*Rephrased* Apologetics and evolution

[DanieltheDragon]

Rephrased for a debate format


Does evolution go against the bible? If we assume for one moment that evolution is true does it really impact the christian worldview?

question for debate:

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

[Zzyzx]

.

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

I vote for "other"

First, "Christianity" is a term that is so broad that it is nearly meaningless -- has no distinct, universally accepted meaning or definition. There appear to be as many different interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians -- and tens of thousands of different splinter groups within Christianity with their own definitions (which often conflict with one another).

Some versions (individual or group) of Christianity conflict with evolution, some grudgingly accommodate evolution, and some accept evolution (or are compatible).

Fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist, Bible Literalist and similar views are most at odds with evolution (and other scientific knowledge) whenever it contradicts the beliefs and bible stories.

More modern or liberal Christians adjust ancient beliefs and stories to encompass what has been learned about the real world -- and often still maintain a belief in supernatural entities and events.

[DanieltheDragon]

oh drats I meant to put a 3rd option

I guess I can just manually tally the others and edit the first post

[Divine Insight]

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

I would say that it absolutely conflicts with Christinaity I'm not quiet as tolerant as Zzyzx is in terms of respecting non-biblical interpretations of Christianity.

I say that it's not compatible because of how the Bible claims Eve was created:

First we have God creating Adam:

Genesis 2:
[5] And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
[6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I can see someone arguing that this could be held to be an extreme abstraction that God had actually created man from the dust of the ground via evolution.

Fine. Personally I think this abstraction is already pretty bad, but I'll let it slide.

But then we come to the creation of Eve:

Genesis 2:
[18] And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
[19] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
[20] And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
[21] And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

This is clearly a violation of evolution. If man was created by evolution then so was woman. The idea that woman was an afterthought that was created after man is clearly bunk and in no way compatible with man having evolved from lower animals.

~~~~

So as far as I'm concerned there is no way to justify the Christian creation myth with evolution. I realize that the Catholic Church and many forms of Protestantism have embraced evolution is simply the way that God created man from the dust of the earth, but IMHO this idea that Eve was created from the rib of man pretty much blows that idea out of the water.

So I reject the idea that Christianity can be made compatible with evolution. I think people who believe they can twist the biblical mythology that far are seriously deluding themselves. It seems to me to be nothing more than a seriously desperate attempt to salvage a mythology in spite of obvious conflicts.

And when I say "desperate attempt" I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but rather I simply mean that this is truly bending over backwards unrealistically far in an attempt to try to keep alive a mythology that clearly fails based on its own account of things.

~~~~

When I get to this stage with religious people I don't even feel like bothering to argue the evolution thing anymore, I become far more interested in why they are trying to hard to save an otherwise failed mythology?

Why are people so determined to save these myths at all cost?

These myths proclaim that all of humanity is in hot water with our creator and that the whole point of life is a dire (desperate) need to get back in good with our creator. In Christianity this culminates with this God supposedly having to sacrifice his only begotten son in a horrific manner in an effort to pay for our refusal to obey this God or chose good over evil.

Why people feel such a strong need to support a mythology that places them at such horrible odds with their creator is beyond me. It would seem to me that people would be far more interesting in dropping this mythology like a hot potato the moment they found even the slightest reason to question it. But instead they seem to be willing to bend over to extremely lengths to try to salvage these myths are all cost.

I just do not understand why anyone would actually want Christianity to be true.

If true, it's the saddest state of affairs I can imagine. Even those "few" people who supposedly go to heaven in this religion would still be responsible for having placed this God in such a desperate position that he had to have his only begotten son horrible crucified to pay for their grace.

How in the world can that be so attractive to people that they are willing to support these myths at all cost, even in the fact of having to bend over backwards to the extreme in order to continually support these myths in the face of overwhelming evidence that these myths don't match up with what we know about reality?

I just don't understand the dire need people seem to have to save the Biblical story at all cost.

So no, for me Christianity cannot be made compatible with evolution. I used to believe that back when I was a Christian too, but I can see now that this is really not a supportable idea at all.

[dianaiad]

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

I would say that it absolutely conflicts with Christinaity I'm not quiet as tolerant as Zzyzx is in terms of respecting non-biblical interpretations of Christianity.

It doesn't conflict with my beliefs, and I'm a Christian. Of course, if you want to define 'Christian' as 'someone whose beliefs conflict with evolution,' then we have just climbed on a merry go round.

Given that there are a BUNCH of Christians who are fine with evolution, up to and including the official declaration of the Catholic church (which still comprises more than half of the Christian world), then perhaps what you mean to say is that evolution 'absolutely conflicts' with Christianity as you define it?

That's fine and all, but with all due respect, DI, Christianity really should be defined only by the folks who call themselves Christian.

In sum, it looks (from posts here from Christians and other theists who have a problem with evolution) that evolution conflicts with some subsets of Christianity. These folks say so.

But to "all" of Christianity...or even ,in this case, most of it?

Not so much, no.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 5 by dianaiad]

I think what DI was reffering to is that in accepting evolution it presents certain hurdles or conflicts that must be resolved like the genesis story. Maybe it does not conflict with Christianity per say but maybe the bible more specifically

[Zzyzx]

.

I realize that the Catholic Church and many forms of Protestantism have embraced evolution is simply the way that God created man from the dust of the earth, but IMHO this idea that Eve was created from the rib of man pretty much blows that idea out of the water.

So I reject the idea that Christianity can be made compatible with evolution. I think people who believe they can twist the biblical mythology that far are seriously deluding themselves. It seems to me to be nothing more than a seriously desperate attempt to salvage a mythology in spite of obvious conflicts.

Perhaps I have become more tolerant as a result of debating / discussing with Theists and Christians that I consider rational and who do not insist that everything in the bible is verbatim truth or "the word of God."

Those gentle folk often acknowledge that the creation myth is nothing more than a myth – a religious tale told to convey a religious point.

Non-Literalist (Non-Fundamentalist) Christianity need not accept or require acceptance of Genesis as literal truth. After all, that is Old Testament baggage carried forward -- and much of the OT is dismissed as irrelevant or inapplicable by nearly all Christians.

Of course, this "steals the thunder" of the ardent bible believers, but a more modern version of Christianity seems to be gaining influence with the masses (except perhaps in Africa, South America, and undeveloped parts of Asia).

Once it is acknowledged that Creationism is a myth, there is no longer need for a conflict with science or evolution. Exactly how knowledge and religion are stitched together doesn't matter to me – provided that modern knowledge of the real world we inhabit is not discarded, denigrated, dismissed based on ancient ignorance.

Some of our Theist members present viewpoints with which I have no quarrel (excluding supernatural implications).

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by DanieltheDragon]

Evolution is true, proven, and now where do we go from there?

One of many papers I wrote on this:

The first reason why many in the general public doubt the theory of evolution is due to belief in a supernatural causal effect. If for example, one subscribes to one of the anthropocentric Abrahamic faiths, say for example Christianity, and then points to the Bible as argument from authority to explain the real world around us, and from whence we came, this prevents the believer from accepting empirical evidence of a scientific nature to explain life. Since religious belief requires faith, and faith is the belief in something without evidence, faith is a failed methodology in which to comprehend the inner workings of the world around us.

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence; than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This cannot point one to the path of truth. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way….yet.

“Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falsify the claim that the Norse god Loki was able to assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position�(Boghossian 2013)...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works. This doesn’t set well with those who clutch supernatural, extraordinary, and unprovable theological faith claims, and that is a problem as it not only impacts their ability to understand and accept basic scientific principles, but it actually creates a barrier to moving on to better methods of epistemology. The reason creationism is not taught in public school is because it lacks any evidence. There is a good reason evolution is taught in public school, it is because it has evidence.

A second reason why many in the general public doubt the theory of evolution is due to lack of education and understanding of scientific methods. The problem comes with the word theory, those unfamiliar with scientific terms think that theory is something, “not quite right�, a speculation, a guess, and very likely wrong.

“According to the Oxford English dictionary, a scientific theory is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.� (Coyne 2009) in science, a theory is much more than just a speculation about how things are: it is a well thought out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world.�

I believe it is due to lack of understanding of the plethora of empirical and scientific evidence proving evolution that prevents some from accepting it.
Works Cited

Boghossian, P. (2013) A manual for creating atheists. Durham: Pitchstone Publishing

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

[atheist buddy]

Rephrased for a debate format


Does evolution go against the bible? If we assume for one moment that evolution is true does it really impact the christian worldview?

question for debate:

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

I voted that yes, evolution does conflict with christianity, but I want to add a qualifier.

What I would have said is that evolution conflicts with the words in the Bible.

Almost all of science conflicts with the Bible.

Thankfully the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignores a significant portion of the Bible, and their "Christianity" is a much more fuzzy and vague creed, based less and less on the actual words of the Bible, and more and more on modern clergy and apologist's tactical retreats from the blows science has been dealing to the Bible for the last few centuries.

Most educated Christians believe in evolution. The way they do it is by ignoring what the supposed word of God says about the way species came to be, and reinventing themselves and their religion, creating Christianity 2.0, one where Genesis is taken as nothing other than a legend to illustrate some metaphorical point about the shortcomings of the human condition, and evolution is simply seen as the way in which God went about creating life.

Convenient, uh? God created life in a way that is identical to how he would have done it if he didn't exist.

[H.sapiens]

Rephrased for a debate format


Does evolution go against the bible? If we assume for one moment that evolution is true does it really impact the christian worldview?

question for debate:

Assuming evolution is true does it conflict with christianity?

I voted that yes, evolution does conflict with christianity, but I want to add a qualifier.

What I would have said is that evolution conflicts with the words in the Bible.

Almost all of science conflicts with the Bible.

Thankfully the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignores a significant portion of the Bible, and their "Christianity" is a much more fuzzy and vague creed, based less and less on the actual words of the Bible, and more and more on modern clergy and apologist's tactical retreats from the blows science has been dealing to the Bible for the last few centuries.

Most educated Christians believe in evolution. The way they do it is by ignoring what the supposed word of God says about the way species came to be, and reinventing themselves and their religion, creating Christianity 2.0, one where Genesis is taken as nothing other than a legend to illustrate some metaphorical point about the shortcomings of the human condition, and evolution is simply seen as the way in which God went about creating life.

Convenient, uh? God created life in a way that is identical to how he would have done it if he didn't exist.

Most of science conflicts with the Bible.

If God existed he'd be a sneaky little guy with a top hat and a cape and twirl-able mustachios.