Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[Carryon]

Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

Johnathan Dudley, 'Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics'

In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it.

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

Of course, anti-evolutionists claim their rejection of evolution is not a rejection of science. Phillip Johnson, widely considered the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, states that all he's rejecting is the atheistic lens through which evolutionary scientists view the world. Evolution, he argues, is "based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly philosophical presupposition."

And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of radiocarbon dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.

But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down. Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.

It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.

It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.

It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.

It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.

It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.

It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.

Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles. Because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.

Many think the widespread rejection of evolution doesn't really matter. Evolution is about what happened in the past, the argument goes, so rejecting it doesn't have an impact on policies we make today. And aside from school curricula, they may be right.

But the belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday. And it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution.

In doing so, they've not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming. They've also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.

Johnathan Dudley, 'Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics'

[sixpack]

I do believe in evolution.  And I'm also a Christian.  The two do not mean they need to be separate thoughts. 

[tinam7]

There must be a sector in the brain that is Faith. Mine, I know, did not connect. Even at a young age I gave my father a hard time about the parting of the Red Sea, Aaron's rod turning into a snake, etc. And I didn't even know anything of Darwin then.

[GlimmerOH]

Not evolution but mutation for sure.   I do believe humans to be a unique creation of God.

Scientists cannot state with 100% accuracy that each creature evolved from a previous one as opposed to the various levels of radiation being the cause of the mutations.  It's still a theory (evolution), just as creation is.  Why?  Because you do not see the 'in-between' stages walking around the earth.  I mean, have you seen some half-apes walking out of the forest lately?  I have to concede, sometimes I wonder if maybe my husband is a prime example of this....but I'm not a scientist.  LOL

Interesting thoughts, but it sounds like this person who was raised evangelical has made his choice of direction and beliefs...and is using the limited understanding he has of religion to justify why he believes Christians are wrong.  He's either right, or he isn't.

[Carryon]

Creation is not a theory. A theory by definition uses observation to establish incremental conclusions pointing to theory. Creation relies on the bible. 

[GlimmerOH]

Actually, no, it relies on God.  If you have met the One who claims to have created the earth, and all that inhabit it, then you have 'observed' all you need.  There are no incremental conclusions along the way, but I only use the term Theory because YOU (and many others) have not met God yet.

[Carryon]

Actually, no, it relies on God.  If you have met the One who claims to have created the earth, and all that inhabit it, then you have 'observed' all you need.  There are no incremental conclusions along the way, but I only use the term Theory because YOU (and many others) have not met God yet.

Since I have not met him, it's not a theory for me but "fantasy".

Did you specificially ask him if he created man? If so did you ask him other questions, like why he allows children to be born with birth defects or die you from disease and starvation, among many other obvious questions if he wants to take credit for human creation? If you didn't ask him or he did say he did create man, you don't have anything to go on.

[tinam7]

What sort of God exists that does nothing in the face of the most horrifying destruction of millions of innocent, ordinary, pious people? Did they not pray enough? The only hope on this earth rests in humans, not some entity that oversees brutalities.

How to overcome the potential hatred in each of us is the issue, is the only power we have. It starts in each individual and the attitude toward others. It was common knowledge to us that the more pious would be the more vicious. Do a day's worth of killing, go to a cozy home and meet God with dear family and candles and prayer books.

[Carryon]

Many genocidal killers went to church comfortable that god was on their side and the churches did nothing  to dispel that delusion.  Some, if not many, spoke to god but apparently banalities and I know that for a fact. I asked.

I had a different experience as a young boy. I had many questions and god, a voice anyway, spoke to me suddenly in an on and off conversation that went on over many months mostly about science. I learned that he takes no interest in the earth but checks it once and while to see how his experiment seeding DNA has worked out over five billion years. My parents were genuinely concerned when they saw me talking to myself, ruminating over his answers, not talking to him: those conversations were in my head. So I can't say I met him. I kept notes in a blue spiral narrow lined notebook that is in a box with old photos. I was a polymath prodigy and my parents were sick of me asking questions they couldn't answer. But when I showed them the notebook they were impressed. They could not understand some of the proofs I worked out, not with god's help, but with his confirmation of hunches about the big bang.

In time, I was able to convince my parents that their prayers would be unanswered, a relief because it confirmed what they had experienced and my fascination with Ayn Rand. (My father was always a skeptic.) I also stopped annoying them and my teachers religious and secular with questions they said were beyond my understanding. We also stopped celebrating religous holidays but gave presents year round.

I was especially interested in whether there was a big bang, although the term was not used when I was young. It peaked my interested in physics and math, when god explained that big bangs happen spontaneously  all over place in this and other universes, something  I only appreciated fully in college physics.  But I can thank those discussions for my career direction.

He was into DNA anyway; his thing, not mine -- the double helix had not been confirmed at the time.  He said he has improved his DNA and had to get  going to see how those experiments, light years away are going.  He said that he has no mass, when I asked the reason he can travel at the speed of light -- Superman could barely outpace a speeding bullet. Years later I learned relativity; at the time, it sounded "cool" that the voice was a photon.

Assured to my satisfaction that earth was little more than Petri dish with no more importance than the dishes I dropped on the floor in my  bio. class, I was greatly relieved, and like my parents life has confirmed what the voice said. I haven't had any need to look at the notebook.

I have to admti, ty parents were worried at the time that I would be put away if I told people what I had experienced even though I was a prodigy. I had no reason to spread what I knew around. The knowledge proved to be an advantage in math and physics classes, even investing (e.g. human nature and probability, game theory, no devine plan). 

He has not visited me since then. I wondered though if there may be other gods around doing the same experiment because it doesn't seem from their behavior that humans started with the same, his, DNA sample. 

I guess it was fortunate that I was science oriented; he might not have taken an interest in my questions.

After reading a bio. of Albert Einstein, I decided that he had a much longer encounter--he  was much older, had his PHD when he published his papers. Albert didn't understand quantum physics well. Albert said that "god does not play dice with the universe". True enough. My voice said that he only worked on DNA. That explains randomness every.

[sixpack]

hmmm very interesting

[crazygirl1]

I disagree completely I'm a Christian and I believe God made it all...we didn't evolve from anything...but His desire to create us...and isnt it great that I CAN disagree?

[peepo23]

Scientists cannot state with 100% accuracy that each creature evolved from a previous one as opposed to the various levels of radiation being the cause of the mutations.  It's still a theory (evolution), just as creation is.  Why?  Because you do not see the 'in-between' stages walking around the earth.  I mean, have you seen some half-apes walking out of the forest lately?  I have to concede, sometimes I wonder if maybe my husband is a prime example of this....but I'm not a scientist.  LOL

They are both just theories, but one of them has over 150 years worth of solid evidence in support of it whereas the other one has none. Also, you don't see the 'in between' stages walking around because they are the ancestors of us, the homosapien, and who are now extinct; we evolved from them but we were better at surviving and reproducing. These 'half-apes walking out of the forest' would have been our ancestors, like 'Lucy' the australopithecus, but that would have been around 2-4 million years ago. The chimpanzee is our closest relative because we share the closest common ancestor, but they themselves are not our ancestors.

[peepo23]

Creation is not a theory. A theory by definition uses observation to establish incremental conclusions pointing to theory. Creation relies on the bible.

Creationism is actually theory. It proposes some organisms are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved out of simpler forms and thus must have been created by 'intelligent design' i.e. God. This is termed 'irreducible complexity', and christian scientists attempt to find scientific evidence to prove it. The only thing is, irreducible complexity and creationism are really rubbish theories because they don't have any evidence and their premises are constantly disproved.

[Carryon]

Creation is not a theory. A theory by definition uses observation to establish incremental conclusions pointing to theory. Creation relies on the bible.

Creationism is a theory, in that it proposes some organisms are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved out of simpler forms (called 'irreducible complexity') and thus must have been created by 'intelligent design' i.e. God. The only thing is, irreducible complexity and creationism are really rubbish theories because they don't have any evidence and their premises are constantly disproved.

That's "intelligent design". Creationism relies on the book of Genisis. But you are correct ID has been found rubbish as science and merely creationism dressed up to look like a scientific theory using complexity. It does rise to the level of theory because it not based on a shred of measurable evidence that can be objectively tested. It starts and stops with the conclusion that a complex design requires intelligence. It cannot be proven false and such is not a valid theory.

Evolution has gone way beyond theory, a code term used to deligitimize it for those afraid of what it means: a theory is not believable. Every stage in an evolutionary tree does have to be found to prove the theory correct and a law, any more than the exact reason for a plane cash must be shown to establish the cause. Intermediate events  can be logically inferred from solid supporting facts and circumstantial evidence. Biologist have seen evolution in real time, confirming the prediction from historical evidence and knowledge genetics. 

Since there are finite number of chromosomes and genes the combinations can be calculated and the probablity of certain combinations can predetermined. A child's sex and characteristics are a role of the dice. Yet from the parent's DNA, certain characteristics are an impossible combination and others, e.g. associated with a disease, can be given a probablity of appearing.     

[tinam7]

This is fascinating, CO. Who could not tell that you operate on a level we can hardly even imagine? I did not major in Psych because I'd have to take Statistics. You did that in your playpen.

Hearing God meant a relationship I sure never had nor wanted. Skepticism for me came almost with consciousness but I had to play the role. Brother took to all of it like a duck to water, as the saying goes. Parents never changed as yours did. Lucky you. Had to play games for years, dutifully sending kids to religious school. For her 40th my daughter decided to throw a Bat Mitzvah party. The Torah portion for her birthday is a section in Leviticus about stoning women.

Giving presents all year is very nice; I play Christmas music all year. Very nice music. Listen to Mozart's church music. Have no trouble with the mystery, but feel utterly helpless in the prejudice it still perpetuates.

[peepo23]

Ah you're right, there is a subtle distinction between creationism and intelligent design.

[Carryon]

This is fascinating, CO. Who could not tell that you operate on a level we can hardly even imagine? I did not major in Psych because I'd have to take Statistics. You did that in your playpen.

Hearing God meant a relationship I sure never had nor wanted. Skepticism for me came almost with consciousness but I had to play the role. Brother took to all of it like a duck to water, as the saying goes. Parents never changed as yours did. Lucky you. Had to play games for years, dutifully sending kids to religious school. For her 40th my daughter decided to throw a Bat Mitzvah party. The Torah portion for her birthday is a section in Leviticus about stoning women.

Giving presents all year is very nice; I play Christmas music all year. Very nice music. Listen to Mozart's church music. Have no trouble with the mystery, but feel utterly helpless in the prejudice it still perpetuates.

A relatives first marriage, blessed by god in a religous ceremony, lasted four months. God wasn't listening; I knew that my youthful voice. Two years later, we are sitting in the same row as he married again, again with the same blessing. A redo with a new woman. My wife and I looked at each other and starting chuckling when the blessing/prayer was said again. Save us from empty gestures.

[peepo23]

Carryon, have you ever looked at or studied Evolutionary Psychology?

[Carryon]

Carryon, have you ever looked at or studied Evolutionary Psychology?

Read, not studied. Discover each month typically has articles on different facets of the subject by respected scientists.

[peepo23]

Yeah I was going to recommend it, it's pretty interesting stuff. Thought it was worth a mention as we're talking about evolution and on a psychology-oriented forum. I just did a module in evo psych for my final year, was rather challenging.

[GlimmerOH]

To keep saying 'there's no proof' because you have not been given proof, is a bit of hypocrisy (in my opinion).  What you (and many here) state is that your beliefs/science evidence is available for everyone to access, and yet the proof that I have is not.  That is not true.  The same proof I have received and have access to is available to anyone who has the desire to know....most don't want to go there.

For the average 'joe', the proof for evolution requires that we 'trust' in what is written by men who have understood and done their research.  And yet, for those who believe in the Bible (another group of men who claim to understand their research/experience), we are somehow less than those who reject this choice.  Funny how hypocrisy is so rampant in believers as well as non-believers.

Theories are not fact because that they cannot explain everything, and have 'missing links' that disrupt their presumptions. 

[Carryon]

Yeah I was going to recommend it, it's pretty interesting stuff. Thought it was worth a mention as we're talking about evolution and on a psychology-oriented forum. I just did a module in evo psych for my final year, was rather challenging.

A intriguing subset centers on apparent differences in speed and power between the conscious and subconscious.

A very, very old book, "Dragons in Eden" I think it was called, by Carl Segan postulated on the relationship between common recurring dreams and the brain's development from a primitive level at birth. We come out with the earliest OS, Chimp Ver. 1. Some people don't get too far beyond the walking erect stage. 

Evolution has outgrown it's original grasp. Physicists and mathematicians see it is a fundamental component:  our perception of self and the universe would not exist without it. Everything adapts or disappears in a place with buckets of time.

Science is just "marvelous". So sad that it scares so many people. Most never look up and wonder, spend too much time obsequiously on their knees

[tinam7]

Is this a contest between who is less or who is more?

Or, is it a cry to live and let live? Because, in case history is obsolete, millions of us were brutally murdered: We had the wrong Bible.

[Zaelaura]

To keep saying 'there's no proof' because you have not been given proof, is a bit of hypocrisy (in my opinion).  What you (and many here) state is that your beliefs/science evidence is available for everyone to access, and yet the proof that I have is not.  That is not true.  The same proof I have received and have access to is available to anyone who has the desire to know....most don't want to go there.

For the average 'joe', the proof for evolution requires that we 'trust' in what is written by men who have understood and done their research.  And yet, for those who believe in the Bible (another group of men who claim to understand their research/experience), we are somehow less than those who reject this choice.  Funny how hypocrisy is so rampant in believers as well as non-believers.

Theories are not fact because that they cannot explain everything, and have 'missing links' that disrupt their presumptions.

I used to make these kinds of bullheaded arguments to defend religion. When I was about 12 years old. While I was still attending a private school run by Christians who didn't know or teach a lick of actual scientific principle.

Then I went to real school, discovered reality, and abandoned childish loophole arguments.

You like to claim that evolution is 'just a theory'. Do you understand the definition of a scientific theory? In order to be a scientific theory, something must have already been proven to be observed and to exist - the only difference between a theory and a law is that a law is a universal, singular formula, principle, or action, and a theory is an explanation of how laws affect data - a scientific theory is an *explanation* of how proven laws affect proven facts. You claim to believe in 'mutation' but not in evolution. Do you understand the definition of evolution? The definition of evolution is the *fact* that *traits* - be they mutation, adaptation, or otherwise - can be passed from one generation to the next, leading to eventual changes in a species through the generational chains. This is a proven event. The 'theory of evolution' is the theory that the *FACT* that data shows that old species have died off and new species have appeared throughout archeological history can be explained by the *LAW* that things evolve.

Trusting in the brilliant minds of people who can demonstrate through action, evidence, and proof that things can and do happen is not at all anywhere close to being even similar to trusting a book, written by a handful of men, about events that cannot be demonstrated or proven, concerning things that we know to be scientifically impossible (such as men who have no Y chromosome, conceived without the use of sperm, bringing people to life with magic words, walking upon water without the use of flotation devices, converting water into alcohol without yeast and sugar, causing dead fish to multiply, and coming back to life after three days of death). You simply cannot, on any level, compare these two belief systems as equal or even similar.

[Carryon]

Ergo: if evolution is a theory despite all the confirmatory tests and observations, the complete absence of equivalent evidence of a biblical god leads to the inescapable conclusion that the biblical god is something even less rigorous that a theory. What is that called?