God versus Evolution

[Iacchus]

The following are a couple of posts posted on the Christian Forums thread, Evolution is a Test from God ...

Either God has done nothing (and doesn't exist) or, He is responsible for everything, including the theory of evolution.

Therefore I ask you, is it possible for God to exist and, the theory of evolution to remain valid as well?

It depends on your concept of God.

A deistic concept of god is compatible with evolution.

Most Christian concepts of God are incompatible with evolution.

Only because it's contingent upon the fall of man. And yet why can't it be as the Bible says, where God essentially culls man out of the (spiritual) garden and transplants him to the natural world of evolutionary change? Indeed, there's evidence to suggest this, beginning with the advent of modern man and the development of agriculture -- hmm ... why agriculture? -- in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago. Whereas if you look back and ask what is it about man that would demonstrate 10,000 years of evolutionary change, relative to an original pair (Adam and Eve), basically all we have is the difference in the races which, would be about right. Otherwise we're all pretty much alike.

We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quite a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative), so you'd think there'd be at least be a few sub-species between us, which there isn't. Indeed, why is it that the chimps can live in perfect harmony with nature and we can't? ... almost as if we were some kind of evolutionary freak? Just look around at all the devastation we've wrought on the world as a result. Could it be because we weren't meant to be here?

Hey, I just thought it would be nice to share.

 

[epepke]

Well, just empirically, the majority of Christians around the world seem to have no problem with evolution. The Pope has even sponsored conferences on evolutionary biology. Even in the US, the majority of mainstream church-goers seem to have no problem with it. Although Christiandom got their knickers in a twist over evolution a hundred years ago, since the 1950s, at least, there hasn't been much problem except for the recrudescence of fundamentalism, Baptism, and Pentecostalism in the 1970s, a movement which seems now to be expanding also in Britain and Australia.

Consider how non-controversial Fantasia was when it came out. The whole "Rite of Spring" sequence was essentially an elementary-school version of evolution. If that were released today, you'd have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell calling once again for boycotts of Disney.

 

[deBergerac]

I agree, most Christians I know have no problem with evolution including myself. And those, so called, Christians who do have a problem usually have a lot of other problems as well.
The whole thing depends of course on how you define evolution and Christianity.

 

[Marc]

Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, just empirically, the majority of Christians around the world seem to have no problem with evolution. The Pope has even sponsored conferences on evolutionary biology. Even in the US, the majority of mainstream church-goers seem to have no problem with it. Although Christiandom got their knickers in a twist over evolution a hundred years ago, since the 1950s, at least, there hasn't been much problem except for the recrudescence of fundamentalism, Baptism, and Pentecostalism in the 1970s, a movement which seems now to be expanding also in Britain and Australia.

Consider how non-controversial Fantasia was when it came out. The whole "Rite of Spring" sequence was essentially an elementary-school version of evolution. If that were released today, you'd have Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell calling once again for boycotts of Disney.

The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Whereas if we understood we were spiritual beings -- i.e., from whence we came and whence we go -- maybe we would be less inclined to become so self-engrossed, and actually give things back to the planet.

 

[Iacchus]

Interesting the attempt to link humans recieving souls from god and the advent of agriculture. Does this mean leafcutter ants have souls?

Does this mean ter-mites have microscopic mites on their butts?

 

[Tricky]

The only problem I have is that evolution addresses the natural world, which is fine but, it doesn't address anything spiritual? ... and in effect promotes materialism, over-consumption, and basically the complete demise of this planet.

Whereas if we understood we were spiritual beings -- i.e., from whence we came and whence we go -- maybe we would be less inclined to become so self-engrossed, and actually give things back to the planet.

I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy.

 

[Marc]

I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy.

Exactly. In learning about evolution we also learn about species extinction, how a life form can die out when they are not well suited to their environment. One of many possible causes can be overconsumption, leading to the destruction of natural resources.

Why should a 'spiritual' being be conserned with material things? Why should they have any concern for the material world?

Protecting the environment is a study of nature and the material world, not the spiritual.

 

[Hutch]

Iacchus wrote: "We would also have to ask ourselves where are all the missing links between us and the apes? For there's still quiet a vast difference between us and a chimp (our closest relative). so you'd think there'd be at least a few subspecies between us, which there isn't."

A couple of notes here. The fossil data indicates that the ape/human breakpoint was about 5-7 million years ago, with the species then developing separately, so the idea of subspecies between us is invalid. There are fossil records for human development from that point, as there is for the great apes.

Also, considering chimps share over 90% of the same DNA as humans (I want to say 96%, but I don't have a reference handy), use basic tools, live in society, and have a rudimentary form of communication, the vast differences are not quite as vast as you think, IMHO.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Iacchus(32)

Either God has done nothing (and doesn't exist) or, He is responsible for everything, including the theory of evolution.

Is God responsible for this?

 

[Iacchus]

I see just the opposite effect. People who understand evolution know how species can rise and fall based on how well they fit in with their environment. A lot of "spiritual" people, in contrast, see this life as only transitory, so they don't feel the need to make sure that the planet is taken care of. The worst example of this was James Watt, who was Secretary of the Interior under Reagan. He was a born-again Christian who unabashedly spoke of using all our resources as fast as like because "God is going to call us home soon anyway."

I think materialists understand material balance better than spiritual people. Of course, there are plain old greedy people of every philosophy.

I hate to tell you this but there are hypocrites on both sides of the fence here. Also, as far as being "fooled-again," I wouldn't put this in the same category as being "spiritual."

Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."

So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry?

 

[Iacchus]

Is God responsible for this?

Without even looking I would have to say yes.

 

[Iacchus]

Why should a 'spiritual' being be conserned with material things? Why should they have any concern for the material world?

Yeah, and why should they be concerned about keeping up with the Jones's?

 

[Dymanic]

Without even looking I would have to say yes.

I'd say that quite succinctly sums up the creationist position.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I think what we are really talking about here is centuries old myth and superstition colliding with facts.

My biggest problem with believing the bible is the earth is never once refered to as a sphere.

Spheres exsisted in everyday life when the bible was written and if the bible is the word of god, and he created heaven and earth, how come god didn't know what the earth was shaped like?

Strange omission for someone who claims to have built the planet.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."

Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that!

So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry?

Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that...

 

[Iacchus]

I'd say that quite succinctly sums up the creationist position.

Or, maybe you're just too lazy to put it in your own words. And by the way I'm not a Creationist.

 

[Iacchus]

I think what we are really talking about here is centuries old myth and superstition colliding with facts.

My biggest problem with believing the bible is the earth is never once refered to as a sphere.

Spheres exsisted in everyday life when the bible was written and if the bible is the word of god, and he created heaven and earth, how come god didn't know what the earth was shaped like?

Strange omission for someone who claims to have built the planet.

And then again maybe it just didn't interfere with the proccess of life at that time.

 

[Iacchus]

Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that![/b]

This is based upon discussions I've had on another forum.

Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that...

Yes, but if our stay here is only temporary, and there are no repercussions afterwards, who cares?

 

[Tricky]

lacchus said
Yes, and I have heard any number of materialists say, "So what if we destroy the planet, it's all part of the evolutionary cycle of cause and effect, and it'll just evolve into something else."

Mercutio said
Really?!?!?! If any of these materialists have said this in print, please cite it--I don't mean to doubt, but this is so far from my experience that I am just shocked. After all..."just evolve into something else", first off, is inaccurate, and secondly...still implies extinction of one's own species. I can't see any materialist being satisfied with that!

I think lacchus must be referring to the straw-man materialists they prop up in his philosophy circles. I certainly have never heard any evolutionist espousing these sentiments. Oh, yeah, there are some fatalistic people everywhere, but I doubt that they are more populous in the materialist camp.

Personally, I'm all in favor of continuation of the species Homo sapiens and I try to adjust my beliefs and lifestyle to promote this.

lacchus said
So, as I was trying to say, if we understood the nature of our hunger -- that indeed it might be more spiritual -- maybe we wouldn't be so hungry?

Mercutio said
Or if we understand it is physical, and actually work with the physical world to address it, maybe then we wouldn't be so hungry. Two hands working, and all that...

And one of those things about the physical world is that it is finite. We need to stop stressing the ecosystem with so many people. I do not see spiritual people addressing this issue. I see some spiritual people (like Catholics) doing everything they can to make the situation worse. I suppose you could say this "feeds the soul," but how is this going to feed the real, viceral hunger that causes so many humans to live in misery?