Evolution for christians

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat May 07, 2005 3:45 pm

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.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat May 07, 2005 4:19 pm

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.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Sat May 07, 2005 5:44 pm

LillSnopp wrote: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.

Are any explanations forthcoming as to how creationists are 'true' Christians while we ('the rest') are just 'hypocrites'? I don't see how it's hypocritical for a Christian to try to reconcile Scripture with empirical matter; perhaps you could enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing here.

In fact, I see more hypocrisy coming from the Christian rightists than from the moderates and liberals. On the right you end up with leaders who want to flatten out everything regarding religion, to dispense with all of the beauty in the liturgy and the architecture that is meant to uplift the spirit all the better to cow it into doctrinal conformity. Religion is not conformity, it is acknowledgement of the essential ethical truths and in some cases a capacity for metaphysical speculation.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat May 07, 2005 6:11 pm

Are any explanations forthcoming as to how creationists are 'true' Christians while we ('the rest') are just 'hypocrites'? I don't see how it's hypocritical for a Christian to try to reconcile Scripture with empirical matter; perhaps you could enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing here.

You mean "I don't see how it's hypocritical for a Christian to try to re-interpret Scripture with reality".

Its quite simpel, if you ever read the bible, you know its very easy to understand. Creationists are the only ones accepting what it says, whiles the rest of you managed to use your brain somewhat, and figured out that it does not work. Fine, just dont call yourself Christians. Santas or Mirps, i dont care, but not Christians, thats for the people following Old and New Testament. But no doubt, you will want to re-define it.....

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:10 pm

LillSnopp wrote:
Are any explanations forthcoming as to how creationists are 'true' Christians while we ('the rest') are just 'hypocrites'? I don't see how it's hypocritical for a Christian to try to reconcile Scripture with empirical matter; perhaps you could enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing here.
You mean "I don't see how it's hypocritical for a Christian to try to re-interpret Scripture with reality".

Its quite simpel, if you ever read the bible, you know its very easy to understand. Creationists are the only ones accepting what it says, whiles the rest of you managed to use your brain somewhat, and figured out that it does not work. Fine, just dont call yourself Christians. Santas or Mirps, i dont care, but not Christians, thats for the people following Old and New Testament. But no doubt, you will want to re-define it.....

So Catholics are not Christians because they don't follow the Old Testament, but the New Testament and Thomism instead? Sorry, but I find that ridiculous. This whole thing about "True" and "False" Christians tends to get absurd after a while.

LillSnopp · Post by **LillSnopp** » Sat May 07, 2005 7:21 pm

This whole thing about "True" and "False" Christians tends to get absurd after a while.

Not really, Else "Christian" would mean nothing.

IF you read the Bible and accept it, your Christian, if you do not, your not Christian. you cant pick and chosen and then say "ooh, im Christian now".

The jews have the Old Testamen, thats it. The Christians have the Old Testament as a base, and then the New Testament. If you ignore the NT you ignore half the religion. If you re-interpret half the book you are a hypocrite.

Aximili23 · Post by **Aximili23** » Sun May 08, 2005 12:48 am

LillSnopp wrote:IF you read the Bible and accept it, your Christian, if you do not, your not Christian. you cant pick and chosen and then say "ooh, im Christian now".

That's a ridiculously narrow definition for being a christian. You think christianity = biblical literalist??? A christian is someone who believes in Christ, accepts him as savior, etc. That's why there are so many types of christians; it's such a broad framework of belief.

Aximili23 · Post by **Aximili23** » Sun May 08, 2005 12:52 am

LillSnopp wrote:If you re-interpret half the book you are a hypocrite.

A hypocrite is someone who claims to believe something but doesn't really. Christians that re-interpret the bible often really believe their interpretations, so whether or not they're being correct or logical, they're not hypocrites.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun May 08, 2005 5:14 am

When I said "Seeing as how it seems to be mostly christians that rail against evolution" I was addressing a particular subset of christians who know themselves to be so disposed. It seemed like the most diplomatic way of putting it.

gluadys · Post by **gluadys** » Sun May 08, 2005 9:17 am

LillSnopp wrote:
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.

LillSnopp:

I have a question for you.

Which of the following statements do you consider is closer to the truth?

1. The universe is approximately 10K years old, and the physical evidence, properly interpreted, supports this date. Scientific evidence which seems to support an older date is based on assumptions and presuppositions that interpret the data incorrectly.

2. The physical evidence for the age of the universe really does point to an old age (c. 13.7 billion years), but the bible supports a date of approximately 10K years. A Christian must have faith in the biblical date even though the physical evidence contradicts it.