Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Rational Agnostic]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find evolution and Judaism perfectly compatible.

 

[Valjean]

I find evolution and Judaism perfectly compatible.

But I suspect you're not a literalist.

 

[sayak83]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

@Vouthon , what say you?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Not every Christian believes in substitutionary atonement. Further, not all Christians who DO believe in substitutionary atonement believe in a literal Adam and Eve story. They just view the story as an allegorical representation of the special creation of the human soul which turned from God's plan towards sin.

Although I do agree that science in general does not support a literal Adam and Eve event, with no genetic evidence of a human two person bottleneck anywhere in our history.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

They're totally reconcilable, to anyone not a protestant literalist. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer to the settled agrarian lifestyle. It's not intended as high def history. "Original sin" is a short hand for the flaws of human nature, it's not because literal great great grandma literally ate an apple. Feel free to poke literalists with your stick (I have played similar games), but if you think these are common beliefs among most Christians you are building yourself a strawman.

Didn't we already discuss this?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

They're totally reconcilable, to anyone not a gutter protestant literalist. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer to the settled agrarian lifestyle. It's not intended as high def history. "Original sin" is a short hand for the flaws of human nature, it's not because literal great great grandma literally ate an apple. Feel free to poke literalist fundies with your stick (I have played similar games), but if you think these are common beliefs among most Christians you are building yourself a strawman.

Didn't we already discuss this?

So you believe God inserted a "soul" arbitrarily into some evolving humanoid, leaving said humanoid's parents without a soul?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you believe God inserted a "soul" arbitrarily into some evolving humanoid, leaving said humanoid's parents without a soul?

Probably no more than we believe 'human' or 'humanoid' was the result of a single generation's variance. Where the child is human but the parent is not, which isn't how evolution works. I don't know the logistics of their belief, but I imagine it's something more along the lines of 'a people' rather than 'a person.'

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Probably no more than we believe 'human' or 'humanoid' was the result of a single generation's variance. Where the child is human but the parent is not, which isn't how evolution works. I don't know the logistics of their belief, but I imagine it's something more along the lines of 'a people' rather than 'a person.'

Maybe, but most Christians believe that humans have immortal souls and other animals do not. So, at some point in human evolution, they'd have to believe in a human/ape who had an immortal soul, but whose parents do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're totally reconcilable, to anyone not a gutter protestant literalist. The Adam and Eve story is an allegory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer to the settled agrarian lifestyle. It's not intended as high def history. "Original sin" is a short hand for the flaws of human nature, it's not because literal great great grandma literally ate an apple. Feel free to poke literalist fundies with your stick (I have played similar games), but if you think these are common beliefs among most Christians you are building yourself a strawman.

Didn't we already discuss this?

That error is not limited to Protestants. One Catholic I used to debate with was what I called a fundamentalist Catholic. He hated the phrase, but in his case it was all look appropriate.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Maybe, but most Christians believe that humans have immortal souls and other animals do not. So, at some point in human evolution, they'd have to believe in a human/ape who had an immortal soul, but whose parents do not.

Pope John Paul II said animals have souls way back in 1990. And recently even the consensus seems to be that 'yes, animals do go to heaven.' I believe it would be accurate to say most Christians believe the human soul is different from the animal soul. But I wouldn't put it past them, upon reflection of this topic, to say that the difference is just as much an effect of process as our specie's origins.

Edit: Wanted to point out that Mormons also believe in animal souls or spirits.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Pope John Paul II said animals have souls way back in 1990. And recently even the consensus seems to be that 'yes, animals do go to heaven.' I believe it would be accurate to say most Christians believe the human soul is different from the animal soul. But I wouldn't put it past them, upon reflection of this topic, to say that the difference is just as much an effect of process as our specie's origins.

Edit: Wanted to point out that Mormons also believe in animal souls or spirits.

Yeah, but evolution implies that all species are related, not just all animals. So, it gets a bit more muddled IMO. Do poisonous insects have immortal souls? Do bananas have immortal souls? Do marijuana plants have immortal souls? Do amoebas have immortal souls? At some point it becomes absurd.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Maybe, but most Christians believe that humans have immortal souls and other animals do not. So, at some point in human evolution, they'd have to believe in a human/ape who had an immortal soul, but whose parents do not.

Only if you believe souls have a strictly dichotomous nature. If you believe that souls exist on a developmental spectrum, it's not nearly such a problem, although somewhat more nuanced and requiring of more contemplation, I grant.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yeah, but evolution implies that all species are related, not just all animals. So, it gets a bit more muddled IMO. Do poisonous insects have immortal souls? Do bananas have immortal souls? Do marijuana plants have immortal souls? Do amoebas have immortal souls? At some point it becomes absurd.

Again, only if you can only imagine souls as an either/or proposition. I suggest you think of it as analogous to sentience. My cat is more sentient than my gold fish, and my dog is at a different level still, yet I'm more sentient than any of them. That doesn't mean my gold fish doesn't posses a level of sentience.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Only if you believe soles have a strictly dichotomous nature. If you believe that souls exist on a spectrum, it's not nearly such a problem, although somewhat more nuanced and requiring of contemplation, I grant.

The only "soul spectrum" I could imagine is the idea that all species have an immortal consciousness, but it's most vivid for humans, a little less vivid for say, chimpanzees, and significantly less vivid for simple organisms, to the point where they exist just barely past the threshold of consciousness after they die. But still, that seems like really stretching things as far as Christian doctrine goes.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Again, only if you can only imagine souls as an either/or proposition. I suggest you think of it as analogous to sentience. My cat is more sentient than my gold fish, and my dog is at a different level still, yet I'm more sentient than any of them. That doesn't mean my gold fish doesn't posses a level of sentience.

Right, I get the idea. I just think it's a huge stretch as far as Christian doctrine goes.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The only "soul spectrum" I could imagine is the idea that all species have an immortal consciousness, but it's most vivid for humans, a little less vivid for say, chimpanzees, and significantly less vivid for simple organisms, to the point where they exist just barely past the threshold of consciousness after they die. But still, that seems like really stretching things as far as Christian doctrine goes.

More or less what I'm suggesting. As far as classical Christian dogma is concerned, it's not really a supported idea, but I know of nothing in scripture or dogma that contradicts it, either, and to me, at least, it makes more sense than the old "special creation" model. The fact is, none of the dogma or scripture really goes into the mechanics of metaphysics, so really, who's to say? My point was that the blind literalist interpretation of Genesis isn't the only version. I agree with you that Fundies believe inherently contradictory things, but please don't make the mistake of thinking we're all fundies.

I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to tell you it is possible to hold faith based positions that aren't inherently contradictory.

 

[David T]

If Darwinian evolution is a fact
No it's not a fact it's a narrative and that is a fact. What actually is fact is life interconnected. That has always been. And long before writing that was the only thing understood. All Darwin did was create a narrative about what actually used to be self evident. So he is actually a result of culture issues . Somewhere between the dawn of humanity and Darwin we got kinda stupid In very literate Educated ways

One must split the science narrative from The actual experienced or observed life interconnected. If you can't do that.... Well that's very very Christian actually. Because they hold to narrative determines experience as well.



BTW I am not remotely being religious on this.

 

[Lyndon]

Another case of atheists trying to tell Christians what they believe to fit their own twisted agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

Your correct that if the claims of fundamentalist Christianity and literal Biblical account of Creation, Adam and Eve, and the flood are true evolution cannot be true, and virtually all science is false. Unfortunately, your view is illogical, irrational, and the vast amount of objective evidence supports science and the science of evolution.