God started us off as weak compared to "very good" (Genesis 1:31)?

But I submit that all of Creation was very good and pleasing to God in the beginning. Death, disease, and bloodshed were not part of the original Creation. It was not until the sin of one man and one woman that these unfortunate consequences were brought into play. So, God is not to blame.

I don't feel an author is "dishonest" when he uses metaphors. The Jewish people would surely have been familiar with allegory when their poet...er.. I mean prophets wrote down the words they heard. Christ himself would often speak in allegory.

Some passages in the Bible are allegorical in nature. But the whole book of Genesis is written as a narrative to give an historical account of the events depicted therein. In fact, that is how Jesus, Paul, and the early church fathers treated Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... eation.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-160.htm
http://capo.org/creationstudies.html

It was not until Evolution (a theory proposed by fallible man) came into the picture that we tried to rewrite the Bible to fit with the hypothesis du jour.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... belief.asp

This would only apply if evolution was an accident, and not an intentional stab at creating a self-improving species superior to all others because it's the closest to God's image. So the chrysanthemum is there for the same reason God created Chrysanthemums. Whatever that is.

So, you agree that human life is more valuable than that of all the other animals? Where do you find this teaching in Evolution?

Sin would still exist. You might notice the 10 commandments would have been essential to the stability of hebrew society at the time. In this case, sin occurs through God given free will and conscience to discern good and evil (not only to God, but to race). Sin inhibits the growth of the species. Sin doesn't need some special basic sin through which all other sins enter the world.

And where is your basis for this conclusion? Again, the Bible teaches that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, not directly related to having free will.

The only thing that the Christian side I am currently defending can be certain about is "original sin" cannot exist alongside evolution, and neither can Adam and Eve.

Hmm, I wonder what Jesus meant then when He said "But from the beginning of the creation God 'made them male and female’" (Mark 10:6)? And Paul, and his numerous references to Adam and/or Eve and/or Original Sin (Romans 5:12-13, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15:22, 2 Cor 11:3, 1 Tim 2:13-14, etc.)

You see, that's my whole point. In order to merge Evolution and the Bible (anyone who calls himself a Christian will have to admit that he believes in this book), you would have to cut out so many stories and doctrines from this sacred book. It's better to believe in the words of an inerrant God who divinely inspired the penning of this holy tome than to believe in the works of erroneous man. After all, how often do biology books have to be revised to exclude previous incorrect "evidences" for Evolution (e.g. Miller/Urey experiment, Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryonic recapitulation, Piltdown man, etc.)? How many times has the Bible been rewritten to exclude erroneous information?

[DeoxyriboNucleicAcid]

It's better to believe in the words of an inerrant God who divinely inspired the penning of this holy tome than to believe in the works of erroneous man. After all, how often do biology books have to be revised to exclude previous incorrect "evidences" for Evolution (e.g. Miller/Urey experiment, Ernst Haeckel's drawings of embryonic recapitulation, Piltdown man, etc.)? How many times has the Bible been rewritten to exclude erroneous information?

Oh dear. Whose god(s) do we believe? There certainly is nothing inerrant about the Hebrew god of the christians. The bible is full of inconsistrencies and downright errors.

The fact that science books are rewritten, as more evidence about subjects is uncovered, is science's strength. Errors are always discovered and reported by other scientists NOT BY RELIGIONISTS. Religion can't ever be wrong which is why it is an intellectual dead end.

[Alan]

For I submit that you cannot
1. believe in a good God if he created death, disease, and bloodshed from the beginning; 2. believe in an honest God since he didn't really tell us in a forthright manner what exactly he did; 3. believe that a human life is any more valuable than a chrysanthemum's life; 4. believe in sin or the fall since there wasn't a real Adam and Eve; 5. believe that Jesus died for our sins because there wasn't any sin in the first place.

Many of these points have been raised even by devout Christians; St. Theresa, for example, noted that God was most cruel to those who loved Him. Or even take the example of Jesus who was allowed to be killed...

It is NOT a matter of belief for many of us, though, who claim direct experience, instead it is a matter of revising our understanding and conforming it to what is (for us) reality. I often wonder myself - why go to the bother of all of this, makes no sense. On the other hand, even unbelievers ascribe to a difference between good and evil, so most everyone believes in sin (evil). And there probably isn't good enough reason, really, to believe that a human being is worth more than a plant - but most atheistic scientists believe exactly that when pegging human life and the top of the evolutionary scale. Given that the Bible may be flawed both by human hand and human interpretation, and evolutionists are also wrong, it may very well be that a human life is NOT so important, yet that still would not change any facts from God's own perspective.

As for telling us this or that in a forthright manner, again, it is one thing to find fault with God, yet another to state that as evidence against God; indeed, if God is wrong, humans are fallible, then your statement of fault can only be settled universally by reference to some God unless you claim privileged access to universal truth. I tend to agree, though, I really do NOT understand why God "created" sin, disease and so forth. But it does seem to me that God intended that our response to trials and suffering would make us more perfect. Likewise, but for different reasons, evolutionists believe that "survival of the fittest" has produced better species higher up the ladder. So, your statements against God utilize logic that is equally valid against belief in evolutionary theory.

Anyway, I surely can choose to "believe" in that God, whether or not I'm happy about the fix that we're all in through no necessary fault of our own. And however I might argue the right or wrong of such realities, I see no honesty problem - God is not required to explain Himself in such detail, any more than you are required to cowtow to my demands.

[Alan]

I may not be a Christian, but I will play devil's advocate. If Thomas Aquinas could do it, so can I. ..... The only thing that the Christian side I am currently defending can be certain about is "original sin" cannot exist alongside evolution, and neither can Adam and Eve.

Sorry, but... to quote a friend, "Opinions are like whatever, everyone's got one." Biblical interpretations, if not subject to translational distortions, are yet entirely subject to poor interpretation. I do NOT see the words original sin in the Bible, nor does evolutionary theory (which is only a tenuous theory) have any bearing on spiritual truth however valid or not.

I'll bite. The Adam and Eve metaphore is only a cursory means of illustrating the fact that folks can be evil (at least in my own experience). Lower animals may seem to be evil, too, but they are not so consciously, only out of survival instincts. The "Fall" is simply a way of conveying that all physical creation was cast into this state of confusion for reasons we can't possibly understand in all respects.

Because of Adam and Eve's rebellion? Perhaps not in the strict literal sense, but this was still a reasonable way of explaining the otherwise unexplainable to unsophisticated folks of the time. You'd likely agree, though, that folks tend to be contrary and evil, so the story makes the valid point intended, why shouldn't that be acceptable?

Yet, we can still be sure that God does exist and that there is a Heavenly place where ultimate peace and harmony exist as well. Personally, I don't care too much for the OT because of such confusion over style. The NT is far more accurate, and even then there are minor inconsistencies along with concepts such as found in Revelation that are difficult for everyone to grasp. Seems that these ought not be barriers to good understanding.

[adherent]

clue wrote:
So here we go. If you are a Christian and you also believe in Evolution, how do you harmonize Evolution with your idea of:

What aspect of evolution do you mean? Adapation is true because organisms do change. It doesn't, however, nessesarily mean they are a new species. And by the way, being a christian does not concur with being an evolutionist. christians believe in creationism: that is an unarguable fact.

[Corvus]

clue wrote:
So here we go. If you are a Christian and you also believe in Evolution, how do you harmonize Evolution with your idea of:

What aspect of evolution do you mean? Adapation is true because organisms do change. It doesn't, however, nessesarily mean they are a new species. And by the way, being a christian does not concur with being an evolutionist. christians believe in creationism: that is an unarguable fact.

Alan there is disagreeing with you, and otseng has also stated previously that one doesn't have to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible to be a Christian. Christians believe in the teachings of Christ. That's all. In the loosest interpretation of the word, you can be a Christian atheist (something I believe Quarkhead here is) and follow the spirit of the teachings without acknowledging its history.

[clue]

What aspect of evolution do you mean?

That everything evolved into what it is today. That no divine intervention was needed. That we had death and disease from the beginning and not as a judgment against us because of sin. Other issues that I alluded to in my original post.

Adapation is true because organisms do change. It doesn't, however, nessesarily mean they are a new species.

Agreed.

And by the way, being a christian does not concur with being an evolutionist. christians believe in creationism: that is an unarguable fact.

Creationism has a specific meaning in this case. I don't just mean that God was a part of it "somehow." The definition of Creationism in this case is a belief that God literally created the universe as set forth in the first couple of chapters in Genesis.

[trei]

A few months ago I went to the best talk I have ever heard on the general subject of evolution. The guy who was giving the talk decided to speak, rather from a scientific point of view - which would go over most of his audience's head, mine included - or a strictly "the bible says" point of view, but rather a sociological and political point of view.

He noted that the "theory of evolution" has a really unprecedented popularity for a *scientific theory* and has really imbibed itself in our culture and thinking like no other, and has become a vital part of the average western person's worldview. Why, he asked, did this happen?

Now I heard the talk a while ago, so I don't remember all of it. Basically the social and political conditions where "evolution" came into its own was around the time of (if I remember correctly) Nazi germany, when propaganda was the political tool of the day. And *evolution* was widely used by politicians of that era to try justify themselves. So *evolution* was pumped out as propaganda, rather than any other scientific idea which stays mostly with scientists for a long time, everyone fights about it because they think their own ideas are better, eventually it trickles out into popular literature and school syllabuses and maybe some dramatic evidence comes up to point one way or another.

Anyway, I don't remember many of the facts, which is a pity. I should look into it a bit and perhaps come back with some more hard info!