Christianity and evolution

[Lootifer]

Considering that the Bible claims that God created humans in the pure form they exist in today (as opposed to creating bacteria, which over time would evolve into various species before finally taking on human form), I do not see on what grounds Biblical Christianity and evolution can coincide.
Amongst various threads I have challenged multiple people to show me evidence that they can co-exist without contradiction, and not a single one yet has been able to do so. Perhaps someone here could provide enlightenment.

You know its entirely possible to believe in a Christian god and not take the bible literally right?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Lootifer]

Oh I always forget the arrogance of the sheep (you can choose to take that offensively if you like, but Jesus himself referred to you as such) :-/

Let me clarify. It's a fact that many Christians do not take the bible 100% literally. Now according to you they are probably not Christians, but a) faith is a very personal thing and to say otherwise is the single kind of attitude that starts wars (religions don't start wars, the belief that faith is not personal does) and b) they probably don't give a crap what you think; they will die in the knowledge that they are Christians (I can send my mum a postcard informing her shes not a real Christian if that would make you feel better though?).

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

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.

So, the catholic church, who seem to self-admit adhering to tradition and not Biblical scripture, are supposed to represent Biblical scripture? Interesting angle.
As for the soul thing, doesn't evolution teach that life came from non-life and rationality came from the non-rational? Again, some curious points you raise here.

Emphatically not,evolution has precisely zero to say about the origin of life..that field of study is called abiogenesis.I wish I had a penny for every time this tired old canard is wheeled out.

[thegreekdog]

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.

I'm sure someone affiliated with or in the Church has addressed this. Just need to find it.

Found one - Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

There is a whole wiki page on Catholicism and evolution.

[chang50]

Oh I always forget the arrogance of the sheep (you can choose to take that offensively if you like, but Jesus himself referred to you as such) :-/

This is funny because Christ referred to his sheep in a loving manner, never in a negative light, but continuing on...

Let me clarify. It's a fact that many Christians do not take the bible 100% literally. Now according to you they are probably not Christians, but a) faith is a very personal thing and to say otherwise is the single kind of attitude that starts wars (religions don't start wars, the belief that faith is not personal does) and b) they probably don't give a crap what you think; they will die in the knowledge that they are Christians (I can send my mum a postcard informing her shes not a real Christian if that would make you feel better though?).

You are switching you standpoint.
First you propose that you can believe in the Christian God but not take the Bible at all literally. Now you say you have to take it literally, just not 100% (which I actually agree with- not all of the Bible is intended to be taken literally). Please, before posting again, try hold fast to a concrete standpoint and then present it.
If you still agree with your first proposal, I'd like to ask, how can you disregard the Bible, and still believe in the Christian God?
We aren't talking about a few misunderstood texts, or a few figurative V literal passages, I'm talking neglecting the depictions of God in the Bible as a falsehood, yet still claiming to believe in the Christian God? Care to clarify?

The Bible is a lengthy tome full of stories some of which are literal and some metaphorical or even poetic,you seem to agree..my question is given that why should I believe any Christian has figured out which are which?Whichever individual or group is correct will only represent a minority of self-identifying adherents.This becomes very important when people build their lives around this knowledge and expect others to do likewise,unlike the works of Shakespeare for example which can be interpreted any damn way you fancy without harm.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

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.

So, the catholic church, who seem to self-admit adhering to tradition and not Biblical scripture, are supposed to represent Biblical scripture? Interesting angle.
As for the soul thing, doesn't evolution teach that life came from non-life and rationality came from the non-rational? Again, some curious points you raise here.

Emphatically not,evolution has precisely zero to say about the origin of life..that field of study is called abiogenesis.I wish I had a penny for every time this tired old canard is wheeled out.

No I completely understand this point, don't get me wrong. Evolution is a theory of process, not origin, I get it, but how does this display evidence that the Bible and evolution can coincide?

It doesn't,just a correction.Your argument is with the majority of your fellow Christians,an atheist has no dog in that fight.

[chang50]

Oh I always forget the arrogance of the sheep (you can choose to take that offensively if you like, but Jesus himself referred to you as such) :-/

This is funny because Christ referred to his sheep in a loving manner, never in a negative light, but continuing on...

Let me clarify. It's a fact that many Christians do not take the bible 100% literally. Now according to you they are probably not Christians, but a) faith is a very personal thing and to say otherwise is the single kind of attitude that starts wars (religions don't start wars, the belief that faith is not personal does) and b) they probably don't give a crap what you think; they will die in the knowledge that they are Christians (I can send my mum a postcard informing her shes not a real Christian if that would make you feel better though?).

You are switching you standpoint.
First you propose that you can believe in the Christian God but not take the Bible at all literally. Now you say you have to take it literally, just not 100% (which I actually agree with- not all of the Bible is intended to be taken literally). Please, before posting again, try hold fast to a concrete standpoint and then present it.
If you still agree with your first proposal, I'd like to ask, how can you disregard the Bible, and still believe in the Christian God?
We aren't talking about a few misunderstood texts, or a few figurative V literal passages, I'm talking neglecting the depictions of God in the Bible as a falsehood, yet still claiming to believe in the Christian God? Care to clarify?

The Bible is a lengthy tome full of stories some of which are literal and some metaphorical or even poetic,you seem to agree..my question is given that why should I believe any Christian has figured out which are which?Whichever individual or group is correct will only represent a minority of self-identifying adherents.This becomes very important when people build their lives around this knowledge and expect others to do likewise,unlike the works of Shakespeare for example which can be interpreted any damn way you fancy without harm.

Yet again I ask you, show me how the Bible and evolution can coincide. I ask this time and time again yet no one can come up with any evidence. Sir, have you read Genesis chapter one or are you just guessing?

Haven't you realised I'm an atheist??Try Player she'll give you a very strong argument..btw I did read Genesis 1 a very long time ago and it left me distinctly unimpressed.Perhaps you could try to answer my question,the answer to yours is I cannot show you where the Bible and evolution coincide and I wouldn't care either way.

[tzor]

Considering that the Bible claims that God created humans in the pure form they exist in today ...

The story in Genesis states that God personally made "The Man" from the ground, specifically from "dust" because when people die they eventually return to dust. But before we go there, we need to know where "there" is. There is a lot of tradition at time for things that one might say were "anti" Egypt. One is the notion of allowing the dead to "return to the dust" as opposed to the idea in Egypt that it was necessary to preserve the body for the soul to remain in the afterlife. Thus being formed from "the dust" is a symbolic link and explanation of the practice of deliberately avoiding complex embalming rituals.

In the seven day creation story, it simply says that male and female were created, but it doesn't say how. Man is created last, but this isn't exactly what you think it is either since the order of creation in the first story is a hierarchy; thus in placing man last he places him on top of everything else.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[tzor]

No I completely understand this point, don't get me wrong. Evolution is a theory of process, not origin, I get it, but how does this display evidence that the Bible and evolution can coincide?

I'm not sure how you can even define "coincide." Each of peoples at the time the respective books were written lived in the community at large with the "scientific" ideas of the day. Thus you see the idea of a "Dome" of the sky that held the waters above in place, except for those "gates" that allowed the rain to fall. A lot of the scientific ideas of their day were later proven false. As a bishop once said at the time of Galileo, "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This is a problem with the Bible in general. People assume that it is a scientific textbook and not a book of the covenant between man and God. Then they go to either one of two extremes; they either try to defend, to the death, selective details, as absolute scientific truths, or they jump up and down and proclaim that the Bible is "in error."

This was especially true in the Middle Ages, but it wasn't confined to the Bible. Some of the worst ideas of Greek Science was held almost as sacrosanct as passages of the Bible and led to a lot of badly designed things.

So if we look at the fist Chapter of Genesis, it simply says "God made." It doesn't say how. That wasn't the issue. What is the issue is the nature of creation stories at the time that often depicted creation as the "conflict" among gods, where here we see the harmony of the heavenly hosts under God.

[tzor]

God creates man and beast on the same day (regardless of whether you think the timeframe of creation is literal or figurative, this is significant).

It is, but not in the way you think it is. Days 4-6 place the rulers of the areas created during days 1-3. Day 3 is the dry land. Thus the "rulers" of the land, were created on day 6. Man, who rules on the land and rules over everything is also placed on day 6.

God creates man in His own likeness (how you can liken bacteria to God is beyond me).

Man is man. Exactly what type of man may be subject to debate. But clearly man is not bacteria. In the same way "in his image" can also be subject to tremendous debate.

By the way, if you go by the hierarchical nature of the story, bacteria were created on day 2 along with the division of the oceans. They would probably be considered as much "window dressing" as the plants were on day 3.

[jonesthecurl]

Why is god man-shaped? why does he hav, for instance, feet?

[2dimes]

So he can wear crocs.

[crispybits]

I'm sure someone affiliated with or in the Church has addressed this. Just need to find it.

Found one - Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

There is a whole wiki page on Catholicism and evolution.

Can you point me to the passage please - the closest I can find is:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

This doesn't actually address the problem. If God just started handing out souls to a special group of primates one day about 250,000 or so years ago then (a) why bother with the Adam and Eve stuff and (b) where does original sin come from? Did a soul-less animal one day give birth to a being with a soul? Did souls evolve the same as organisms, from something tiny to something big and complex? It wouldn't be that important a point except that orignal sin is kinda a big deal for how everything works, and souls are the things we're told we're risking if we don't buy into the schpiel...

(Not having a go at anyone in particular here, which is why I'm trying to keep everything as "the Catholic Church says...", but if the single largest and best resourced christian denomination can't get it's story straight on this even after admitting defeat on the whole evolution vs literal creation debate itself several decades ago, what chance has any other christian group got?)

[BigBallinStalin]

So he can wear crocs.

Good point, 2dimes. Good point.

[BigBallinStalin]

Considering that the Bible claims that God created humans in the pure form they exist in today ...

The story in Genesis states that God personally made "The Man" from the ground, specifically from "dust" because when people die they eventually return to dust. But before we go there, we need to know where "there" is. There is a lot of tradition at time for things that one might say were "anti" Egypt. One is the notion of allowing the dead to "return to the dust" as opposed to the idea in Egypt that it was necessary to preserve the body for the soul to remain in the afterlife. Thus being formed from "the dust" is a symbolic link and explanation of the practice of deliberately avoiding complex embalming rituals.

In the seven day creation story, it simply says that male and female were created, but it doesn't say how. Man is created last, but this isn't exactly what you think it is either since the order of creation in the first story is a hierarchy; thus in placing man last he places him on top of everything else.

If man was created from dust, then doesn't this include the possibility that the 'dust' throughout the galaxy was involved in the creation of humans?

('dust' as in all the elements relevant to creating man. E.g. the formation and dissemination of more complex elements from supernovae).

Or is the Bible saying that people were created from lint, dirt, spider legs, and human skin?

[thegreekdog]

I'm sure someone affiliated with or in the Church has addressed this. Just need to find it.

Found one - Pope Pius XII - Humani Generis

There is a whole wiki page on Catholicism and evolution.

Can you point me to the passage please - the closest I can find is:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

This doesn't actually address the problem. If God just started handing out souls to a special group of primates one day about 250,000 or so years ago then (a) why bother with the Adam and Eve stuff and (b) where does original sin come from? Did a soul-less animal one day give birth to a being with a soul? Did souls evolve the same as organisms, from something tiny to something big and complex? It wouldn't be that important a point except that orignal sin is kinda a big deal for how everything works, and souls are the things we're told we're risking if we don't buy into the schpiel...

(Not having a go at anyone in particular here, which is why I'm trying to keep everything as "the Catholic Church says...", but if the single largest and best resourced christian denomination can't get it's story straight on this even after admitting defeat on the whole evolution vs literal creation debate itself several decades ago, what chance has any other christian group got?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution

I don't have all the answers to your questions simply because I haven't read any of the texts described in the wikipedia page (or anywhere else for that matter). Long story short, I'm not learned enough to give you answers. I expect that the Catholic Church has answered (or attempted to answer) your questions (mostly because the Catholic Church is pretty diligent on dealing with these types of questions), but I can't point to the answers.

[crispybits]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we know about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

[thegreekdog]

I think I found something on it - evolution is fine but they rigidly stick to the "fact" that we are all direct ancestors of Adam and Eve, that this single initial couple has produced the entire human race.

I'll let one of the people more well versed in biology to explain, if needed, how that particular assertion just doesn't make any sense given what we theorize about genetics, evolution and how species change over time...

Fixed.

[TheMissionary]

My questions:
What does the Catholic church base it's scripture on?

If the holy bible is a reflection of Judaism, then why is Lilith not mentioned, Adam's first wife?

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?