Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Evolution can be proven, and has been proven. You can observe it happening, you can look at fossils that show it... Good grief!

Please don't confuse him. It is important that we maintain rigorous usage of the terms in dispute here.

"Proof," strictly speaking, is only meaningful in the context of axiomatic systems. Propositions are "proven" when they are shown to follow necessarily from the system's axioms in accordance with its rules of inference.

When it comes to empirical reality, we do not have the luxuries that we do in axiomatic systems. There are myriad epistemological hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is the inherently inferential nature of observation. It is therefore inappropriate to label our observations as "proof" without explicitly distinguishing it from the type of "proof" I just described.

 

[morkman100]

Out of curiousity if you state that evolution (or science) can not be "proven", then why do you claim that evolution is fact? Isn't this contradictory?

Evolution happens and can be seen. Bacteria/virii mutate. Species adapt. There are whales with vestigial rear leg bones. The mechanism in which evolution works is the theoretical part (natural selection being that mechanism).

Think gravity and the theory of gravity. Gravity exists and can be felt/measured/observed/etc. But the theory of gravity tries to explain the mechanisms in the way it works.

The Theory of Evolution is more "concrete" and has a much more complete understanding than Gravitational Theory.

 

[bsobel]

But it bothers me when both Christians and Evolutionists come into these discussions unwilling to take a look at the other side and stating their beliefs as facts.

Much like it bothers me that someone can make a statement like this which presumes that the two sides are 'equal' and of simiar merit. Lewis Black's charcter touched on this in 'Man of the Year'. You have two people on TV, one a noted historian the other a person who claims the hollocaust did not happen. Suddenly both points seem 'equal' to the viewer even tho any intelligent discussion of the issue would show that not to be the case.

 

[DrPizza]

Wow, at first I thought BrianH1 was going to have to have a sale on the beer and lawnchairs...
But, I see TravisT decided to play devil's advocate for everyone (or rather, village idiot) to spark some controversy in this thread.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Theb
Topic Title: Is Evolution Compatible with Christianity?

Do you believe Adam and Eve walked the Earth the same time as the Dinosaurs?

Answer that and you have your answer.

Aww Dave, come in and simplify any discussion into a yes/no question. Just like you do with everything else. Of course (as usual) your statement is incorrect as it would only apply to a small subset of Christians. You will gloss over this fact and probably throw out a completely different claim or insult to cover your tracks as you leave. I will provide an example showing your statement is false. Catholics (which are Christians) do not believe that Adam and Eve walked the Earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

Catholicism? They agree with evolutionary theory and they originally developed the Big Bang theory.

RTFT

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

you really must be an elephant.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

Catholicism? They agree with evolutionary theory and they originally developed the Big Bang theory.

RTFT

That's right, the current watered down version of Catholicism agrees with evolutionary theory and big bang theory. This current incarnation of Catholicism is so far removed from its origins it serves only to demonstrate the desperation of the church to save itself from total embarrassment.

 

[Soybomb]

It certainly seems like evolution would diminish the miraculousness of the christian god to me.
"God created man in his image!!!"
*a slip of paper is passed to the speaker*
"Okay okay that wasn't actually literal, what we mean is god didn't really create man...that would have been cool...but we're pretty sure he created the process that led to man. Really trust us this time."

One of the main problems you'll encounter is that most people who think they understand science and evolution really don't, as this thread demonstrates quite well. I think on the whole science and chrisitianty/religion are incompatible. Its hard to want evidence for everything else in life and put blind faith in something important that has no evidence, is highly improbably, and logically faulty to boot.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Sure, I know people that believe in both.

 

[DainBramaged]

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

pfft, that's ridiculous. dullard mapped it out for you.

genesis = metaphor

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
It certainly seems like evolution would diminish the miraculousness of the christian god to me.
"God created man in his image!!!"
*a slip of paper is passed to the speaker*
"Okay okay that wasn't actually literal, what we mean is god didn't really create man...that would have been cool...but we're pretty sure he created the process that led to man. Really trust us this time."

One of the main problems you'll encounter is that most people who think they understand science and evolution really don't, as this thread demonstrates quite well. I think on the whole science and chrisitianty/religion are incompatible. Its hard to want evidence for everything else in life and put blind faith in something important that has no evidence, is highly improbably, and logically faulty to boot.

I disagree with it being less miraculous.
I've run into a few young-earth people. The example I use is:

"Your God did the equivalent of rolling a bunch of snowballs, stacking them on top of each other to make a snowman, and said, 'let it be alive.' My God did the equivalent of kicking some snow on the top of the hill, it rolled down the hill on forming 3 big snowballs on the way, which collided at the bottom to form a snowman which then came to life. My God can kick your God's a@@ any day of the week."

 

[killface]

Originally posted by: loki8481
it really all depends on whether or not you view the bible as a literal, historic document or as more of a symbol to teach christian morality.

Precisely. When people take the bible as absolute fact, they cannot possibly defend its scientific inaccuracies. That's where they run into trouble and yell "Evolution is a theory ! So is creationism." Not true. Creationism and "intelligent" design are hypothesis at best. Evolution is a theory, but in science, that's the best you can do.

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Soybomb
It certainly seems like evolution would diminish the miraculousness of the christian god to me.
"God created man in his image!!!"
*a slip of paper is passed to the speaker*
"Okay okay that wasn't actually literal, what we mean is god didn't really create man...that would have been cool...but we're pretty sure he created the process that led to man. Really trust us this time."

One of the main problems you'll encounter is that most people who think they understand science and evolution really don't, as this thread demonstrates quite well. I think on the whole science and chrisitianty/religion are incompatible. Its hard to want evidence for everything else in life and put blind faith in something important that has no evidence, is highly improbably, and logically faulty to boot.

I disagree with it being less miraculous.
I've run into a few young-earth people. The example I use is:

"Your God did the equivalent of rolling a bunch of snowballs, stacking them on top of each other to make a snowman, and said, 'let it be alive.' My God did the equivalent of kicking some snow on the top of the hill, it rolled down the hill on forming 3 big snowballs on the way, which collided at the bottom to form a snowman which then came to life. My God can kick your God's a@@ any day of the week."

Evolution is the easy way to explain things. "Poof we're here" is a much more incredible way to reach our destination than the slow cumulative steps of evolution. Its like me pooping steel versus building a steel manufacturing plant. To suggest otherwise, that evolution is more miraculous would seem to imply that evolution itself needs to be relatively miraculous when it is parsimoniously simple. Its fairly irrelevant anyway but I think the most miracle for my dollar is going to be with creationism.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Soybomb

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Soybomb
It certainly seems like evolution would diminish the miraculousness of the christian god to me.
"God created man in his image!!!"
*a slip of paper is passed to the speaker*
"Okay okay that wasn't actually literal, what we mean is god didn't really create man...that would have been cool...but we're pretty sure he created the process that led to man. Really trust us this time."

One of the main problems you'll encounter is that most people who think they understand science and evolution really don't, as this thread demonstrates quite well. I think on the whole science and chrisitianty/religion are incompatible. Its hard to want evidence for everything else in life and put blind faith in something important that has no evidence, is highly improbably, and logically faulty to boot.

I disagree with it being less miraculous.
I've run into a few young-earth people. The example I use is:

"Your God did the equivalent of rolling a bunch of snowballs, stacking them on top of each other to make a snowman, and said, 'let it be alive.' My God did the equivalent of kicking some snow on the top of the hill, it rolled down the hill on forming 3 big snowballs on the way, which collided at the bottom to form a snowman which then came to life. My God can kick your God's a@@ any day of the week."

Evolution is the easy way to explain things. "Poof we're here" is a much more incredible way to reach our destination than the slow cumulative steps of evolution. Its like me pooping steel versus building a steel manufacturing plant. To suggest otherwise, that evolution is more miraculous would seem to imply that evolution itself needs to be relatively miraculous when it is parsimoniously simple. Its fairly irrelevant anyway but I think the most miracle for my dollar is going to be with creationism.

I think what he is getting at is that a God who just *poof* creates all of the biological diversity that we have on Earth right now, while incredible, isn't as impressive or intelligent as a God with the ability and foresight to set up a planet with the perfect conditions to breed a couple of cellular organisms floating in a pool or organic matter through the generations to created the hundreds of thousands of known species on Earth, including Man himself.

Personally I don't find either God particularly impressive. I can think of thousands of ways in which many species on Earth, including humans, could be improved. Seems to me like this God is pretty ham-fisted in many cases.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: TravisT
The argument between evolution vs christianity will never end. People who support evolution claim it as fact, although it remains a theory for a reason in the fact that it can not be proven.

As a christian, I realize that I will not be able to prove my beliefs to others. It is the idea behind faith, I think the bible clearly states that until the end there will always be people who doubt the religion. We will never be able to scientifically explain the religion.

I say we just agree to disagree. While I'm much more liberal than many Christians in regards to evolution. I do not believe that evolution is what started and created what we know now as humans. I do believe that animals are capable of adapting over time.

I will likely not revisit this thread, if I do, I will not respond to any hateful or hate baits that you may leave. Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss in a calm manner as I am sure this thread will not end that way.

It has been proven and continues to be proven -- hence it being a scientific theory and not just a theory.

Exactly. It is a theory, not a scientific law. A theory, whether it has "scientific" in front of it or not is not a scientific law. If Evolution could be taken as fact, it would be a law and there would no room for argument on the two beliefs.

theory - a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

You are using definition 6 or 7 where 1 applies.


A Hypothesis is an untested assumption
A theory is a generally accepted and well TESTED solution to a problem.
A Law is a theory that has stood the test of time and has not been improved upon.

The difference between a theory and a law is largly time. Theories are used all the time in real world applications, does that make them invalid?

We would not have stealth aircraft, nuclear technology ect. if we waited for theory to become law before we accepted it.

Actually a scientific theory is a really big idea that can be subject to minor changes and improvements. A law is a simple concept that cannot be changed without pretty much saying it's plain wrong. But they're both well proven with substantial evidence.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

Catholicism? They agree with evolutionary theory and they originally developed the Big Bang theory.

RTFT

That's right, the current watered down version of Catholicism agrees with evolutionary theory and big bang theory. This current incarnation of Catholicism is so far removed from its origins it serves only to demonstrate the desperation of the church to save itself from total embarrassment.

Agrees with? They actively took part in helping to develop it. Can't you read? And what part of Creationism has anything to do with Christianity's origins? Way to be an ignorant troll! :roll:

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

Catholicism? They agree with evolutionary theory and they originally developed the Big Bang theory.

RTFT

That's right, the current watered down version of Catholicism agrees with evolutionary theory and big bang theory. This current incarnation of Catholicism is so far removed from its origins it serves only to demonstrate the desperation of the church to save itself from total embarrassment.

Agrees with? They actively took part in helping to develop it. Can't you read? And what part of Creationism has anything to do with Christianity's origins? Way to be an ignorant troll! :roll:

"They" didn't actively take part in squat - one catholic priest solved Einsteins equations for General Relativity and found that the universe may have started as an infinitely dense, inifinitely small "primevil atom." You're talking about it like it was some joint effort by the entire church.

As for your question about christianity's origins, I think it's well established that their origins lie 'firmly' in the bibles. Catholics are willing to deviate from thier original beliefs the moment science threatens to make them look like the fools they are - they are unwilling to stick with their own religious convictions when pressurised by common sense.

Do I think this is the right thing for the catholics to do? No. I think it's utterly ridiculous that they have such a strong faith in something with no evidence, yet when evidence to the contrary is presented to them, they will shift their faith to remain ignorant. Every time science challenges their position, rather than waking up and realising that their whole faith is based on lies and myths, they will simply jettison a small portion of their beliefs and remain ignorant. They will insist that the world is flat because that's what the bible tells them, but when incontrovertible evidence is presented to the contrary they will still insist they are right about everything else, but they got just that one little bit wrong. I find this attitude frustrating and arrogant.

 

[homercles337]

Religious doctrine dictates that believers search for all information that supports their perspective, regardless of how distorted. Scientific method dictates that we seach ruthlessly for all information that contradicts our perspective. Answer to the OP, nope. I have posted this on various forums and it always receives support or silence.

 

[huberm]

OP, the only thing I know is some say it is compatible and some say it isn't. I am a Christian and I have not really put much thought into it. I have, however, come to the conclusion that regardless of the possibility and/or fact that evolution as we perceive it is real, it still does not explain how the entire universe and everything in it got here. That in my mind is what is completely incompatible between differing viewpoints.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: dullard
Yes, they are compatible.

Genesis from the bible (in EXACT chronological order from the King James version):
1) Void
2) Energy and light.
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7) Birds
8) Mammals
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolution theory:
1) Void
2) Light from energy
3) Earth
4) Water
5) Plant life
6) Water life
7/8) Birds/ mammals, I forget which came first
9) Land animals
10) Man.

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, water or life itself. Anyone who truely believe that their religion is compatible with evolutionary theory either doesn't know the theory or is truely unfaithful to their beliefs, to the point where they have almost completely abandoned the teachings or their church. I have yet to come across a religion that agrees with evolutionary theory.

you really must be an elephant.

OT: Apparently elephants are now considered self-aware

 

[HardcoreRobot]

christianity is not compatible with reality, let alone the theory of evolution

 

[WHAMPOM]

OOOHH! Debating the difference between scientific theory:evil: and religious fantasy:roll:. What could it be?:Q