Accepting Evolution alongside The Bible

[Yerda]

"Evolution is not compatible with Christianity," he insists. "Genesis tells us that death only came into the world because of Adam's sin. There was no death before then, and you can't have evolution without death."

Taken from: Would you Adam and Eve it? (BBC)

Assuming that Dr Monty White is correct in his referencing of the book of Genesis, how do you reconcile these apparently contradictory positions?

I've often thought that if you believe Genesis at all you would struggle to fit it into the findings of science, but it is often explained away by interpretation.

Can the idea that death stems from Adam's sins be similarly ignored?

 

[lilithu]

Can the idea that death stems from Adam's sins be similarly ignored?

Yes, I generally interpret the Adam & Eve story that way: when they chose to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, creation "broke;" where it once had been "good" it was now "less good." It became "imperfect" and one of the "imperfections" is death.

How do I reconcile this story with evolution? I don't. Adam and Eve is a story, an allegory describing our own condition and how we make choices that turn us from God, and the spiritual consequences of those choices. Forget the objection that death is necessary for evolution, how can one believe that the first humans sprang into existence fully formed and still believe in evolution? That doesn't mean that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. It only means that evolution is incompatible with a literalist reading of the bible. Dr White's claims notwithstanding, there are plenty of Christians who do not take the bible literally, and there are no Christians who take everything in the bible literally.

Also, and to be nitpicky, I disagree that death is necessary for evolution. Evolution - ie, change - will happen as long as there are mutations which are passed onto progeny. Life is necessary for evolution - ie, birth - not death. Tho the lack of death would certainly affect the course of evolution.

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

... Adam and Eve is a story, an allegory describing our own condition and how we make choices.

i know this isn't on the same topic and i'd be happy to move it elsewhere, but i'm interested in knowing why you think adam and eve didn't exist. do you believe other bible characters existed such as Jesus? Because if you do believe in Jesus and his line of ancestors, then you should also believe that adam was real as he is listed in jesus' line of ancestors....

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Very little in the Bible is of a scientific nature.
It's strength lies in the way it uses fable and other stories to get across the message of God.
As we all know there is not even one definitive version of the Bible. So it can hardly be true in detail. and it need not be to serve it's function.
Evolution is about science and the species and how they have changed. it is not in competition with the Bible.

Terry
____________________________________


Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[lilithu]

i know this isn't on the same topic and i'd be happy to move it elsewhere, but i'm interested in knowing why you think adam and eve didn't exist. do you believe other bible characters existed such as Jesus? Because if you do believe in Jesus and his line of ancestors, then you should also believe that adam was real as he is listed in jesus' line of ancestors....

Your logic does not hold. The Egyptian pharaohs claimed to have been descended from their gods. Do you believe that the pharaohs existed? If so, does that mean that their gods must have existed?

I don't believe that Adam and Eve existed because I don't believe that two human beings sprang into existence from dust and the rib of dust. I do believe that the story has great spritual meaning and should be taken seriously, which to me is more important than literal truth. I think that if one treats the bible as a history report, one misses its real significance. But that's each person's prerogative.

 

[michel]

Is there any common ground between religion and science, then ?
How do Religions accept medical science - prolonging life; saving Children from dying at birth, only to grow up disabled ?- is that what God intended ? if it isn't are those who follow experimentation doing 'wrong' by God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't believe that Adam and Eve existed because I don't believe that two human beings sprang into existence from dust and the rib of dust. I do believe that the story has great spritual meaning and should be taken seriously, which to me is more important than literal truth. I think that if one treats the bible as a history report, one misses its real significance.

Damn, I really appreciate you!

 

[Yerda]

I do believe that the story has great spritual meaning and should be taken seriously, which to me is more important than literal truth.

What's that?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is there any common ground between religion and science, then ?
How do Religions accept medical science - prolonging life; saving Children from dying at birth, only to grow up disabled ?- is that what God intended ? if it isn't are those who follow experimentation doing 'wrong' by God?

Science was not even thought of when the Bible was written so one can not expect it to express scientific Ideas.
Never the less the Bible teachings give us guidance on how to live all of our lives. The teaching of Jesus give us even clearer paths to follow.
This all applies to Scientists as to the rest of us. Scientists and science have been of great benefit to us and to the world. Equally it has done great damage in wars and pollution.
Science is done by men for men, it is far better when it is done by men for God.

Terry
_______________________________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[lilithu]

What's that?

Literal truth is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Literal truth is that there are 31 days in July. As for spiritual meaning, I can't tell you specifically what it is because it is inherently subjective. I can't say that the Adam and Eve story means this... and you must accept it because it is the truth. What I can say is that the Adam and Eve story is an existential story - it's about choice and the consequences of choice, which is the heart of what it means to exist in this world. Every time we make a choice, we close off some possibilities and create new ones, we define/create ourselves. As to what A&E's choice actually was and what the consequences were, that is up to each person to wrestle with and that is why it is such a powerful story. I have had different answers to those questions for each stage of my life, and continue to reinterpret it. In that way, the story remains much more relevant to me than if it were a historical record about two people who lived 6,000(?) years ago.

 

[lilithu]

Is there any common ground between religion and science, then ?
How do Religions accept medical science - prolonging life; saving Children from dying at birth, only to grow up disabled ?- is that what God intended ? if it isn't are those who follow experimentation doing 'wrong' by God?

Hi Michel, namaste.

I am not sure where your question stems from what I wrote but will try to address it.

Science seeks to understand "how." Religion seeks to understand "why." Science, in its most idealized form, seeks only to describe the way things are. Religion assumes meaning and therefore morality - it seeks to prescribe the way things "should" be.

As soon as one takes what is learned through science and tries to use that knowledge to make the world the way one wants it to be, it is no longer purely science. Technology assumes a "should" - that sick humans should be "saved" regardless of possible disabilities, in the case of your example. As is often the case, the assumed "should" is up for debate and could be mistaken. But I do not believe that science itself goes against God. Quite the contrary, science is God's creation studying God's creation. How can it be anything other than an expression of godliness?

 

[meogi]

Science seeks to understand "how." Religion seeks to understand "why."

'Why' is ambiguous. How and why are quite often interchangeable; how can also contain why. It really depends on what kind of why you're asking.

I prefer to use the statement: Science seeks explaination. Religion seeks reason/purpose.

Neither is exclusive in this though...

Technology assumes a "should" - that sick humans should be "saved" regardless of possible disabilities, in the case of your example.

No. Technology assumes a can. Social morality has nothing to do with science's ability to explain. Asside from taking said explanation into account when judging the morality of a situation.

 

[KirbyFan101]

'
I prefer to use the statement: Science seeks explaination. Religion seeks reason/purpose.

Neither is exclusive in this though...

I would go as far as to say they are interchangeable.

-Science seeks explanation, reason and purpose.

-Religion seeks explanation (I see a limitation here), reason and purpose.

Is there any fault with these two statements?

 

[meogi]

I would go as far as to say they are interchangeable.

Yep...

Neither is exclusive in this though...

I guess I should have said that while neither is exlusive, they tend to seek mainly thier respective objective.

 

[Fade]

i know this isn't on the same topic and i'd be happy to move it elsewhere, but i'm interested in knowing why you think adam and eve didn't exist. do you believe other bible characters existed such as Jesus? Because if you do believe in Jesus and his line of ancestors, then you should also believe that adam was real as he is listed in jesus' line of ancestors....

Where in the bible does it show Jesus' line of ancestors all the way back to Adam?
The only genealogies I know of start with david...

Genealogy of Jesus (Mt.1 vs Lk.3)David to Jesus Mt.1:6-16 Lk.3:21-31

1. David
2. Solomon
3. Roboam
4. Abia
5. Asa
6. Josaphat
7. Joram
8. Ozias
9. Joatham
10. Achaz
11. Ezekias
12. Manasses
13. Amon
14. Josias
15. Jecohnias
16. Salathiel
17. Zorobabel
18. Abiud
19. Eliakim
20. Azor
21. Sadoc
22. Achim
23. Eliud
24. Eleazar
25. Matthan
26. Jacob
27. Joseph
28. Jesus

1. David
2. Nathan
3. Mattatha
4. Menan
5. Melea
6. Eliakim
7. Jonan
8. Joseph
9. Juda
10. Simeon
11. Levi
12. Matthat
13. Jorim
14. Eliezer
15. Jose
16. Er
17. Elmodam
18. Cosam
19. Addi
20. Melchi
21. Neri
22. Salathiel
23. Zorobabel
24. Rhesa
25. Joanna
26. Juda
27. Joseph
28. Semei
29. Mattathias
30. Maath
31. Nagge
32. Esli
33. Naum
34. Amos
35. Mattathias
36. Joseph
37. Janna
38. Melchi
39. Levi
40. Matthat
41. Heli
42. Joseph
43. Jesus

Other paternity cases

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Where in the bible does it show Jesus' line of ancestors all the way back to Adam?
The only genealogies I know of start with david...

Luke 3:38 ....the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
That's where....(the very link you gave me shows you that....)

 

[Fade]

Good point, I should have read the rest

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

Good point, I should have read the rest

no probs. actually, you had me worried then, i thought i'm sure i read it and had to look it up! i thought i'd look a bit silly if i was wrong... by the way, what is hubris?

 

[Fade]

lol...still I think it is interesting that there is a contradiction in the two genealogies. Which one is correct and what makes it more accurate than the other? For that matter why print two in the first place? But I think this is somewhat off topic anyway

Edit - hu·bris n.Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).
[Greek, excessive pride, wanton violence. See ud- in Indo-European Roots.]

 

[Fade]

Hubris is a common theme in Greek tragedies and mythology, whose stories often featured protagonists suffering from hubris and subsequently being punished by the gods for it. In Greek law, it most often refers to violent outrage wreaked by the powerful upon the weak. In poetry and mythology, the term was used of those individuals esteeming themselves as equal to or greater than the gods. Hubris was often the "tragic flaw", or Hamartia, of characters in Greek drama.

There was also a goddess called Hubris (or Hybris), the embodiment of the above concept, insolence, lack of restraint and instinct. She spent most of her time among mortals.