Evolution for christians

[QED]

Seeing as how it seems to be mostly christians that rail against evolution, I wondered if any might care to read this essay by fellow christian Robert J. Schneider of Berea College.

About the Author

Bob is a member of the Episcopal Church's national Committee on Science, Technology and Faith, and chairs its subcommittee on Creation. He has also served as his Church's consultant to the Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In his essay he emphasizes:

Evolution as science is not a materialistic philosophy; it makes no assertions about any realm of reality outside of nature; it makes no claims for or against the existence of God or the notion that we live in a created universe.

He also writes:

Many Berea College students are exposed to a negative view of evolution in their churches. They are taught that evolution is contrary to the Bible, that they cannot believe in both God and evolution, that evolution is an atheistic philosophy, and, sometimes, that evolution is an invention of the devil. Any information they receive about evolution in sermons or Sunday school usually comes from young earth creationists and not from evolutionary scientists, and, sad to say, what they learn is a not a true picture but a caricature. This anti-evolution viewpoint can stir powerful feelings in many students when the topic comes up in classes and reading assignments in college. One student told one of my science colleagues that when he was exposed to evolution in a previous course, he became physically ill.

I would like to debate with others whether evolution theory as presented in this essay is still seen as a threat to Christian faith.

[axeplayer]

hmm....since no one is answering the proposed question, I suppose I will. In the essay, it states that evolution makes no claim for or against the existance of God, and that Christians should have no problem accepting evolution. This guy obviously hasn't read Genesis, where it states that God made man from the dust of the ground, not from another animal. It states that God made all things, and I personally believe that if you claim to be a christian yet accept evolution as the explanation of species, you are just kidding yourself, and I believe that these people are not true Christians.

[foshizzle]

I think the real issue isn't what the Bible says (I think everyone knows that the Bible and evolution cannot coexist if Genesis is taken literally), but whether or not a person decides to take the Biblical account of creation literally or not.

[micatala]

hmm....since no one is answering the proposed question, I suppose I will. In the essay, it states that evolution makes no claim for or against the existance of God, and that Christians should have no problem accepting evolution. This guy obviously hasn't read Genesis, where it states that God made man from the dust of the ground, not from another animal. It states that God made all things, and I personally believe that if you claim to be a christian yet accept evolution as the explanation of species, you are just kidding yourself, and I believe that these people are not true Christians.

With all due respect, Axe, it is very obvious Schneider has read, even studied thoroughly, Genesis.

Although I plan on starting another thread in Christianity on this question, I'll ask you.

Why must we accept a literal interpretation of Genesis as the only possible interpretation when we do not take the same literal approach to the Bible that Luther, Calvin, St. Robert Bellarmine, etc. took when they pronounced that the Copernican System was unbiblical?

There is already a thread concerning 'True Christians'. At this point, I would simply ask:

Who among the billions of Christians of the world, if any of us, gets to decide who a True Christian is and why?

[Curious]

I would like to debate with others whether evolution theory as presented in this essay is still seen as a threat to Christian faith.

It depends on what you define as Christian. A true (real) Christian would be the ones we refer to as Creationists. The rest are really just hypocrites.

For a "normal" Christian (the hypocrites) its no problem at all, because they do not go against reality (earth being older then 10k years, evolved from apes and so forth), But Creationist (real Christians) would ofcourse have a problem with it, as they would be forced to deny reality (Earth older then 6k years old, evolved from apes and so forth).

Its very easy really.

Lillsnop since most real Christian literature is not even included in the Bible I find it difficult to understand your reasoning. Most "true Christians" as you put it are actually proponents of Paulian and not Christian theology. A true Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, nothing more, just as a Buddhist follows the teachings of Buddha. To suggest that non-creationist Christians are hypocrites shows you don't really grasp what being a Christian is about.

Back to the original question.
As a Christian I find nothing about evolution that threatens my belief. In fact evolution states that we are made from dust, as does the big bang theory although the chronology of events may be way out. It seems that what was given to the people as an appetizer over 3000 years ago has been mistaken for the main course and that a certain portion of the population seem to be unable to comprehend any more than their ancestors could.

[QED]

It seems that what was given to the people as an appetizer over 3000 years ago has been mistaken for the main course and that a certain portion of the population seem to be unable to comprehend any more than their ancestors could.

An appetizer eh? That's funny! You obviously accept the geological timetable of a very old Earth. Given that Stromatelites were the only horse in town for the majority of Earths history, we have to wonder at gods patience (no problem for the believers I suppose) if he was prepared to wait for three and a half thousand, million years before he had something to talk to.

I only mention this because the progress of life from bacteria to complex organisms like us follows a series of power-law like expansions. These are much more indicative of "something finding it's footing" in a series of breakthroughs rather than the most collosal mind in the cosmos going about the business of making men.

The only mental picture I can come up with is that god didn't start out with higher forms of life in mind, instead he put together some bacteria and got a lot of enjoyment out of watching them transform the seas and atmosphere. Only after a few thousand million years did it dawn on him what fun it might be to put together something more sophisticated. But the Cambrian critters didn't prove satisfying for anything like as long as the Stromatelites, and in much less time he had gotten the bug (sic) and was cranking out things to fill the land and air as well. Even then it was millions of years before he came up with the idea of giving his life a voice such that he could converse with it.

And then we have the bible. When the voice suddenly started talking back and getting too big for its own boots, god turns nasty and regards the voice as being sinful from that point on -- such that all new life of the type that can speak comes into the world owing a massive debt to him and is automatically laden with guilt from that point on.

Well curious, that's how I'd paint it. Perhaps you could draw me your picture?

[Curious]

Well curious, that's how I'd paint it. Perhaps you could draw me your picture?

I think you have me confused with what you would describe as a mainstream Christian. Do you believe that the atom described by ancient philosophers to be the atom which we describe today as the latter is not indivisible? Is the electron, quark,boson, colour or maybe the string the true atom? To myself, Christianity is a means to an end. It is not an attempt to gain immortality but to try to understand the nature of the universe and the relationships within it. Christianity is the pursuit of the highest knowledge and as such the repudiation of empirical data is counter productive. No ancient text is infallible and most is just wrong. If you explore the motivation of the writers and editors of any text it is apparent why certain perspectives are always emphasised and others ignored.
Most people believe that the new testament is Christian in origin but most of this is not Christ's teaching. Also to use Christianity as an appendment to the old testament is like patching a new garment with old cloth. It is worth noting that most students of the so-called "heretical scriptures" were systematically eradicated so that the dogma of the "Christian" church could flourish without fear of dissent.

[QED]

Well curious, that's how I'd paint it. Perhaps you could draw me your picture?

I think you have me confused with what you would describe as a mainstream Christian.

No not at all, I am not thinking in black and white here. Your appetizer remark was intruiging and all I assume about you is an interest in food
My invitation was an attempt to get to know more about the way you view the world. Some interesting stuff is already emerging...

Do you believe that the atom described by ancient philosophers to be the atom which we describe today as the latter is not indivisible? Is the electron, quark,boson, colour or maybe the string the true atom? To myself, Christianity is a means to an end. It is not an attempt to gain immortality but to try to understand the nature of the universe and the relationships within it.

OK, so you are describing it as an allegory -- and in a minute you're going to tell me that most of it is just wrong. So do you mean that the stories are made up, but they truly reflect realities beyond that which can be directly observed by man?

Christianity is the pursuit of the highest knowledge and as such the repudiation of empirical data is counter productive. No ancient text is infallible and most is just wrong.

So you're trying to understand the universe by reading a book that you know is mostly wrong about the subject. This suggests that there are some bits which are extremely valuable, so valuable that it is worth running the risk of being deflected by other material which you realise is potentially flawed. Is this the only source for such valuable material?

I only ask because there are a huge number of people who instinctively feel that there is some cosmic boss looking down at them, yet the scientific literature never gets us as far as a personal god.

If you explore the motivation of the writers and editors of any text it is apparent why certain perspectives are always emphasised and others ignored.

I note that there is a well-known curiosity in the movie world where a "period piece" like a Western shot in the 1950's reveals more about the lives of people in the 1950's than it does of the 1850's.

Most people believe that the new testament is Christian in origin but most of this is not Christ's teaching. Also to use Christianity as an appendment to the old testament is like patching a new garment with old cloth. It is worth noting that most students of the so-called "heretical scriptures" were systematically eradicated so that the dogma of the "Christian" church could flourish without fear of dissent.

Does this mean that you think the answers really are in Genesis but men wrote them down in the goofy way they did because it was the best they could manage to do to describe the data at the time?

[Curious]

OK, so you are describing it as an allegory -- and in a minute you're going to tell me that most of it is just wrong. So do you mean that the stories are made up, but they truly reflect realities beyond that which can be directly observed by man?

What I was trying to say (obviously not very well) is that things tend to be classified according to the understanding of the classifier. Who is to say that the concept of God given in the Bible is any more correct than the primitive concept of the elements.

So you're trying to understand the universe by reading a book that you know is mostly wrong about the subject. This suggests that there are some bits which are extremely valuable, so valuable that it is worth running the risk of being deflected by other material which you realise is potentially flawed.

Not at all. The way I see it, trying to understand the universe by reading the Bible would be like trying to understand quantum mechanics by studying someones description of an egg. You could, if you had evidence that an egg did in fact exist, judge whether or not the description was accurate but it could offer no more than the original writers particular view of the egg.

I note that there is a well-known curiosity in the movie world where a "period piece" like a Western shot in the 1950's reveals more about the lives of people in the 1950's than it does of the 1850's.

That is my point. In a similar way the old and new testament attribute completely different characteristics to what is said by both to be the same entity.

Does this mean that you think the answers really are in Genesis but men wrote them down in the goofy way they did because it was the best they could manage to do to describe the data at the time?

There certainly are some answers in Genesis but only if deciphered from the Hebrew Torah. The trouble with the translation is that it gives only a translation of the mask and not the face behind it.
Much of the logia of Jesus(I'll call him Jesus as that is the commonly used name) actually refuted the literalism of the Torah and much "Christian" scripture is contrary to the original message given by him. The modern Bible is a collection of 66 books by numerous authors. Many of these books were chosen for inclusion not on the grounds of superiority or validity but rather the desire to create a cohesive framework just as many were excluded for the exact same reason.
You should also consider the motivation behind those claiming divine authority and whether it is plausible that they could have in many cases just made things up.

[ST88]

I note that there is a well-known curiosity in the movie world where a "period piece" like a Western shot in the 1950's reveals more about the lives of people in the 1950's than it does of the 1850's.

That is my point. In a similar way the old and new testament attribute completely different characteristics to what is said by both to be the same entity.

I have to ask the age-old question here, though. If you acknowledge that they have obviously got some things wrong, how do you know they didn't get everything wrong? Also, who has changed in the intervening 2000 years, the God or the people?

[Curious]

I note that there is a well-known curiosity in the movie world where a "period piece" like a Western shot in the 1950's reveals more about the lives of people in the 1950's than it does of the 1850's.

That is my point. In a similar way the old and new testament attribute completely different characteristics to what is said by both to be the same entity.

I have to ask the age-old question here, though. If you acknowledge that they have obviously got some things wrong, how do you know they didn't get everything wrong? Also, who has changed in the intervening 2000 years, the God or the people?

Undoubtedly the people. The concept of God, while mainly formed in most cases by a particular religion, is to some extent dependent upon the experience and understanding of the individual. 2000 years ago the ignorance of the general public made it much easier for such a view of God and the universe to be accepted. Today such a claim would be given little credence were it not for the percieved authority of the church. People today are far less likely to support the position that you must have unquestionable faith.
I know certain things to be true in principal due to personal investigation. I did not at any time choose to become a believer nor(unlike the majority of christian zealots) do I read the Bible and attempt to defend it's position. I came to a certain point where it became necessary to study the methods employed by others and the philosophy and practice of Christian gnosis yielded results. Had I been born in the east I might just have easily embraced Buddhism.