Evolution and God Aren't Mutually Exclusive

beliefnet.com ^ | Larry Witham

[Tomax]

Intelligent Design Takes Center Stage

In the past, schools were urged to teach creationism or 'teach the controversy.' Now, intelligent design is the new war cry.

By Larry Witham

The debate over "intelligent design," a topic on the borderland between science and theology, has climbed its way to two new pinnacles lately: the White House and the Vatican.

Larry Witham is a Maryland writer who has published three books on science and religion, including 'Where Darwin Meets the Bible' and the forthcoming 'The Measure of God' (HarperSanFrancisco).

[jb6]

Only if you are a protestant fundamentalist. The Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran churches all accept Evolution. So tell me, why an all powerful, creator God is incapable of creating evolution? Read St. Augustine's writings where he advises that the first parts of Genesis should be taken as allegory not a word for word fact.

[jb6]

I would venture to say spiritual death, as in Hell. As an aside, the Orthodox Church, and thus Christianity as a whole before the Schism, did not accept Original Sin. We live in a fallen world because of the sin of Adam (aka man learned evil and still does it) but we are not bearer's of his sins. Each man answers for himself and his sins not for those of his father's.

[jb6]

Traditional Christian teaching is that death entered the world because of Adam's transgression. (Gen 2:17, Romans 5:12).

Which death? Death according to Christ, as I remember my teachings, is not the physical death but the death of the soul from a lack of love for God which then translates into damnation.

[Matchett-PI]

"One thing seems to be forgotten in all this debate. The Scripture states that "death entered into the world through one man." That man was Adam. Now is death did not begin until Adam sinned, then evolution can't stand. Evolution needs "billions and billions" of years to work and all the while death is occurring as the strong survive. Death cannot exist before Adam, the Scripture says so.

See my profile page and get up to speed.

[Matchett-PI]

See my profile page.

[Matchett-PI]

"Are you suggesting that if God wanted to use evolution to create man, he could not have done so?"

Find the right question to ask, here Theistic Evolution is an Oxymoron

More on my profile page.

[WildHorseCrash]

He's making a quite lame point, using the lower-case "g" god, and the capital letter "G" God to indicate different things. In other words, if you recognize evolution then you don't really believe in God.

[BikerNYC]

However, until Adam, people did not physically die.

There were people before Adam?

[Matchett-PI]

"If we are all to believe in creation, the real battle is to determine which creation. Is this the one? Tsimshian Creation Story ..."

You'll find the answer to those kinds of questions here

[Matchett-PI]

"Some try to state that the creation days were 1,000 years long, based on misinterpretation of other scriptures. If that were true, then there had to have been 500 years of darkness immediately after the plant life was created, followed by 500 years of light. The plant life would not have survived that."

Get up to speed. See my profile page.

[SoothingDave]

no....obviously Adam there were no people before Adam.

I mean until Adam fell, death did not enter the human race.

By your own admission, before Adam existed there were no people. So it is obviously, tautologically true that there was no death in the human race before Adam. There was no human race before Adam!

SD

[SoothingDave]

The "primitive goat herders" weren't exploiting the earth's resources.

LOL. No, it took until the 20th Century before man learned to "exploit the earth's resources."

SD

[rwfromkansas]

Well, duh. But, Adam would not have died if he had not sinned.

That is the point.

[geopyg]

AMEN! You're not ME are you? 3 kids, active at school, let the schools teach whatever (to a point) while keeping the kids grounded in faith at home, etc.

[MEGoody]

Evolution and God Aren't Mutually Exclusive

This guy misses it. . .that's not the issue. The issue is the protectionism that evols display in not wanting any questions about the theory of evolution raised.

[SoothingDave]

But, Adam would not have died if he had not sinned. That is the point.

Of course. Even those who take a more allegorical view of the creation account recognize this fact. It is theological truth that is being conveyed, not scientific proof.

SD

[verity]

You were raised by wolves?

[Brilliant]

I just don't buy this strained explanation of why God, in his sovereignty could not do it, or why we know that he did not do it. For example, it says:

Here's the catch: What sense does it make to say that God used randomness? Design by chance is an oxymoron, a contradictory concept. This is not God using evolution, because "using" is teleological; it has a specific end result in view. It accomplishes something particular.

The statement presumes that what we consider to be random must also be random to God, which is not necessarily the case. And it also ignores the fact that even if it were random to God, there is no reason why we must presume that God could not foresee the result of random processes at the time he set them in motion. Even man can foresee the result of random processes. If God chose to set up a random process 15 billion years ago, he may very well have realized that it would result in man.

If you have to write a book about why it can't be so, then I would only point out that man is fallable. God is not.

He can do things any way he wants. A better argument is simply that he DID NOT do it that way, as evidenced by what it says in the Bible. On the other hand, I think it's pretty clear that the Bible leaves out a whole lot of the details of creation, and it explains them in a way so that they would be understandable to Moses. Those details which are left in can arguably be read as being consistent with evolution.

Of course, my pastor would disagree, but at that point we're simply arguing about what the Bible means. There are a whole lot of different interpretations about what the Bible means. Granted, they are not all equal, but so far, no one has pointed me to any particular verse that I thought was irrefutably inconsistent with evolution.

And belief in the creation of Genesis, or any particular interpretation of those passages, is not a prerequisite to salvation in most Christian denominations, so I am not sure why we make such a big deal about it.

There is a book I read many years ago called the "Fingerprint of God." It points out that the Bible pretty much got the order of creation "correct" as it is now explained by the paleontologists. There are a couple of places where the order is switched, but they aren't very significant, and in fact, may be illusory. The book points out that one of the places where the Bible switched the order from evolution was rendered illusory when the paleontologists made new discoveries, and switched their own accepted order, making it consistent with the Bible.

To me, it seems very coincidental that the Bible could make so many statements about creation, and yet they are by and large consistent with what the scientists tell us, as well. Maybe it's not just coincidence. The Biblical and evolution explanations can be interpreted as being consistent, except that the science books leave out one point--God. And of course, God is THE crucial issue.

When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that there would be these dual explanations of creation, and the universe--one in the Bible and one in the science books. The Bible makes salvation a matter of faith. If you could prove that God did exist using science, then there would be no need for faith. Everyone would believe.

God's given us two ways to go. It's up to us which of the two we believe.

[Matchett-PI]

"When you think about it, it makes perfect sense that there would be these dual explanations of creation, and the universe--one in the Bible and one in the science books. The Bible makes salvation a matter of faith. If you could prove that God did exist using science, then there would be no need for faith. Everyone would believe." ~ Brilliant

You may find this of interest:


What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Excerpt:
Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]

Continue here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html