Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[metis]

Of course it's morally repugnant, but that's how the bible depicts God.

That's how your interpretation of that narrative is being depicted, plus the words "original sin" actually aren't found in the Bible.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

and in fact origi ally Darwin based his entire theory of natural selection On dog breeding.

Have you actually read any of Darwin's works? I think not. It's free online, so no reason to keep going through life making these types of foolish statements:

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

We have been Involved in genetic manipulation for 10,000 years. How the heck do you think corn arose magic? We intuitively knew that traits could be selected and cross bred none of this is remotely new.

That doesn't change the fact that evolution is more than just a narrative.

 

[Audie]

These days RCC accepts both evolution and creationism as viable theories and leaves the choice up to the believers. I think RCC is often misunderstood as Protestantism. In the RCC it is the priesthood who study the scripture and they do not bore the common people with theology. They are the Salt of the Earth as Jesus calls them in the Sermon of the Mount. What the Popes says these days is more like guideline for the believer. But RCC explicitly leaves room for ordinary people to make up their own mind and follow their own conscience. I wish more churches did that.

These days for most Catholics it is the good Spirit that guides that is the important thing. They are not like protestants who heavily study the Bible. Also RCC sees new discoveries and insights as the works of the Spirit in progress. Sure there are Catholics too who take a very literal view, but that is their own personal choice. You will not find common Catholics discussing beliefs like protestants. Generally the knowledge of ordinary Catholics in theological matters is as low as their interest in them. It is more like Jesus gave us a good example to follow.

I think the Pope is doing a good job, It is ironical that there is so much hate against RCC on the Internet these days as it has become fairly moderate. I think it is orthodox Judaism, Evangelicals, Islamists and overbearing atheists that seek conflict, probably as part of their proselytizing.

I doubt any intelligent person who knows what a theory is considers creationism to be a theory, as it has none (0) of the requisite qualities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It simply appears to be saying that if the Bible is dependent on pagan mythological sources (as it is), then the sacred authors had divine assurance that they would use those sources without being contaminated by an errors. Unless in context it says something else that I'm not seeing above?

If the genre in question was intended by the sacred author to be history, then we can be sure that God would keep them free from error in the pursuance of that end. But Genesis was not written to be factual history (though it is salvation history like all scripture) but in the genre of Near Eastern creation myths.

The immunity from error is conditional upon the genre in question and what the sacred author intended to communicate in context. That's, rather elementary.

Pius expresses the opinion that Genesis was intended as some sort of factual history:

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense,"

 

[Cassandra]

I doubt any intelligent person who knows what a theory is considers creationism to be a theory, as it has none (0) of the requisite qualities.

That sounds pretty aggressive and uncompromising. An elaborate way of calling people morons for holding a view. Why are insults so important in these discussions?

 

[Audie]

That sounds pretty aggressive and uncompromising. An elaborate way of calling people morons for holding a view. Why are insults so important in these discussions?

No aggression or insult is involved, or intended.

I could with better cause ask why you choose to think the
worst of me, and attack me personally instead of making
some sort of on -topic statement?

I absolutely did not do as you say, calling people a moron
for "holding a view"/ Now THAT is being insulting.
I said no intelligent person WHO UNDERSTANDS
WHAT A THEORY IS. Lots of smart people are ill informed.

What do we call a person who knows better, but says something
untrue anyway? Your distaste for the one pointing out the facts
might be better directed to those out to deceive.

You do know who Cassandra was, in mythology? Like, the person
who was telling people true things they did not want to hear?

As for the compromise? Creationism is not a theory,
as a theory has certain requirements of which creationism fulfills
t he number I said-zero.

How does one "compromise" on that? As soon as "creationism"
can qualify for the status, I am sure it will get it.

Why do you call it something it is not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt any intelligent person who knows what a theory is considers creationism to be a theory, as it has none (0) of the requisite qualities.

How about using the word educated rather than intelligent. There are intelligent people out there that have almost no education in the sciences.

 

[Audie]

How about using the word educated rather than intelligent. There are intelligent people out there that have almost no education in the sciences.

I put in the "educated" already: "who knows what a theory is".

I could have left out the "intelligent" part, as it is more or less irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I put in the "educated" already: "who knows what a theory is".

I could have left out the "intelligent" part, as it is more or less irrelevant.

I missed the qualifier and you are correct.

 

[Vouthon]

Pius expresses the opinion that Genesis was intended as some sort of factual history:

"This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense,"

I wish you had continued that quotation, for if you had, you'd have read that Pius XII explains that he is talking about salvation history, which is precisely what I was saying to you earlier:

This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.
​

He explicitly says in the above that the Genesis account is history in the sense of salvation history (i.e. using metaphorical language) but not history in the sense of Herodotus or the Roman historians like Suetonius.

 

[ecco]

If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man according to the Bible and include the physical history of evolution to boot.

If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly have created man, the physical history of evolution and the bible Last Thursday.

 

[sealchan]

So you don't take the bible literally then. Fair enough. Maybe it's just because of the evangelical circles that I was exposed to as a kid, but to me, a Christian is someone who believes the bible is the inerrant word of God.

I think that the truth of what has actually happened in God's creation is at odds with that assertion. It will become a prime necessity for evangelicals to need to maneuver out of such thinking but I'm certain that can happpen.

Once the obvious truth that the Bible is actually a collection of works selected by humans from a much larger collection all written by humans all of whom had various motives, experiences and imperfections, then a much deeper appreciation can be had for humanities efforts to relate to God over time and that contrary to what many bible worshippers think, the story of God and His people is not a closed book.

We are a people in the western nations who have collectively grown up as cildren of a Christian God and the still popular child like believe in the Bible as literal is no longer acceptable to more and more of us. We are at least "adolescents" of God with the power to pre-empt final prophecy in a growing number of ways.

 

[ecco]

Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

• Time exists independent of man. Gods do not exist independent of man.
• Time existed before man. Man's imaginings created gods.
• Man can measure time and use it in mathematical formulas. Man cannot measure gods. Gods are not used in mathematical formulas.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes, sadly there are some. With religion, as with anything else, a lot comes down to the quality of the education people receive. I know from my own Catholic upbringing that a lot of Catholic priests in the UK are lamentably poorly taught - even on their own church's doctrine. (We had one chap at our local church some years ago who seemed to think everything the pope said was infallible. We were all taught, at school at the age of ten, this only applies to ex cathedra pronouncements - and that for this reason popes are jolly careful not to make ex cathedra pronouncements! As far as I know there have only been two. Ever. )

 

[exchemist]

@Hubert Farnsworth 's take on the issue does line up with the official Catholic position.

They don't require belief in a literal Garden of Eden or a talking snake, but they do hold as a point of doctrine that there was an original male-female pair of the first "true humans" and that all "true humans" descended from them. Polygenism is explicitly declared as incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Yes this is also my understanding, although it is my hope that in 400 years or so (i.e. with typical Catholic alacrity) the church will come realise this too is not something to be taken literally. I actually see no reason why they get hung up on it. I was taught, by a not specially liberal priest back in the 1960s, that Original Sin can be seen as @Armoured explained earlier on this thread, namely as the predisposition of Man to do evil, in spite of having the moral awareness (having allegorically "eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil") to distinguish evil from good. I do not see why there need be an historical first man and woman who committed an individual "sin event", as it were, for this doctrine to hold. It is an expression of the weakness of human nature, that's all.

P.S. I see Vouthon has presented some interesting quotations regarding the status of this doctrine. There would appear to be some finessing of the issue in Catholic theology at the moment. Maybe we will not have to wait 400years after all, Hooray.

 

[Cassandra]

No aggression or insult is involved, or intended.

I could with better cause ask why you choose to think the
worst of me, and attack me personally instead of making
some sort of on -topic statement?

I absolutely did not do as you say, calling people a moron
for "holding a view"/ Now THAT is being insulting.
I said no intelligent person WHO UNDERSTANDS
WHAT A THEORY IS. Lots of smart people are ill informed.

What do we call a person who knows better, but says something
untrue anyway? Your distaste for the one pointing out the facts
might be better directed to those out to deceive.

As for the compromise? Creationism is not a theory,
as a theory has certain requirements of which creationism fulfills
t he number I said-zero.

How does one "compromise" on that? As soon as "creationism"
can qualify for the status, I am sure it will get it.

Why do you call it something it is not?

You basically wrote if you consider creationism a theory you are not intelligent, because lack of understanding of something is generally associated with lack of intelligence, not lack of knowledge. It is interpreted differently from
"no intelligent person, WHO IS WELL INFORMED WHAT A THEORY IS, ..."

You seem to hold the view that the implications of words depend wholly on intend, not on how people perceive one's words. Then when interpreted negatively, you see that as a personal attack to which you react by taking on the role of the insulted. Hmmm. That actually is like their thinking.

In my experience even the people out to deceive and feeling pleasure in that are still trapped in their own lies. You can not take that path and not lower you consciousness. But then you are talking about 1-2% psychopaths. Once you start attacking widely held religious views you actually provide them with a cover to create conflict from.

A compromise is not necessarily finding a common view. A compromise can also be to let the matter rest, or accept differences of views. Let's agree to disagree. If fundamentalist persist on pushing their views, one can ridicule them in a good humored manner (not in a sarcastic manner). The Bible does not say for nothing that there is one thing the Holly Spirit does not forgive, and that is being ridiculed. Because believers love to be attacked, insulted, chastised. That only fulfills the prophecies of the Bible. To feel victim, makes them feel worthy servants of their God. It gives them a challenge ("We shall overcome"). That is why they actually seek being ridiculed and attacked. They invite people to do that by attacking them first. They want to be hated. They love that. No one is a sadist without being a masochist.

Good humored fun makes them powerless. Read the Bible, it is totally humorless. It is a book that prepares people for conflict. It makes them experts in conflict. It is very easy to win the debate on reason and lose the popular vote. To win the popular vote one should not be seen as aggressor. No matter how much one is provoked, one then loses because they play a home game for their people. They may not be scientists but they can sell second hand cars without brakes better than anyone else. They know how to play peoples emotions. The Bible uses emotional arguments, not reason. It is created by tradesmen. Tradesmen know what arguments convince.

Just a question I am interested in. Do you think the confrontational attitude of the left actually helped achieving a more reasonable thinking, or sped up acceptance of more reasonable scientific views? Do you think American politics is improving as a result. Or do the left volunteer to play the role of the enemy of God, the enemy fundamentalists so bitterly seek and need?

 

[David T]

It's neither proven fact, nor narrative. It's a scientific theory, or more correctly a set of connected theories.

Both fact and narrative are so commonly misused these days I'm surprised they retain any meaning at all.

stick figures I will make it easy. Since really this is a quasi discussion about consciousness. It see
Well all of us create narrative. The only real facts I know are nature is

Have you actually read any of Darwin's works? I think not. It's free online, so no reason to keep going through life making these types of foolish statements:

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin


That doesn't change the fact that evolution is more than just a narrative.

R Really! I stated fact life interconnected. Did I or did I Not.,? I throw a rock into the air and it falls to the ground another Fact,? Do I need an explanation narrative for the rock to Fall? NO. Do I need a narrative to Know that life is interconnected No.
You are absolutely not even remotely Feynman. Because feynman readily admitted that scientific theories are not proof and they are always proven over time to be wrong. They are our narrative at the time in which we exist. And all of this is determined not by us but by nature. You are playing make believe you are objective and nature is subjective that is mid level lab drone science. Horrid inexcusable philosophy dressed as science in Fact.

So since we are on Darwin there is a fundemental problem with this first drawing that was never corrected In Any Darwinian narrative. What exactly is the big problem? It should be easy to spot.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Everyone has a set of axioms they consider to be absolutely true without any proof.

Not so. Not of me, and not of any scientist. You should avoid statements of facts not in evidence, or projecting your own faults onto others

Good point about Science, at least as properly and morally practiced.

Most scientist use the word Time like the way theists use the word God. Time is eternal, always exists, and is everywhere just like God. We can;t see Time. We can't hold Time in our hands and experience it the same way we experience an apple. Yet everyone swears Time exists. How is that any different than the way a theist believes in God? It's not.

no, Scientists don't. Time is a physically measured quantity but one which is relative to other measured quantities. Its not axiomatic but experiential.

However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true.

they are not fundamentally irreconcileable but fundamentalism and childish literalism is irreconcileable with almost any reality we experience I think.

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

...yes although there really are many churches in the USA where creationism is preached, and this is inexcusable I think. Its not Ok to use pseudo science to prop up a ministry, a faith claim, a view of the Bible. Those few who say "I oppose Science." are being honest, but that is not what has been happening. Instead they claim to support Science as that is popular and to claim Science must support their claims. At the expense of the education of children they do it.

It's neither proven fact, nor narrative. It's a scientific theory, or more correctly a set of connected theories.

Both fact and narrative are so commonly misused these days I'm surprised they retain any meaning at all.

Its a terrible thing.

And it's compatible with Christians whom are not literalists.

For example, the world's greatest expert on Homo erectus going back a half-century ago was Fr. Teilhart de Chardin, a Jesuit priest.

True.

 

[Audie]

If someone has faith in an omnipotent God, then an omnipotent God could certainly have created man, the physical history of evolution and the bible Last Thursday.

I am worried about what that will do to my 401k.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am worried about what that will do to my 401k.

What 401k?