Eric keeps bringing up in comments to me about how he doesn't see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. So i decided to do a post on that subject.
There are many, many, many, many reasons why evolution and creationism collide i will only touch on two "Life" & "Death".
Life -
Genesis 1:25-28 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.
Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God created man in His own image. He formed man from the dust of the ground and gave him life by breathing life into him. Thus man was not alive until that breath of life was breathed into him. This is what makes man different than any other creature. This is why of all of the creatures of the earth, only man has art, poetry, a recorded history, a society, an extensive education system, and can grow and develop well beyond the individual. Every other creature of the earth lives off of instinct with little culture. Man came alive with the breath of God. This is a premise that exists and defines much of the Bible.
The problem then comes with evolution in that evolution teaches that man was not created in God's image. Man is just another animal that evolved from other animals (monkeys). He was not created from the dust of the earth after the other creatures, and the breath of God did not bring life to man because he is just an evolutionary extension of monkey.
The Scripture says that God created man uniquely from other animals.
Evolution says man is an evolutionary extension of monkeys.
The Scripture says that man's life came from God's personal breath.
Evolution says that man had life before he existed, in the form of monkeys.
Death
Gen 2:15-17 And Jehovah God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden, but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die, for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by One, Jesus Christ.)
1Co 15:21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man.
Death did not exist before man sinned. This is another basic principle of the Bible. Death entered the world because of the sin of man. Therefore man needs a redeemer from death.
This is a problem with regards to evolution because evolution teaches that before man existed many, many species lived and died. In fact, according to evolution, man only came to be because previous generations and species died out and a form of monkey evolved with each new generation to slowly become man.
The Scripture says death came because man sinned and Christ came to abolish death.
Evolution says death existed long before man existed. It is a part of the formation of everything thus there is no need for a redeemer.
Thus the theory of evolution undermines these two principles that are at the very core of Biblical teaching and understanding. These principles of life and death are foundations of most of the religions of the world including Christianity, Judism, & Islam. Thus evolution undermines almost every major religion in the world. The theory of evolution was formed and is at it's very core anti-religious as it's founder was. When evolution alone is taught in public schools those schools reinforce an anti-religious viewpoint. Thus this goes against the concept of the right to religious freedom without cohersion and the seperation of church and state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
The theory of evolution was formed and is at it's very core anti-religious as it's founder was.
Darwin was a Christian before he developed evolution:
"Whilst on board the Beagle (October 1836-January 1839) I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament; from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian." -- The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
Pope John Paul II believed in evolution yet was by all measures a Christian man:
"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
Evolution is not a theory which attempts to say anything about religion. It's merely the best explanation we've come up with to explain the evidence provided by the world around us. It's not anti-religion, it's areligious. If it contradicts what a branch of religious tradition teaches, why trust tradition over the eyes and ears of those best trained to analyze the facts?
I don't have time to dissect the minutae of your whole post, but let me leave it at this:
I have said in the past that evolution is only a problem for Christianity if you take the bible literally. The passages you've quoted are full of symbolism. The garden of eden story is clearly not about eating fruit. The death of man is allegorical in many of the verses you've cited. Why would you hold the formation of man from clay as being a literal truth in a story surrounded by allegory and symbolism?
I suppose I'd be a heretic if I think fossils are real? Or that the biblical time scale from creation to now isn't to be taken literally? JewishAtheist has it right. Evolution is an explanation for phenomenon in the physical world, and cares not a wit whether this observation agrees or disagrees with your interpretation of scripture.
Darwin was a Christian before he developed evolution:
Point?
Pope John Paul II believed in evolution yet was by all measures a Christian man:
Ah, the ever infamous quotes taken out of context to make it sound like someone important is supporting something that they may at some point in their lives have been, but chaces are they aren't/didn't but let's make it sound like they did anyways.
Not that i put a whole lot of merit in a religion that claims to be Christian and yet commands the worship of idols (prayer to statues of saints, the Virgin Mary, whomever they please).
It's not anti-religion, it's areligious. If it contradicts what a branch of religious tradition teaches, why trust tradition over the eyes and ears of those best trained to analyze the facts?
It is anti-religious created by an anti-religious atheist (whether he had been a Christian at some point or not is irrelavent). The core principles were created with an obvious anti-religious bias and that anti-religious bias has pervaded the theory ever since.
I don't distrust science at all. I have no problem with science in context.
1) It is those who create the biased theories based on an accepted and dogmaticised bias and who then attempt to pass their "theories" off as unbiased and true science.
2) When people treat science like it is some sort of god having all the answers and never wrong.
I have said in the past that evolution is only a problem for Christianity if you take the bible literally.
As opposed to "Christians" and others who read whatever they want into the Bible using symbolism as an excuse to justify... well quite frankly whatever they want. As Paul said to Timothy...
II Timothy 4:3 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
Evolution is an explanation for phenomenon in the physical world, and cares not a wit whether this observation agrees or disagrees with your interpretation of scripture.
Or as it should be put, "Evolution is an extremely biased explanation in the physical world, created and supported by the biased, and cares not a wit whether this observation agrees or disagrees with your interpretation of scripture unless it agrees at which point it rejects / fires / refuses to publish the study about / mocks / quotes the seperation of church and state statement / whatever it decides is pertinant to prevent it from being taken seriously.
And since less than 50% of the results (not to mention the theories) of any scientific paper could be considered true, this almighty science is oh so reliable and trustworthy.
Ah, the ever infamous quotes taken out of context to make it sound like
Are you saying Pope John Paul II did not believe in evolution?
Are you saying Pope John Paul II did not believe in evolution?
I'm saying that i keep finding that the quotes i read from your posts and comments at times make it appear that someone is saying something that they are most definitely not. Thus i have difficulty taking it seriously. In the case of Pope John Paul II i have heard before that at one time he made comments supporting evolution, but at the time of his death that support did not exist.
In the case of Pope John Paul II i have heard before that at one time he made comments supporting evolution, but at the time of his death that support did not exist.
The quote I gave was from this "[m]essage delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996." He died in 2005, so he was 75 when he delivered that message.
I suppose I'd be a heretic if I think fossils are real?
Actually no, not really. Something to think about. How do scientists know about the nature of dinosaurs? They study their structure, environment, and they find mostly complete fossils of dinosaurs as a portrait of them doing something. Whether it be defending their nest, eating lunch, roaming, whatever.
Since fossils are formed when the bones of dead dinosaurs are burried and preserved for a time in the ground while before their bones are replaced by other minerals leaving an imprint of these bones as stone in the ground. So how do you get the fossils of complete dinosaurs in the middle of doing things like defending their nest and other activities. Well, that's easy there has to be a massive natural disaster (or "act of God" as insurance companies put it) that comes in and buries them before they have a whole lot of time to react. Something like... a great flood that covers the earth that also deposits hundreds of thousands of layers of mud and dirt that make it appear that millions of years have passed when in reality it has been more like 100 days. Thus the evidence of fossils is not heretical at all. It is simply misconstrued to prove something that is not true.
Or that the biblical time scale from creation to now isn't to be taken literally?
I think that 50 years ago this would havve been considered heretical. Unfortunately, right now much of the church is not being taught to study and prove what is being taught to them. As a result some of the church is willing to accept what goes directly against what the Bible teaches and as i quoted before that Paul writes in his second letter to Timothy;
II Timothy 4:3-4 For a time will be when they will not endure sound doctrine, but they will heap up teachers to themselves according to their own lusts, tickling the ear.
And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to myths.
Oh goody ... a literalist. Your 'sound doctrine' is still cherry picking from the bible.
For instance, you're anti catholic, as you've just shown, yet clearly Paul is given the authority of Christ and founds the Catholic church. By sound doctrine you should be Catholic, right? Or maybe you're being selective.
My point isn't that you should be Catholic. My point is that all doctrines interpret and pick and choose to some extent. The oft cited strictures against homosexuality are a chapter away from the Kosher texts, but you don't see evangelical Christian's trying to pass anti-pork legislation, do you?
Your comments show a consistent malice and misunderstanding to what science consists of and how something rises to the point of theory. As I've said before, you don't speak for all Christians in your distrust of evolution.
For instance, you're anti catholic, as you've just shown, yet clearly Paul is given the authority of Christ and founds the Catholic church. By sound doctrine you should be Catholic, right? Or maybe you're being selective.
It's hard for me to say that i'm anti-Catholic. In a sense i am, but in a sense i'm not. It's rather complex. Either way, it sounds like you don't know much about this subject.
1)Paul was not given the authority of Christ to found the "Christian" church. Paul was a missionary.
2)Peter, who's name mean "rock" (or stone by today's standard) was given authority. By the way, Christ said upon this rock (large rock as opposed the the smaller stone that Peter's name represents) i will build my church. Thus in context this is not saying that the church will be built on Peter but rather on Christ and His teachings. I could go on and on about this and the unscriptural misconceptions that have been bred from this.
3) The reason Martin Luthor split from the "Catholic" church was because of a lack of (in your words) "Sound Doctrine". The Catholic church had put its traditions before the truth and the scriptures, thus making men the followers of tradition and other men rather than Christ (the true Rock).
Thus splitting from the Catholic church does not go against the Bible, it fact for many reasons it is Scripturally necessary.
My point isn't that you should be Catholic. My point is that all doctrines interpret and pick and choose to some extent.
I think what you're saying here is denominations, not necessarily doctrines. To some extent yes, i agree. The Bible is not clear cut in every way. Thus there will always be people who will read into it what they want rather than take the time to study it and attempt to come at it outside of their preconceived notions. The key is that the teaching must allign properly with the scripture, not the scripture with what is currently culturally accepted or politically correct.
The oft cited strictures against homosexuality are a chapter away from the Kosher texts, but you don't see evangelical Christian's trying to pass anti-pork legislation, do you?
Nope they don't and for good reason. Eating pork is not an abomination.
Lev 18:24-26 Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you.
This is not simply an issue of individual impurity or sin. It is because of these sins (homosexuality etc.) that the native nations were removed (vomited) from the promised land. The New Testament goes on to support and reinforce the severity of these and other sexual sins in (along with other passages) Romans 1:24-27, I Corintians 6:9-11, and I Corinthians 5:1-7, while the issues of kosher foods and such are rejected.
Your comments show a consistent malice and misunderstanding to what science consists of and how something rises to the point of theory.
And your comments show a consistant unfounded faith in something that is built and advanced on a foundation of accepted bias, is continually proving itself wrong, and that you still seem to act as though it is the end all answer to any question. There are a whole lot of problems that science has no answer to and that it can't explain away by natural means. Putting your faith in science and the bias of culture and man is more foolhardy than many religions.
As I've said before, you don't speak for all Christians in your distrust of evolution.
You're right i don't. Unfortunately most Christians don't understand the extent to which evolution and the biases of it and our culture work to undermine the reality of the truth.
The concept that Adam's sin caused death to come into the world is a purely Christian idea. No where in the text is this even referred to. Adam lived several hundred years after he was thrown out of Eden. If you read the text in Genises, God punished the world for Adam's sin by cursing the ground so that it would produce food "only by the sweat of your brow"
To think that Jesus died to atone for the sin of Adam is just absurd. First of all, at no time does Jesus ever say this, nor does he ever say he died for anyyone's sin. And if indeed Jesus died for Adam's the earth still exits in a cursed state. The ground still produces thistles and thorns and must be worked on in order to produce food.
The Jewish concept is that everyone is resposible for their own sins and must atone for their own sins. There is no room for an intermediary between a jew and God.
Just the other day Jews all over the world stood in synagogue and asked avenu malkaynu (our father, our king) to forgive us for our sins.
The concept that Adam's sin caused death to come into the world is a purely Christian idea. No where in the text is this even referred to. Adam lived several hundred years after he was thrown out of Eden.
Interesting concept. I have not heard this before. However that brings to mind when God told Adam that if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, in that day he would die. Eve, then Adam ate, and yet as you said, they did not die. Rather this was where death entered the world because of man's sin. So in that day he died in that he brought death into the world which resulted in his death.
That is a very interesting concept though. I will have to think and study on this more.
To think that Jesus died to atone for the sin of Adam is just absurd. First of all, at no time does Jesus ever say this, nor does he ever say he died for anyyone's sin.
Christ died for the sin of all man. It is through Christ that all man is redeemed not just Adam. Christ said "I come in that you might have life, and that you might have it more abundantly" John 10 talks about this. John 14:6 says "Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."
And if indeed Jesus died for Adam's the earth still exits in a cursed state. The ground still produces thistles and thorns and must be worked on in order to produce food.
As i said, He died that we might have life. His death was not to remove the physical curse on the earth. As long as man sins that curse will exist.
The Jewish concept is that everyone is resposible for their own sins and must atone for their own sins.
The problem is that the sacrifices only cover the sin, they do not attone for them. The only attonement possible is through the blood of the one perfect sacrifice.
Nope they don't and for good reason. Eating pork is not an abomination.
But eating shellfish is:
Leviticus 11:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
Do you eat shrimp?
You are trying to make a distinction between "covering" for a sin and "atoning" for a sin. In the words of a great debater you are making a distinctino without a difference.
The concept that Jesus died for anyone's sin in no where to be found in the four Gospels. It is a spin put on the religion by Paul (a.k.a. Saul) who never met Jesus, never talked to him and didn't consult any of the desciples. Then again it Jesus died for the sins of all mankind that would include Adam I imagine.
In Adam's fall
We sinned all
This little ditty is contained in every school kids primer from about 100 years ago.
Human blood cannot atone for someone else's sin. That is known as "human sacrifice" which was frowned upon by God when he forbade Abraham from sacificing his son Issac. In addition, if you consider Jesus death as Passover as the "sacrifical lamb" you don't understand the concept of passover. Pesach is the holiday that celebrates the Jews leaving Egypt. Had Jesus wanted to be a symbolic lamb for people's sin, he should have become the lamb sacrificed on Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement.
When shall we discuss Isiah 53?
Covering and atoning are two different things. Covering sin is just that, covering as you would with a blanket. The sin still exists and will continue to do so. The blanket does not take it away, it only hides it from view.
Atonement is to bring reconciliation. It is the removal of the offense not just the covering of it.
In John 1:29 John the Baptist makes this distinction.
"The next day John sees Jesus coming to him and says, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Then again if Jesus died for the sins of all mankind that would include Adam I imagine.
That would be correct.
Human blood cannot atone for someone else's sin.
Than the blood of a sacrificial lamb cannot cover the sins of anyone but itself.
Only a perfect (sinless) sacrifice can atone for the sins of another. That perfect sacrifice was God's son Christ.
if you consider Jesus death as Passover as the "sacrifical lamb" you don't understand the concept of passover.
You make a statement without an explanation.
When shall we discuss Isiah 53?
Feel free at any time. I hadn't gotten around to it yet.
AS for Saul/Paul, his experience on the road to Damascas, conversion, meeting with Peter, etc. are described in Acts 9. In Acts 15 he and Barnabas return from their first missionary journey and meet with the church leaders (again), before going on to the next missionary journeys.
Thus he did meet Jesus, had a conversion experience, and met with the disciples
Are you going to ignore my point about shrimp, JC?
Are you going to ignore my point about shrimp, JC?
Sorry, somehow i completely missed your comment.
Actually food issues were dealt with in Acts and other places in the New Testament.
My question is, where/when do the Jewish people stop following these rules?
And your comments show a consistant unfounded faith in something that is built and advanced on a foundation of accepted bias, is continually proving itself wrong, and that you still seem to act as though it is the end all answer to any question.
Actually, I've pointed out in another post on JA's blog that I think religon is for answering 'why' questions about creation, rather than 'how' questions. Science in general doesn't attempt to answer 'why' questions. Cosmology can theorize about when and what the big bang was, but can't tell you who and why it came to be.
To the original point of you post - that you think evolution and your biblical interpretation clash - fine - that's your opinion. Using scripture to argue that viewpoint to someone like me who doesn't accept scripture as literal is like me using Darwin's work to convince you that you're descended from apes.
The point wasn't to convince you i'm right and you're wrong. The point was to show how/that evolution in it's present form disagrees/conflicts with and attempts to undermine religion.
The point wasn't to convince you i'm right and you're wrong. The point was to show how/that evolution in it's present form disagrees/conflicts with and attempts to undermine religion.
You've used biblical quotations to show that you believe evolution conflicts with your reading of the bible.
Obviously we disagree, I just want to point out to you that your view doesn't represent all Christian doctrine, or all religions. You seem to generalize your views and scriptural interpretations as if you speak for all Christians. I understand that your reading of scripture leads you to this conclusion.
On another tack -
You claim there's an anti-Christian bias in science, so what would you do to 'fix' it? How would you do so while still ensuring that what was taught met observable phenomena, and was useful in clinical practice. Would you like to see science stop persuing promising therapies based on genetic studies? (Gene therapy, for instance). If you're going to tear down the current science curriculum, you've got to have something in mind to replace it.
You've used biblical quotations to show that you believe evolution conflicts with your reading of the bible.
Actually, i've used Biblical quotations to show that evolution conflicts with the Bible. Obviously not everyone who claims to be Cristian has even read the Bible, let alone considers the conflict.
You claim there's an anti-Christian bias in science, so what would you do to 'fix' it?
Evolution is obviously anti-Christian. However, not all science is. The problem is that evolution starts with the premise that God does not exist and any attempts to show a design process is completely rejected.
I think that the theory of intelligent design is an attempt to begin to fix this. I think that there is going to be some major initial resistance to this concept but that it will catch on and be accepted.
As for tearing down the scientific process, i see no need for this. I believe that it needs to be taught in public schools that the scientific process is not perfect and still holds quite a bit of bias due to human nature and the human aspect that is unavoidable.
By the way Mike. When it says that God formed man from the dust of the ground, (not some premorial ooze) and gave them life by breathing His breath into them.
Also, when looking at that formula, if A than B, if B than C does not necessarily equal if A than C or if C than A.
BTW, not sure if my tone is a bit too offensive, but sorry if it is.
Don't worry about that. Even if you do offend us, we will just wait until you leave, then make fun of you behind your back... just kidding. Eric says things that are offensive to me all the time, and i say things that are offensive to him all the time. The idea is to understand that these are our ideas/opinions and even if we do offend one another we can still learn from one another. Just keep a civil tongue and try to keep what you have to say somewhat logical.
Evolution is obviously anti-Christian. However, not all science is. The problem is that evolution starts with the premise that God does not exist and any attempts to show a design process is completely rejected.
This - in a nutshell - is where you're wrong about evolution. Forgive the pedantry but:
Evolution makes no statements about God. Evolution starts with the premise that the flora and fauna present today didn't always exist (primordial ooze, dinosaurs, trilobytes, all that stuff), the observation that gradual changes are visible in the fossil record, and the observation that certain species are highly adapted to their environment (marine iguanas, blue footed boobies, etc).
Evolution then proposes a hypothesis that random mutations occur in populations and make the organism more or less likely to reproduce. Project this over long time scales, and the logical result matches the observed phenomenon.
This hypothesis is then lent credence by experiment and ongoing investigation, and has risen to the level of theory. If there are problems with the theory, experiments can be devised and executed that showed these weaknesses, and the theory might eventually be disproved. Science is not as intractable as you've laid it out to be. There are plenty of examples of theories once etched in stone that have gone by the wayside.
As JA has argued more elequently than me, evolution is areligous. I'd extend that to say that all of the physical sciences are areligous. They rely on repeatable observable phenomenon and peer review.
Eric, as i have already shown and explained to you and others on numerous, numerous, numerous occasions, evolution is a biased theory developed by a biased person. He did not want to accept that there was a God so he developed this theory as a counter to that idea.
We have discussed this more times than i care to even remember. As you claim, what you are saying here has been said before by others more eloquently and better. This post, the comments in this post, other posts, and the comments to other posts have more than exhausted what you are bringing up all over again. If you want to know what has already been said numerous time, than read what has been said numerous times.
I know where you stand JC, I was just trying to explain where you're mistaken about how science is conducted. I know you don't agree. I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment