Christianity and evolution

[fadedpsychosis]

So I'm curious: why do many people think that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive? Admittedly I have long since distanced myself from the church but I was raised a good little baptist boy, and even so I have never had a problem reconciling the two; nor in fact do I think religion and science really answer the same questions. I have always seen science as trying to answer the question "How?" whereas religion attempts to answer "Why?" Thoughts please?

[Lootifer]

My mum who is what I would call a relaxed Catholic (shes a practicing Catholic, just very much on the moderate end rather than strict end) is ok with evolution (along with homosexuality and contraception).

[2dimes]

How many carpets has she munched, know what I'm saying?

[crispybits]

Probably because there's a lot of crazy preachers that convince people the two are mutually exclusive, and rather than trust hundreds of years of scientific discovery which they dont understand they prefer the narcissistic embrace of a religion that leaves them all warm and fuzzy with that special feeling of priveleged enlightenment of God's will.... or alternatively, because they're idiots...

[Frigidus]

Christianity is not the stumbling block, a literal reading of the Bible is the real issue. People that do that will argue against anything that says the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

[tzor]

So I'm curious: why do many people think that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive?

It depends. If you call "evolution" the scientific theory on how species evolves and changes over time, creating new species in the long term, then there is no conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity. If you stretch the theory into some sort of non proof of God and proof of the universe's totally random nature, then it is in conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity. Now Evolution and the "Literal" interpretation of every book in the bible (note the use of quotes, people who claim to support a literal interpretation often forget that Genesis also talks about the "Firmament" which was an iron dome that held the waters above - from where the rain fell from the earth) then there is a conflict between that and evolution, but there is also a conflict between that and the basic tenets of Christianity. God does not deceive. The heavens declare the glory of God. As was said at the time of Galileo, "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

[/]

I used to take The Bible literally, and I've had some talks with the local Jehovah's Witnesses that have resulted in an endless stream of free pamphlets. I think from my own experiences and from what I've heard from others, it's usually either stunted understanding of what evolution actually is (Popular media is quite often really bad with the topic of biology, so some people think the theory of evolution is its some sort of crazy magic thing like Pokevolving or something.) or sometimes it's just pride over being the chosen "god's image" race that was made better than all of the soulless animals that we don't have to feel bad about eating.

[thegreekdog]

endless stream of free pamphlets.

I just got the ones about how watching porn is bad and how living forever is attainable!

I don't think Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. I think there is a loud minority in the United States who do not believe in evolution and who want evolution and creationism to be taught equally in public schools. I've never understood why that needs to happen (from the perspective of Christians who believe public schools should teach creationism), but I'm a big believer in homelife being more influential on a child than school life, so I'm biased in that regard. If you can get it at home, why do you need to also get it at school? The other part I don't understand is if those Christians are secure in their beliefs, why does it matter if it's taught in school or not?

[chang50]

They are so obviously not mutually exclusive.What amazes me are the cries to 'teach the controversey',about a scientific theory that is one of the strongest.Can you imagine teaching the controversey about gravity or atoms or germs,it would be nonsensical,but evolution...........

[2dimes]

I got lost at the end when / was talking about tigers being made in God's image.

[chang50]

I got lost at the end when / was talking about tigers being made in God's image.

But he does have a serious point,of all the species on this little rock alone,why ours?Bacteria are more enduring,fish swim better,birds fly,elephants are physically stronger etc etc..having a bigger brain is only one attribute,and one that seems to have resulted in a way over-inflated sense of our importance.

[2dimes]

I see you agree with me. Did you just watch the life of pi too?

[chang50]

I see you agree with me. Did you just watch the life of pi too?

Afraid not,is it interesting?

[/]

I got lost at the end when / was talking about tigers being made in God's image.

Tiger god would totally get me to church.

But that aside, I just wonder where most believers in Christianity and evolution would reconcile "souls" on the evolutionary chart. Did they appear as some point between microbe and human, or is every squirt of Purell an attempted genocide? If one does not attribute some sort of specialness to Humans in particular, then what is "murder" in the first place, and why does God hate it? I'm not trying to critique any side really, it's just that those sorts of existential questions can become muddled in these sorts of topics.

In a sense, it is understandable why evolution is controversial, it is rather similar to the abortion debate in some ways.

[chang50]

I got lost at the end when / was talking about tigers being made in God's image.

Tiger god would totally get me to church.

But that aside, I just wonder where most believers in Christianity and evolution would reconcile "souls" on the evolutionary chart. Did they appear as some point between microbe and human, or is every squirt of Purell an attempted genocide? If one does not attribute some sort of specialness to Humans in particular, then what is "murder" in the first place, and why does God hate it? I'm not trying to critique any side really, it's just that those sorts of existential questions can become muddled in these sorts of topics.

In a sense, it is understandable why evolution is controversial, it is rather similar to the abortion debate in some ways.

At some point in prehistory there needs to be a 1st child that would have to be born with a soul,to a soulless mother.Since all progeny are the same species as their parents,this would seem to be a massive revolutionary leap in one generation.Unless souls evolved slowly over millennia...

[2dimes]

Good call /, life is muddled. I thought as I aged I'd figure things out. It's worse. The more you know the more you realize there are more things you discover that can't be known.

I see you agree with me. Did you just watch the life of pi too?

Afraid not,is it interesting?

I did enjoy it.

I was a little sad when the tiger killed the zebra but happy when he killed the hyena. Kind of funny how I choose to have empathy in that way because I can't separate the traits of those animals, thinking of them as equals to humans, as if they can choose their actions.

The hyena was not a jerk. He was just a hyena. They really made him seem like a jerk though, really helped me root for the tiger.

[chang50]

Good call /, life is muddled. I thought as I aged I'd figure things out. It's worse. The more you know the more you realize there are more things you discover that can't be known.

I see you agree with me. Did you just watch the life of pi too?

Afraid not,is it interesting?

I did enjoy it.

I was a little sad when the tiger killed the zebra but happy when he killed the hyena. Kind of funny how I choose to have empathy in that way because I can't separate the traits of those animals, thinking of them as equals to humans, as if they can choose their actions.

The hyena was not a jerk. He was just a hyena. They really made him seem like a jerk though, really helped me root for the tiger.

Anthropomorphism..ascribing human motivations/emotions etc to other species,most people do it sometimes..In some respects other animals are superior to us but we rarely recognise it,thinking of them as equals might actually be undervaluing them.

[2dimes]

That's part of why I started that. Without our brains and some other tools to prevent it, we'd be tiger chow. They're superior in most respects.

[fadedpsychosis]

If you call "evolution" the scientific theory on how species evolves and changes over time, creating new species in the long term, then there is no conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity. If you stretch the theory into some sort of non proof of God and proof of the universe's totally random nature, then it is in conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. people mistake the process of evolution for some kind of anti-god proof, then they or others get their feathers riled. as I stated earlier, I've always seen evolution as more like a mechanical process for change, rather than proof of any why... it's like how a combustion engine works: I've got a very basic understanding of the process, but that understanding doesn't tell my anything other than how the engine works. it doesn't tell my why the engine is there, nor to what destination it's moving the vehicle.

[chang50]

If you call "evolution" the scientific theory on how species evolves and changes over time, creating new species in the long term, then there is no conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity. If you stretch the theory into some sort of non proof of God and proof of the universe's totally random nature, then it is in conflict with the basic tenets of Christianity.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. people mistake the process of evolution for some kind of anti-god proof, then they or others get their feathers riled. as I stated earlier, I've always seen evolution as more like a mechanical process for change, rather than proof of any why... it's like how a combustion engine works: I've got a very basic understanding of the process, but that understanding doesn't tell my anything other than how the engine works. it doesn't tell my why the engine is there, nor to what destination it's moving the vehicle.

And in my experience the ones who most assume the process of evolution is or will be used as some kind of anti-god proof are the fundies.I can't recall ever reading one atheist of the view, evolution= no god.

[crispybits]

The closest I've seen it that it raises the possibly religion shattering question of "if humans have souls but animals don't, as told by christian scripture for sure and possibly also others, when did we gain those souls in the evolutionary process seeing as pretty much everything else alive right now probably evolved from the same series of biogenesis events?"

Edit - and before one of the fundies jumps in claiming that this doesn't disprove God in any way, I agree - it just causes a big problem for the theological metaphysics of the various religions, particularly anything based on the bible. God could easily still exist and *shock horror* we're just not his chosen special favourite kiddies and you're deluding yourselves otherwise...

[tzor]

[I]t just causes a big problem for the theological metaphysics of the various religions, particularly anything based on the bible. God could easily still exist and *shock horror* we're just not his chosen special favourite kiddies and you're deluding yourselves otherwise...

I am seeing a number of problems with your argument. The first problem is that of the general to the specific. Evolution is a process that explains the general. It cannot explain the specific. There are probably many species that are no longer with us today, not because of evolution but because they happened to live right over a volcano, or got hit by an asteroid or something like that. This is exceptionally true when talking about something that cannot be measured in any way whatsoever (like the soul). When did we get them? Do we even have them? If you can't answer the later, how are you going to even try to answer the former.

It is also interesting to note that the immortal soul doesn't even enter Biblical thinking until a few centuries before the New Testament. Even at the time of Christ there were still several religious sects who denied anything after death in Jerusalem. And the notion of animals not having immortal souls (while a part of Catholic teaching) isn't anywhere in the Bible at all; at least not directly.

[TheMissionary]

http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807/

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[crispybits]

OK - forgive any bad typing I'm writing this on my phone.

The Catholic Church teaches that we have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that man evolved from animals.

So at some point in our evolutionary history we had no souls and now we do? Or how does that work?

Note that I'm not the one claiming that souls exist - the Catholic Church are the ones doing that. Even if I'm willing to give them that point (and there's a lot to do before I do that) their metaphysics still has some pretty serious issues when they try and mesh it with evolution.