Is evolution compatible with theism?

Post Reply New Topic

This topic is partially to deflect such debates away from my other thread, which was created to discuss the scientific merits of evolution and ID. However, this is something that I would also like to discuss. So...
1. This thread isn't about the existence or non-existence of God. We've already had plenty of threads on that. Please, don't bash religion, we've already seen quite enough of that.
2. This thread isn't about the truth or falsehood of specific or general evolutionary claims. I already created another thread for that.
3. This thread is not about the social and/or moral ramifications of either evolution or theism. Those are completely separate from the truth or falsehood of either.

Does evolution necessarily contradict religious teachings? I say no. iamnotaparakeet, among others, would say yes, based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. I ask: why must the Bible be taken literally? Is Biblical literalism the only form of true religion, or even the best? Why or why not?

Most "rationalists" realized that we didn't find out about the Earth revolving around the Sun until 400 years ago, so it seems that maybe the account is scientifically inaccurate. I used to think that Eden was placed well after Earth began, which is actually what the gnostic gospel believes.

ORWELL, I don't doubt you're a Christian. I do however doubt your ability to read correctly. Also, do not equivocate Grammatical-Historical Exegesis with taking all things literally. G-H Exegesis strives to take what is claimed to be allegory as allegory, history as history, prose as prose, and poetry as poetry. You are a fellow brother in Christ no matter your view of the OT.

I have always been able to read at a fairly high level, but I'll just let that comment slide. Anyways, this G-H Exegesis stuff sounds interesting. Could you elaborate? How do you differentiate between what is intended as allegory and history? Could you give some examples of allegory (aside from the obvious New Testament parables)?

Well, now that we've agreed that one can be Christian regardless of views on evolution... why hold to creationism? Is it "more theologically correct" in the same sense/degree that Calvinists and Arminians each consider the other to be wrong in how salvation is attained, but still acknowledge the other to be Christian?

And you still haven't quite answered the initial question... do you consider evolution and theism (most specifically Christianity for purposes of this discussion) to be mutually exclusive?

I would say that OT prophecy and Revelation would be close to being allegory in some parts, analogy in other parts, and key facts scattered but discernible from text. Daniel's 70 sevens is in interesting one. Though some translations translate sevens as weeks, the word for weeks is Shavuoth whereas in Daniel it is Shavuim, the masculine plural not meaning weeks, but referring indirectly to Sabbath years. Id est, circa 490 years from Daniel to the time of Christ.

Genesis 1-11, and particularly the 3:15 prophecy and the descendency of Humankind (in Hebrew, Adam or Adamim) from Adam and Chavah, are foundational to the Gospel. It forms a doctrinal basis, which is one of the main reasons it is under attack. You can be saved without conforming to a specific doctrine, and all people in the Church have personal opinions (I do in regard to the Trinity and how Christ is both God and human simultaneously) but it is Christ who saves and not conformity to a creed. As for the free-will issue: I think Calvinism is correct, but it makes for lazy Christians.

I still would say that to accept the evolutionary storyline, which consists of necessitated transitional forms, descendency from animals, etc, is to reject the Bible. Sure there have been Gap theories, Framework hypotheses, et cetera ad nauseum all occurring coincidently after Lyell and Darwin... but are they views the Bible promotes, or rather ad hoc additions to Scripture?

to the OP: In a sense, no...

My personal belief system is largely based on framework interpretation, with some adjustments. The biggest difference is that I see God as creating the universe (i.e. causing the Big Bang, or, if you're a proponent of M-theory, the multiverse where all the branes live), and in the process creating the natural laws of the universe, such as the laws of physics, and later, evolution. These natural laws then carried out the work of God.

Ha, true enough. Though that's mainly because of a misunderstanding of what predestination means.


Frankly, I could say the same about many other scientific theories. It was firmly believed that Scripture pointed to a geocentric universe, and no interpretations to the contrary appeared until after the heliocentric system was well-established. Really, I view the change in Biblical interpretation as more of an ongoing process where people are coming to realize that explanations of the workings of the natural world can't be drawn from the Bible. Other things can though, such as a code of morals/ethics and a great deal of wisdom.

You have stated support for some aspects of evolution, so I'm not sure exactly which parts you have decided contradict Scripture (and thus rejected). I know people who believe that the idea of speciation contradicts the Bible, but you have stated you acknowledge that speciation occurs. What components of evolutionary theory do you think go against the Bible?

I know many rational Christians who accept that science is a wonderful expression of human intelligence - and necessary for our lives (to support the near 7 billion inhabitants and maintain our level of luxury)

In response to the thread title, Is evolution compatible with theism? I would say CERTAINLY. Said rational Christians believe that 7 days is a metaphor and that science describes the way God decided to make us and the world around us. Science describes the how while religion takes up the why.

To a rational religious person, there is much compatibility - as long as you are willing to realize that a bible passage doesn't defend against scientific fact. Religious texts are becoming more metaphorical as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe - but that does not take away from the value of said texts and the beliefs thereof, for there are many a good story within them.

good conversation! i am not totally up to par on quoting bibilical texts... and i think Iamnotaparakeet has stated the things he does and does not accept previously... but perhaps he will elaborate moreso...

but i am going to play a bit of devil's advocate and maybe give him a bit more to go on as to why evolution contradicts the bible...

i did research on the evolution of sex determination, so i will contribute in this way:

women have XX chromosomes and men have XY chromosomes... agreed?

all evolutionary data points towards Y chromosomes having evolved from X chromosomes (ie-somewhere along the lines, an X chromosome lost an arm)... and there are actually some vertebrate species comprised totally of female populations... which reproduce on their own via parthenogenesis ect.

but i digress...

most of your genetic information is on your 1 X chromosome that you have (and is why men have nipples, for example)... as i like to say, the Y chromosome pretty much just adds a penis for women, the 2nd X chromosome just gives a slight advantage in that you have an extra copy of every gene in case one on your main X chromosome is bad, you can just use the gene on your backup X chromosome. (it's a little more complex than this, ie- for some genes, there is epigenetic evidence that there is a "preferred" "dominant" X chromosome[usually the mothers btw], but for other sets of genes, the X chromosome picked for expression is random... sometimes down to the level of random cells in your body... this is why some women don't have sweat glands in random regions of their bodies and why calicoes [which are all female, cause it's an epigenetic process] have random spots of color all over their body) ... this is the type of stuff they are referring to when they say autism has a 1:4 ratio of females to males.... it's all about that extra X chromosome

but i digress again...

to get back to the point... this kind of contradicts the passage that eve came from adam... to put it simply.

I hear what your saying Sedaka (and I enjoyed your digressions), but that still hinges on whether you take OT texts literally. I don't. We've agreed that it comes down to how you interpret the texts, so now I want to know: how do you know that one interpretation is right? Why should Genesis be read literally? How is it significant to Christian faith that one believe these interpretations? What important components of Christian theology are affected by literal vs non-literal interpretations of these passages?

yeah... in a sense... i was fishing to see how literally even that passage is taken by people.

i am not a proponent of literal interpretations of the bible... to do so would be to presuppose that you know absolutely the word of GOD in every facet as he has said it to you..... i like to think that belief in any god is an ongoing (evolving, if you will) relationship with god where you are going through life trying to figure it all out. i do like to think that if there is a god... that maybe he's not the trickster type so much as the riddler

when we teach children the ways of the world... you kind of sugarcoat it (just a bit).... maybe that's all god was doing. i don't know what anyone back then would have done had god dropped the E-bomb (evolution) on them.... i like to think looser interpretations add an air of mysticism and awe that should bring you closer to god as you go.

my honest view is simply that the bible was generated (by people) with good intent... they just weren't saavy back then

Right, and that depends what direction you go. You can just accept it as metaphor. You could take it as myth. You can even take it to be perversion. Frankly, much of the essence of the Christian doctrine is derived from the NT anyway, the issue is then also getting around the acceptance of OT teachings in the NT. Really though, if you reject the inerrancy of the Bible, you can go to neo-orthodoxy, liberal theology, emergent/postmodern/existential theology or some such like that as those traditions tend to put less emphasis on inerrancy.

One of the important things about interpreting OT text, is to realize that these were composed in early languages with very small vocabularies; almost anything philosophical you wanted to compose was automatically in an allegorical format, as you just didn't have all the synonyms we have today. Old languages are homonymous, the context helps to determine the meaning.

Also, as my English friend and Sanskrit student explained to me, one generally has to translate the personal and place names and read them into the context to get at the real story; this is the same advice given by biblical scholar William Leary in his "Hidden Bible". These translations are found in the gloss down the center of each page in the Bible.

I find it interesting that I've been able to detect points of agreement between OT and the earlier Vedic teachings.

In general, I don't see evolution and theism per se in contradiction, just the opposite according to my reading of Genesis. "Let the Earth bring forth ..." (something that does not yet exist, from itself) this shows language bringing forth creation by a creator (theism), but the Earth is instructed by that creator to become an evolutionary mechanism.

Religious teachings, on the other hand, often seem to disregard such possibilities of agreement.

Johnpipe

Legato, I am very pleased that I can agree with you completely here.

+1

My opinion is that the two are perfectly compatible. I assum the main religious text going about here is the Bible, whic is mostly allegorical, right? Not to mention was written long before the Darwinian theory of evolution was published. So some discrepancies later, we have a compatible set of beliefs which don't really contradict each other. I think the two are fairly compatible, yes.

A belief in the literal translation of religious doctrine, yes, but theism and evolution are, in my mind, hardly mutually exclusive.