An idea I’m interested in is whether a creationist’s rejection of evolution is based on objective evidence of fossils and science (assuming this exists) …or…is it more to do with the fact that the bible teaches something different to evolution?
Suppose there was a theoretical verse in the bible (that people had somehow glossed over) that seemed to say that evolution is true, and that Genesis is not to be taken literally. Now would the Christians on this board still hold that the earth is roughly 8000 years old and Adam and Eve were the first human beings, etc?…even though you would now disagree with the bible (due to this theoretical new verse)? Are your convictions in a young earth that strong that you’d even disagree with the bible?!
What I’m asking is if you’re belief in “creationism” is really based on the fact that the bible says so, and not so much on objective empirical evidence like fossils, etc.
Are you just trying to rationalize the bible? Honestly now.
Would you still deny evolution if the bible said it's true
Moderator: Moderators
-
nikolayevich
- Scholar
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:51 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Post #31
Regarding the original question, it is a multifaceted notion really. Would I "still deny evolution if the bible said it's true?"
It is a strange question if only from my perspective because the concept of evolution is generally presented as a God-less process. From that standpoint, it seems oxymoronic to ask whether the words of God "say so". I am familiar with a Bible that says that God did it. The question is like asking, "what if the Bible-that-says-that-God-did-it said that God didn't do it?"
TANGENTIAL POINT (and small ramble):
Scholars like to pay homage to those who claim to believe in God AND evolution, but will go on to explain how the miraculous need not be invoked to account for the diversity of species on Earth. Is this to say that the very idea of evolution can not involve God? No. Depending on how evolution is defined, it is possible to imagine a world where evolution and God could hold hands and dance the dance. It must be understood though, since it is not acceptable in scientific circles to invoke God when speaking of biological processes, it likewise becomes irrelevant whether one believes in God alongside belief evolution. It is not that the idea of God and the idea of evolution have been proven compatible. It is that they have been mutually excluded in the marketplace much like the concept of "Church and State". Evolutionists can declare they know those who believe in both, precisely because situational axioms firewall evolution from being invaded by the Almighty. Essentially, those who believe in both, must take compromising standpoints on both the evolutionary and biblical sides of the fence.
The reality is, we all have to draw from many sources of information and distinguish truths from falsehoods. It's easy enough for you to say that Christians will believe anything a minister says, but I can give you clear examples of people thinking for themselves. Martin Luther broke free from Catholic teachings because his conscience told him that what the Bible taught and what the "ministers" were preaching were different. Many of the foundational teachings of the Catholic church were rejected because he, along with many brave individuals could not just listen and believe. They wanted what was expounded to conform to reality. To carry this example further, I don't personally subscribe to everything Martin Luther taught. In fact, in his old age he became somewhat anti-semitic. I could not be farther from this. The thing to learn here is that, while there are minions of people who do follow what one man (e.g. the Pope) says about evolution, it doesn't mean all Christians groupthink. People are free to think what they will. The very fact that millions of people who call themselves Christians don't follow the Pope should indicate this.
I would not believe evolution if a minister or preacher or what have you taught it, simply because they taught it. I would believe it if I could see evidence that supports it (not interpretations of evidence that leave me in a state of want or bewilderment). I would not believe it simply because the Bible said it was true. I believe the Bible because I can trust it to conform to reality. If the Bible taught that evolution were true it may give me pause to believe the Bible, not reason to believe in evolution.
It's difficult for me as a critically thinking individual to look at any propositions involving vertical evolution and prior events (abiogenesis, etc) and not see wildly imaginary and wishful thinking. The same can be said by agnostics about belief in God, but then, I'm just answering the question as posed.
</hmmm>
It is a strange question if only from my perspective because the concept of evolution is generally presented as a God-less process. From that standpoint, it seems oxymoronic to ask whether the words of God "say so". I am familiar with a Bible that says that God did it. The question is like asking, "what if the Bible-that-says-that-God-did-it said that God didn't do it?"
TANGENTIAL POINT (and small ramble):
Scholars like to pay homage to those who claim to believe in God AND evolution, but will go on to explain how the miraculous need not be invoked to account for the diversity of species on Earth. Is this to say that the very idea of evolution can not involve God? No. Depending on how evolution is defined, it is possible to imagine a world where evolution and God could hold hands and dance the dance. It must be understood though, since it is not acceptable in scientific circles to invoke God when speaking of biological processes, it likewise becomes irrelevant whether one believes in God alongside belief evolution. It is not that the idea of God and the idea of evolution have been proven compatible. It is that they have been mutually excluded in the marketplace much like the concept of "Church and State". Evolutionists can declare they know those who believe in both, precisely because situational axioms firewall evolution from being invaded by the Almighty. Essentially, those who believe in both, must take compromising standpoints on both the evolutionary and biblical sides of the fence.
Nearly 2,000 years of Catholicism said otherwise. I guess the Pope is showing that former Popes weren't really infallible... or that he isn't... I'm not sure which... though if either isn't or weren't, then I guess the institution isn't infallible. Interesting.illuminatus wrote:As for the topic of evolution. Some Christians believe in evolution. They are called Catholics. The Pope himself said that evolution coincides with the bible. If you don't like it then go cry somewhere.
Just like if your professor told you evolution was true you'd believe it?illuminatus wrote:Furthermore, Christians don't just believe what the bible says. They believe what people in power within their respective churches say. If a minister said abortion is okay and so is pre-marital sex even though the bible says it is not and had a reasonable way of explaining it then they would go home thinking it's okay.
The reality is, we all have to draw from many sources of information and distinguish truths from falsehoods. It's easy enough for you to say that Christians will believe anything a minister says, but I can give you clear examples of people thinking for themselves. Martin Luther broke free from Catholic teachings because his conscience told him that what the Bible taught and what the "ministers" were preaching were different. Many of the foundational teachings of the Catholic church were rejected because he, along with many brave individuals could not just listen and believe. They wanted what was expounded to conform to reality. To carry this example further, I don't personally subscribe to everything Martin Luther taught. In fact, in his old age he became somewhat anti-semitic. I could not be farther from this. The thing to learn here is that, while there are minions of people who do follow what one man (e.g. the Pope) says about evolution, it doesn't mean all Christians groupthink. People are free to think what they will. The very fact that millions of people who call themselves Christians don't follow the Pope should indicate this.
I would not believe evolution if a minister or preacher or what have you taught it, simply because they taught it. I would believe it if I could see evidence that supports it (not interpretations of evidence that leave me in a state of want or bewilderment). I would not believe it simply because the Bible said it was true. I believe the Bible because I can trust it to conform to reality. If the Bible taught that evolution were true it may give me pause to believe the Bible, not reason to believe in evolution.
It's difficult for me as a critically thinking individual to look at any propositions involving vertical evolution and prior events (abiogenesis, etc) and not see wildly imaginary and wishful thinking. The same can be said by agnostics about belief in God, but then, I'm just answering the question as posed.
</hmmm>
-
illuminatus
- Student
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:44 pm
Post #32
Yet there is evidence supporting evolution. There is plenty of it in many scientific journals. Whether you choose to believe it or not is a different story.
Post #33
Oxymoronic, indeed! ...and therefore a very philosophical question, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a whoopernagle?" To bring in your tangential ramble, because it helps here, consider the Pope's current view. He suggests that the evidence from God's Creation is sufficiently overwhelming as to indicate that evolution did, and does happen. The reason that it doesn't contradict the bible is that the bible is written in parables and metaphors. I think of this as God telling us things 2000 years ago, in terms we could understand at that time. He would have gotten just blank stares if he'd talked about DNA, mutations, natural selection, and all of that stuff. So, he gave us a good story that we could wrap our minds around, and he expected us to figure out more details from studying his creation. He helps us recognize that the stories are metaphorical by making some of them wildly unbelievable, and by saying some things so vaguely that we can interpret them in a million ways.nikolayevich wrote:It is a strange question if only from my perspective because the concept of evolution is generally presented as a God-less process. From that standpoint, it seems oxymoronic to ask whether the words of God "say so". I am familiar with a Bible that says that God did it. The question is like asking, "what if the Bible-that-says-that-God-did-it said that God didn't do it?"
The problems arise when we decide that the text of the bible is literal truth, and that what God created must match the stories.
To almost quote from the Pope, "the bible teaches not how heaven was made, but how to get to heaven," and "there is the book of the bible, and the book of Creation; between them there is no conflict." This must sound like heresy to literalists, but it sure makes it easier to reconcile science and religion.
There are, indeed, scientists who say that evolution rules out God. They do themselves a disservice when they say that, in my opinion. Theistic evolution allows god to tweak things from time to time--for example, directing which mutations will occur in DNA at which times. To us, mutation looks random, but maybe God is directing it in some way we can't figure out. Why not?
I prefer to say, "here is the data. From looking at the data, we cannot escape the conclusion that evolution occurs. I'll let you decide what role you think God has in it."
It's always good to stick to the question posed. So, it seems that you take the admirable (in my mind) view that what matters is the evidence. Is this wacky-seeming evolution business actually reasonable? You start with the understanding that the bible says something else (as did a long succession of Popes), and thus hold a certain amount of skepticism--that is, you want really good data. This would be interesting to explore...but we'd have to do it in another thread, or we'd get off topic, and those pesky moderators would get after us.nikolayevich wrote:I would believe it if I could see evidence that supports it (not interpretations of evidence that leave me in a state of want or bewilderment). I would not believe it simply because the Bible said it was true. I believe the Bible because I can trust it to conform to reality. If the Bible taught that evolution were true it may give me pause to believe the Bible, not reason to believe in evolution.
It's difficult for me as a critically thinking individual to look at any propositions involving vertical evolution and prior events (abiogenesis, etc) and not see wildly imaginary and wishful thinking. The same can be said by agnostics about belief in God, but then, I'm just answering the question as posed.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
illuminatus
- Student
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:44 pm
Post #34
If God is all knowing and all powerful, if he is the alpha and the omega, then why is he still tweaking? Shouldn't he already know what the final product is and just make it rather than make minor adjustments from time to time?
Post #36
Amadeus is right. He's doing his thing in his way, and we mere mortals can't even guess what his reasons or goals might be. Who knows...maybe it's kind of like a cosmic video game. SimLife, we might call it. If he just went "bang" and there it all was, what would he do for an encore? Can he get bored? Maybe, since he's outside of time, he's in all times at once, and tweaks something in the Cretaceous, and watches it ripple through to 547 million AD. Then, maybe he tweaks something else, and watches the ripples. We just happen to be the folks here in this time, pondering it with our puny minds, but our only purpose is placeholders in the cosmic temporal genetic pinball game.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #37
We already have never existed! Yay! Go Temporal Mechanics!!!Jose wrote:Amadeus is right. He's doing his thing in his way, and we mere mortals can't even guess what his reasons or goals might be. Who knows...maybe it's kind of like a cosmic video game. SimLife, we might call it. If he just went "bang" and there it all was, what would he do for an encore? Can he get bored? Maybe, since he's outside of time, he's in all times at once, and tweaks something in the Cretaceous, and watches it ripple through to 547 million AD. Then, maybe he tweaks something else, and watches the ripples. We just happen to be the folks here in this time, pondering it with our puny minds, but our only purpose is placeholders in the cosmic temporal genetic pinball game.
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #38
Hmmm, I’m not sure. One could think of a number of ways this message could be delivered. For example something like “And be ye not held literally by the ancient scriptures, as they express themselves in poetic verse. It has been revealed that the days of creation were truly ages, and The Almighty’s hand works in subtler ways” …or something…nikolayevich wrote:Oxymoronic, indeed! ...and therefore a very philosophical question, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a whoopernagle?"It is a strange question if only from my perspective because the concept of evolution is generally presented as a God-less process. From that standpoint, it seems oxymoronic to ask whether the words of God "say so". I am familiar with a Bible that says that God did it. The question is like asking, "what if the Bible-that-says-that-God-did-it said that God didn't do it?"
But yes, it is a very theoretical question.Considering Christian theology seems to say that the New Testament is meant to effectively replace the old, then I would think it quite easy to conceive a verse that could effectively replace genesis, etc.
On a slight tangent, I see many parallels between the current theological objections to evolution, and the antiquated theological objections to Copernican astronomy. I might hazard a guess that as young universe theories grow ever more obscure, mainstream Christian theology will slowly embrace an old universe and something very closely resembling evolution (assuming we don’t find some startling new body of evidence that supports an 8000 year old universe).
Post #39
Logic would suggest so, but we are a perverse species. Mainstream Christian theology has largely done just as you say, but not everyone has. We find Christianity breaking up into various factions, some of whom claim that they are the True Christians, and the others are false believers, or misled by Satan, or some such thing. As long as there are fundamentalists, there will be this kind of objection to science that contradicts the literal interpretation of scripture. We might note the effect that fundamentalism has had on Islam, where True Islam requires rigid law as established by the Taliban. There is a sense that True Christianity also requires rigid law, at least to enforce certain views of morality (which are, they say, undermined by the teaching of evolution). I think the challenge is to make the evidence for evolution more accessible to people, so they can assess its validity for themselves.On a slight tangent, I see many parallels between the current theological objections to evolution, and the antiquated theological objections to Copernican astronomy. I might hazard a guess that as young universe theories grow ever more obscure, mainstream Christian theology will slowly embrace an old universe and something very closely resembling evolution (assuming we don’t find some startling new body of evidence that supports an 8000 year old universe).
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #40
Would I still deny evolution if the Bible said it's true?
I don't really know that it's a fair hypothetical, for one. To be valid, it should be something that could actually occur.
An earlier post made the argument against this hypothetical because it wouldn't make any since for a Bible that says God created the heavens and the Earth to say that he did not create it.
I like something that Descartes said about reality. He said that a cause is at least as real as it's effect. In other words, there is as least as much reality in the cause as we find in the effect. How can we come from something that is less alive than we are? Life cannot begin without life first existing, can it?
If it cannot, then evolution is little more than a cute, strange, story, and if it can, it still does not discredit the Bible's account of creation.
I don't really know that it's a fair hypothetical, for one. To be valid, it should be something that could actually occur.
An earlier post made the argument against this hypothetical because it wouldn't make any since for a Bible that says God created the heavens and the Earth to say that he did not create it.
I like something that Descartes said about reality. He said that a cause is at least as real as it's effect. In other words, there is as least as much reality in the cause as we find in the effect. How can we come from something that is less alive than we are? Life cannot begin without life first existing, can it?
If it cannot, then evolution is little more than a cute, strange, story, and if it can, it still does not discredit the Bible's account of creation.
