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.

[Leon_Magnus]

Thus why it is dangerous to only pay attention to one part of the testament.

And hence, the creationists using selective Bible verses as "proof" of actual, physical events are on dangerous ground, especially per the enormous deeption and misrepresentation engaged in to "prove" creationism. Lying for Jesus is not the key to salvation.

Exactly why I have to read the whole thing for myself. I'm tired of hearing the same veague scriptures as proof. You can't use one part and through out the rest. There asking for people to think their arguments are weak. There atleast needs to be some research.

[Leon_Magnus]

I guess some of the things that found don't really prove creation but makes evolution hard to assume. Most of the animals seem to have stayed the same as they always have. The coelacanth hasn't changed its shape, I don't even know how it lived for so long. And all the fossils we have can only be called "canidates" not really proof which can also mean things were made the same way. Now that I think about I guess similarity does not always equal same origin. Fossilized flies are basically built the same as normal flies. I guess its a matter of If evolution was the solution it would have stopped when things could efficiently survive, we also wouldn't get insects that look like bird manuer cause I doubt genes are aware of how bird manuer looks, or how a leaf looks.

[Cathar1950]

Thanks QED great little articles.
I have noticed many who adhere to a young earth view get their stuff from old books and quasi-scientists. I see it used of archeology all the time when they claim nothing contradicts the bible. The science has progressed in leaps the last 50 years.
The problem I see is their need to belive in the Bible relates to their belive in Jesus. This maybe mostly a western problem. I wonder how Jewish thought deals with it. I don't think science is the only way we can know things but experience is the bottom line it is hard to go outside it.
Any revelation is questionable.
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.

I think we have had this "real Christian" debate before some place.

But Creationist (real Christians)

Why does that make my skin crawl?
MagusYanam wrote:

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.

Now that is almost beautiful. The best defense I have seen lately for religion.
LillSnopp wrote:
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.....

One of the beauties of the OT is their adaption and reinterpretation.
I think Christianity is a reinterpretation. It has many interpretation.
The prophets seemed to have no problem reinterpreting God's will at times."I require mercy not sacrifice".
If we are to grow and develope and learn we better and need reinterpret.
Dilettante wrote:

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.

I think the Catholic Church does support evolution now. I say better late then never. I would think that the pre-millennium, rapture stuff that has been spreading for the last 100 years is a major reinterpretation.

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".

I belive that is exactly what your doing only you don't know it. That is picking and choosing.

And you are most likely a homosexual, because you have some of these...... You get the point i hope ?

Who you calling queer? Is that lesbians or gays, what about bi's?
Your really a Nazi?

QED wrote:

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

I don't have a problem with it. Seems perfectly reasonable.

axeplayer wrote:

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.

I think it was clay, yes that's it, Red clay. Eve was the mother of all living. Does that mean amebas too?

not true Christians

and that is why they shouldn't teach ID or creationism in schools.
I wonder why God used dirt? Nothing else around? Why not a rock? A pretty flower vaginal fluid and dafadills have the same chemicals. I got that right on a trivia quiz.