Why is the concept of evolution seen as contrary to Christian teaching?
July 27, 2011 11:32 AM Subscribe
Why is the concept of evolution seen as contrary to Christian teaching?
In my walk as a Christian, I took it at face value that evolution was an evil lie from Satan. As I have grown, both in my Christianity and in my scientific knowledge (homeschooling 5 kids will do that to you) my opinion has changed: not only do I believe that evolution has occurred, but I now believe that, contrary to what I have been told, evolution doesn't disprove a Creator - it makes creation all the more wondrous, complicated, and ingenious. Why would God make static organisms which could not change in response to their environment? More importantly, why is this seen as somehow contradictory to God's word? I am not looking for a debate of evolution vs. creation - I am convinced that they exist simultaneously. I am really looking for reasons why Christians are so opposed to this concept.
In my walk as a Christian, I took it at face value that evolution was an evil lie from Satan. As I have grown, both in my Christianity and in my scientific knowledge (homeschooling 5 kids will do that to you) my opinion has changed: not only do I believe that evolution has occurred, but I now believe that, contrary to what I have been told, evolution doesn't disprove a Creator - it makes creation all the more wondrous, complicated, and ingenious. Why would God make static organisms which could not change in response to their environment? More importantly, why is this seen as somehow contradictory to God's word? I am not looking for a debate of evolution vs. creation - I am convinced that they exist simultaneously. I am really looking for reasons why Christians are so opposed to this concept.
(I grew up in a Christian (conservative wing of Lutheranism) household which believed in evolution - intended and guided by God in sort of a watch-maker capacity. What's more, even my very conservative grandparents believed the same thing. This "Christianity and evolution are incompatible" trope is pretty recent.)
posted by Frowner at 11:35 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Frowner at 11:35 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, obviously not all Christians do regard evolution as contrary to Christianity at all: the Catholic church and many mainstream Protestant denominations regard evolution as an established fact which does not contradict Christian doctrine at all. It's sort of difficult to square it with with Genesis, though, if you're of a denomination that holds that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by strangely stunted trees at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not all Christianity believes it is.
Most Catholics believe in the process, but believe it is guided by God.
In Catholic school, we learned the science bit in Bio and the religious bit in our religion classes.
posted by inturnaround at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2011
Most Catholics believe in the process, but believe it is guided by God.
In Catholic school, we learned the science bit in Bio and the religious bit in our religion classes.
posted by inturnaround at 11:36 AM on July 27, 2011
I am really looking for reasons why [some] Christians are so opposed to this concept.
I think you mostly answered your own question:
I took it at face value that evolution was an evil lie from Satan
posted by ook at 11:37 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think you mostly answered your own question:
I took it at face value that evolution was an evil lie from Satan
posted by ook at 11:37 AM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Here's the reasoning as I understand it: Adam and Eve, the first humans, directly created by God, rejected God and caused sin to enter the world. If their story in Genesis isn't literally true, then Christianity has no explanation for sin, for how a world created by a perfect being can contain evil.
posted by skymt at 11:38 AM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by skymt at 11:38 AM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
It's not. It's only a narrow, fundamentalist version of certain sects of Christianity that see evolution as contrary to their religion
posted by the foreground at 11:39 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by the foreground at 11:39 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
Evolution is not the core issue, the alleged inerrancy of the bible is. Evolution completely undermines the fundamentalist belief that the bible is the literal world of God. Because if evolution explains us, the clearly Adam and Eve is a just a story and not historical fact. And if Adam and Eve is not historical fact, what else in the Bible might not be true?
Clearly it's better to just cover your ears and eyes and pretend that Eve was conversing with a snake.
posted by COD at 11:43 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
Clearly it's better to just cover your ears and eyes and pretend that Eve was conversing with a snake.
posted by COD at 11:43 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
I could write a very long thing about the history of biblical literalism as a reaction to the perceived threat of competing worldviews as a product of the political domination of the Roman Catholic Church over a big portion of the last 1500 years, but who has the time? The short version is that a certain set of conservative Christianity has a very specific tradition of interpretation of the Bible, seeing certain passages as metaphorical (Song of Songs, Revelation) and other certain passages as historical (most everything else). The unfortunate circumstance being that this hermeneutical tradition refers to itself as 'biblical literalism,' which means that, to its adherents, anyone who disagrees is willfully distorting Scripture for his own ends. So sects of Christianity that don't see Genesis 1-2 as the 100% comprehensive and faithful historical record are more or less heretics. This places an undue emphasis on making sure that you are very, very rigidly adhering to your tradition's hermeneutic and regarding any evidence or challenge to that hermeneutic as evil, deceitful, worldly, and of the devil. What may not have been a very important part of interpretation 100 years ago has become worldview-defining. This tends to shut out all nuance. So when Genesis 1 says that God created the animals, that must by necessity mean that God created the animals as we understand them, on specific separate days, in discrete steps, with no gradations. Thus evolution cannot be accepted.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:46 AM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 11:46 AM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: Point of clarification: I am not referring to human evolution.
posted by brownrd at 11:47 AM on July 27, 2011
posted by brownrd at 11:47 AM on July 27, 2011
Point of clarification: I am not referring to human evolution.
You can't talk about evolution in general without including human evolution.
posted by scody at 11:49 AM on July 27, 2011 [14 favorites]
You can't talk about evolution in general without including human evolution.
posted by scody at 11:49 AM on July 27, 2011 [14 favorites]
If human evolution is off the table for you, then take the reasons why it's off the table for you and apply them to the rest of evolution.
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:51 AM on July 27, 2011 [14 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 11:51 AM on July 27, 2011 [14 favorites]
Point of clarification: I am not referring to human evolution.
Wait, what? Now the question makes no sense to me. Not snarking, but I'm confused how these can be separated.
posted by sweetkid at 11:53 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
Wait, what? Now the question makes no sense to me. Not snarking, but I'm confused how these can be separated.
posted by sweetkid at 11:53 AM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
as others have said, some people take a literal interpretation of the Bible...so you have some that believed and/or still believe the Earth is only 10k years old, that it is flat, that the sun goes around the earth. Some of the things that church elders have gotten bent out of shape about still make me shake my head. (Newton's work on optics (light being viewed as pure and indivisible)...Sunspots(!) (same issue).
But I think it goes a bit beyond that. It seems that science (contra the general message of most Religions...not just Christianity) shows that:
- Earth is NOT special. It is not the center of ANYTHING. It is small and not unique
(save that we definitely have life...which is a big one to be sure)
- The Earth was NOT created to be hospitable to us. There's so much out there that can kill us!
There have been massive extinctions. Evolution works hand in hand with that.
- Evolution is not a tree...a stately progression towards US...the pinnacle of evolution. Instead, it is a bush with many many branches, many of whom have died out. We are just one twig at the end of a thin branch.
So I think it is the robbing of our specialness that makes the religious...who believe that there is a loving and just God who knows them and cares for their well-being...nervous. It is a yet another chipping away of us as the center of the story. Nervous people become dogmatic.
posted by Wink Ricketts at 11:54 AM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]
But I think it goes a bit beyond that. It seems that science (contra the general message of most Religions...not just Christianity) shows that:
- Earth is NOT special. It is not the center of ANYTHING. It is small and not unique
(save that we definitely have life...which is a big one to be sure)
- The Earth was NOT created to be hospitable to us. There's so much out there that can kill us!
There have been massive extinctions. Evolution works hand in hand with that.
- Evolution is not a tree...a stately progression towards US...the pinnacle of evolution. Instead, it is a bush with many many branches, many of whom have died out. We are just one twig at the end of a thin branch.
So I think it is the robbing of our specialness that makes the religious...who believe that there is a loving and just God who knows them and cares for their well-being...nervous. It is a yet another chipping away of us as the center of the story. Nervous people become dogmatic.
posted by Wink Ricketts at 11:54 AM on July 27, 2011 [7 favorites]
I am not referring to human evolution.Well, most everyone in the whole creationism debate assumes that humanity is a part of evolution. Those on the ToE's side because, well, there's massive amounts of evidence, and there's no real scientific reason for humanity to be special-cased. Creationists, meanwhile, will point out that the bit that says God made humans is only a verse away from the bit where He made "every thing that creepeth upon the earth", and there's no real theological reason for humanity to be special-cased.
posted by skymt at 11:55 AM on July 27, 2011
Response by poster: Sweetkid, only because I do not want to turn this into a debate as to how or why I can separate humanity from the rest of creation when it comes to evolution, I do not want to answer that here. Suffice it to say that in my opinion they are separate.
posted by brownrd at 11:57 AM on July 27, 2011
posted by brownrd at 11:57 AM on July 27, 2011
Which Christians are you talking about?
The three largest Christian Sects (Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) all accept Darwinian Evolution. Those three sects are just over 68% of the total Christian population in the World.
For the majority of Christians, evolution does not contradict their faith.
posted by Flood at 11:58 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]
The three largest Christian Sects (Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican) all accept Darwinian Evolution. Those three sects are just over 68% of the total Christian population in the World.
For the majority of Christians, evolution does not contradict their faith.
posted by Flood at 11:58 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]
My Catholic education included evolution and did not differentiate human evolution from the rest of the animal kingdom. This is the first time I've heard anyone do that.
posted by tommasz at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 12:02 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
People see a correlation between enthusiasm about evolution and being wrong about other things (as they see it), and so they are quite reluctant to adopt the new theory. For example, some people might start with dry biological facts and use them to justify speculation about the existence of the soul, and that is alarming to a person who thinks it's more important to understand the soul than biology.
There's nothing wrong with being cautious to believe something new, by the way, and most people freak out about it way too much. In a thousand years, two cultural shifts 30 years apart or 200 years apart won't really register as being different times. So many random variables affect how and when different cultures adopt various ideas.
posted by michaelh at 12:03 PM on July 27, 2011
There's nothing wrong with being cautious to believe something new, by the way, and most people freak out about it way too much. In a thousand years, two cultural shifts 30 years apart or 200 years apart won't really register as being different times. So many random variables affect how and when different cultures adopt various ideas.
posted by michaelh at 12:03 PM on July 27, 2011
In the context of this question, what exactly do you mean by evolution? I think that's an important part of the question.
posted by kidbritish at 12:07 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by kidbritish at 12:07 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: >>In the context of this question, what exactly do you mean by evolution? I think that's an important part of the question.
posted by kidbritish<>
Changes in organisms in response to environmental factors, up to and including speciation.
posted by brownrd at 12:09 PM on July 27, 2011
posted by kidbritish<>
Changes in organisms in response to environmental factors, up to and including speciation.
posted by brownrd at 12:09 PM on July 27, 2011
Sweetkid, only because I do not want to turn this into a debate as to how or why I can separate humanity from the rest of creation when it comes to evolution, I do not want to answer that here. Suffice it to say that in my opinion they are separate.
Believe what you want to believe, but if you want to answer your question, you need to explore more deeply why humanity and the rest of creation are separate to you.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:10 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Believe what you want to believe, but if you want to answer your question, you need to explore more deeply why humanity and the rest of creation are separate to you.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:10 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Changes in organisms in response to environmental factors, up to and including speciation.
So, not past speciation? If you do not believe in creatures verging past speciation, then your idea of evolution is outside what it means in a scientific context.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:13 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
So, not past speciation? If you do not believe in creatures verging past speciation, then your idea of evolution is outside what it means in a scientific context.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:13 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
I lived in Australia 40 years (attending various churches on and off over the years) and never met anyone that believed in creationism as a literal thing, not saying they don't exist, just saying I don't think they are that common. I moved to the US midwest and now I can't turn around without tripping over them. Well OK maybe that's a slight exaggeration but I always assumed it was a cultural thing. Not just a US/Australia thing but also there are a lot more christians and way more religiously fundamentalist groups over here, as well as just more people in general so more people on the ends of the bell curve of beliefs. On an unrelated note I wonder if there is a similar situation in other religions, not being versed on Islamic or say Hindu creation myths, I wonder if they have the same problems reconciling them to science as some Christians do.
posted by wwax at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2011
posted by wwax at 12:14 PM on July 27, 2011
Best answer: If human evolution is off the table for you, then take the reasons why it's off the table for you and apply them to the rest of evolution.
This. The reason many Christians see evolution as contrary to Christian teaching is THE EXACT SAME REASON you want to separate "human evolution" from the rest of evolution.
posted by callmejay at 12:19 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
This. The reason many Christians see evolution as contrary to Christian teaching is THE EXACT SAME REASON you want to separate "human evolution" from the rest of evolution.
posted by callmejay at 12:19 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
Evolution as a doctrine of origins and thus an entire worldview, informing one's entire presuppositional network of how they understand reality, knowledge, and ethics is entirely against the Biblical worldview where a all creatures, including man, are in submission to their creator, their knowledge is contingent on God's knowledge, and their ethical standards are known because they are made in the image of God. This is why evolution according to some Christians as a worldview and doctrine of origins is not Christian because it removes God from the equation. It does not allow God to be God and Man to accountable to God as his creature (Romans 1:18-32) To answer your question: does this exclude micro evolution? No. Does this exclude man as an evolved animal? Yes.
Moses wrote Genesis. "In the beginning, God..." A monotheistic bombshell that would have shocked all the other Pagan nations. YHWH is the creator. Genesis seems to "demythologize" the ancient near east. Where other pagan cultures of the time sacrificed and worshiped to many gods, and had many different explanations for how man and the universe came into being, the Torah comes on the scene, with a very simple presentation. In the beginning, God... There is but one God and he is the creator, and Genesis offers no explanation for where this God comes from. The fact that God is in the beginning is the controlling presupposition for the rest of the Bible.
Genesis is historical narrative. It has a genre. Moses gives an accounting for how the creation came in to being. There is debate as to how he may have adapted other cultures' creation narratives, making them monotheistic, but by taking the Bible on its own terms, we see that Moses was a prophet of God, and thus is reasonable to assume Moses would have had revelation as to how creation was carried out.
On this whole literal thing, people seem to misunderstand what Christians think about the Bible. The Bible did not just float out of the sky or come directly from God's pen. This is what makes the Bible different from all other texts. The Que-ran and book of Mormon for example, were each written by one man who was claiming direct revelation from their respective source. The Bible however, being written by many men over 2000 years which presents a consistent worldview and consistent story of God redeeming a fallen people with whom he has graciously decided to enter into covenant with through the Messiah (Second half of Romans 3). Jesus and the NT authors all saw the OT scripture as also being inspired and breathed out by God. It is both written by man and inspired by God.
Lastly, and most common, Paul in Romans 5 gives an accounting of how sin came into the world, "by one man, Adam...". The Apostle presupposes Adam as a historical man and thus so do Christians. To not believe Adam as a historical man who fell would seem to go against what Paul thought.
posted by yoyoceramic at 12:19 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
Moses wrote Genesis. "In the beginning, God..." A monotheistic bombshell that would have shocked all the other Pagan nations. YHWH is the creator. Genesis seems to "demythologize" the ancient near east. Where other pagan cultures of the time sacrificed and worshiped to many gods, and had many different explanations for how man and the universe came into being, the Torah comes on the scene, with a very simple presentation. In the beginning, God... There is but one God and he is the creator, and Genesis offers no explanation for where this God comes from. The fact that God is in the beginning is the controlling presupposition for the rest of the Bible.
Genesis is historical narrative. It has a genre. Moses gives an accounting for how the creation came in to being. There is debate as to how he may have adapted other cultures' creation narratives, making them monotheistic, but by taking the Bible on its own terms, we see that Moses was a prophet of God, and thus is reasonable to assume Moses would have had revelation as to how creation was carried out.
On this whole literal thing, people seem to misunderstand what Christians think about the Bible. The Bible did not just float out of the sky or come directly from God's pen. This is what makes the Bible different from all other texts. The Que-ran and book of Mormon for example, were each written by one man who was claiming direct revelation from their respective source. The Bible however, being written by many men over 2000 years which presents a consistent worldview and consistent story of God redeeming a fallen people with whom he has graciously decided to enter into covenant with through the Messiah (Second half of Romans 3). Jesus and the NT authors all saw the OT scripture as also being inspired and breathed out by God. It is both written by man and inspired by God.
Lastly, and most common, Paul in Romans 5 gives an accounting of how sin came into the world, "by one man, Adam...". The Apostle presupposes Adam as a historical man and thus so do Christians. To not believe Adam as a historical man who fell would seem to go against what Paul thought.
posted by yoyoceramic at 12:19 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
My wife, a very devout born-again Christian, has no issues with evolution. As she sees it, the Bible describes the what, and Evolution explains the how.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:23 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 12:23 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Tree Of Life is an amazing movie that explores this kind of stuff deeply.
posted by philip-random at 12:29 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 12:29 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
So, I was raised Calvinist, and as part of my home education I had to watch videos and read literature about the unproven nature of evolution, the major takeaway being that evolution was just a "theory," and that the word of God gave us the details of creation.
(This resulted in my doing very badly in science classes, because I would argue with my teachers and get hung up on evolution and so not trust anything else they said. It also resulted in a sad split with an eighth grade English teacher who had the class read "Inherit the Wind." Which I now recommend you read, because I think it addresses a lot of the arguments being made by Bible Belt Christians re: evolution.)
Here's the thing: if your branch of Christianity is of the strict, literal interpretation of the Bible variety, evolution is completely at odds with your version of creation. Because the concept of a primordial ooze, of creatures begetting other creatures, of the whole process taking millions of years -- it all disagrees with the Bible. Even if one day for God is a thousand years for a man, that only give you a 6,000-year window during which all of this would occur. You'll have issues with technologies as simple as radiocarbon dating. Which I was taught was a completely inaccurate process, though now I am on the other side of the looking glass it seems reliable.
But the main problem has always been human evolution. "Man didn't come from monkeys," they used to say. I know you want to separate human evolution out, but the thing cannot be done. See, human evolution is the best illustration of evolution, the one with which people most identify and which some people most fear. We have access to examples of early man, and evidence of human evolution. But the Bible says that humans are special, that we were created separately from animals, that we are stewards over all of creation. Contrariwise, every step of evolutionary history leads up to the emergence of humans and society, and leads also to a humbling conclusion that humans are only one race out of billions, that our history is barely a blip on the radar.
The minute you begin to even attempt to reconcile theology with biology, you're already in a bad place. And with evolution, you're not going to be able to escape that; the apologetics will go on and on until they drive you crazy. In my mind, if you believe in the Bible as the literal word of God, Charles Darwin's name must be to you as Haman's name is to an Orthodox Jew. Stamp your foot three times whenever anyone says it.
If you are from a branch of Christianity that holds a much looser, interpretive view of the Bible, you can declare the story of the Garden of Eden a metaphor, and dispense with all of the apologetics.
(Caveat: I am no longer a Calvinist, nor even a Christian. I don't believe man came from monkeys, either. I think we came from apes, but I'm not entirely sure because I've never studied biology or evolution since I left the church. Science still scares me.)
posted by brina at 12:42 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
(This resulted in my doing very badly in science classes, because I would argue with my teachers and get hung up on evolution and so not trust anything else they said. It also resulted in a sad split with an eighth grade English teacher who had the class read "Inherit the Wind." Which I now recommend you read, because I think it addresses a lot of the arguments being made by Bible Belt Christians re: evolution.)
Here's the thing: if your branch of Christianity is of the strict, literal interpretation of the Bible variety, evolution is completely at odds with your version of creation. Because the concept of a primordial ooze, of creatures begetting other creatures, of the whole process taking millions of years -- it all disagrees with the Bible. Even if one day for God is a thousand years for a man, that only give you a 6,000-year window during which all of this would occur. You'll have issues with technologies as simple as radiocarbon dating. Which I was taught was a completely inaccurate process, though now I am on the other side of the looking glass it seems reliable.
But the main problem has always been human evolution. "Man didn't come from monkeys," they used to say. I know you want to separate human evolution out, but the thing cannot be done. See, human evolution is the best illustration of evolution, the one with which people most identify and which some people most fear. We have access to examples of early man, and evidence of human evolution. But the Bible says that humans are special, that we were created separately from animals, that we are stewards over all of creation. Contrariwise, every step of evolutionary history leads up to the emergence of humans and society, and leads also to a humbling conclusion that humans are only one race out of billions, that our history is barely a blip on the radar.
The minute you begin to even attempt to reconcile theology with biology, you're already in a bad place. And with evolution, you're not going to be able to escape that; the apologetics will go on and on until they drive you crazy. In my mind, if you believe in the Bible as the literal word of God, Charles Darwin's name must be to you as Haman's name is to an Orthodox Jew. Stamp your foot three times whenever anyone says it.
If you are from a branch of Christianity that holds a much looser, interpretive view of the Bible, you can declare the story of the Garden of Eden a metaphor, and dispense with all of the apologetics.
(Caveat: I am no longer a Calvinist, nor even a Christian. I don't believe man came from monkeys, either. I think we came from apes, but I'm not entirely sure because I've never studied biology or evolution since I left the church. Science still scares me.)
posted by brina at 12:42 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
Why would God make static organisms which could not change in response to their environment? More importantly, why is this seen as somehow contradictory to God's word?
In addition to the issues pointed out above (that the majority of Christians in the world have no doctrinal problem with evolution, and that one of the major issues those that do have with evolution is that it conflicts with a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible as a historical account of the creation of the world), I think for many Christians the notion that evolution, functioning according to the same laws of the physical universe as anything else, can generate complex and wonderous lifeforms has the effect of making one more special 'God' thing less special. It's like when Copernicus et al moved the world's thinking from geocentricism to heliocentrism a zillion years ago. Basically, you have thousands of years of tradition about "The Breath of Life" and "The Image of the Creator" and "formed from mud and a rib bone" and when you say, "actually, its a fairly simple process of natural selection..." you take something from the mysterious domain of the Omnipotent God and bring into the flawed and common domain of water running down a hill. There are plenty of spiritual systems for which this is not a problem, but for many Christians, it is.
On an unrelated note I wonder if there is a similar situation in other religions, not being versed on Islamic or say Hindu creation myths, I wonder if they have the same problems reconciling them to science as some Christians do.
I used to work with this really smart software engineer, very good at his job, who was also a strict Jain. One day me and somebody else at the office were talking about satellite uplinks or something and he goes, "You know, there is an Indian cosmology which is much older than the cosmology with which you are familiar..." I've never considered 'age' to be a particularly great selling point for a cosmological model, but I was listening. Then he went on to explain how he believed the earth was a flat disc and that communications satellites hung over the disk like pendant lamps over a table. He had this very complex mental model of how all this would work, like a mental geocentric orrery, with scads of extra gears and escapements to make the model fit the data. It was actually pretty fascinating to hear him explain it. This guy was the kind of guy who could easily have been working on the software systems that power rockets and satellites, and here he was, absolutely convinced that the world was flat.
posted by jeb at 12:42 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
In addition to the issues pointed out above (that the majority of Christians in the world have no doctrinal problem with evolution, and that one of the major issues those that do have with evolution is that it conflicts with a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible as a historical account of the creation of the world), I think for many Christians the notion that evolution, functioning according to the same laws of the physical universe as anything else, can generate complex and wonderous lifeforms has the effect of making one more special 'God' thing less special. It's like when Copernicus et al moved the world's thinking from geocentricism to heliocentrism a zillion years ago. Basically, you have thousands of years of tradition about "The Breath of Life" and "The Image of the Creator" and "formed from mud and a rib bone" and when you say, "actually, its a fairly simple process of natural selection..." you take something from the mysterious domain of the Omnipotent God and bring into the flawed and common domain of water running down a hill. There are plenty of spiritual systems for which this is not a problem, but for many Christians, it is.
On an unrelated note I wonder if there is a similar situation in other religions, not being versed on Islamic or say Hindu creation myths, I wonder if they have the same problems reconciling them to science as some Christians do.
I used to work with this really smart software engineer, very good at his job, who was also a strict Jain. One day me and somebody else at the office were talking about satellite uplinks or something and he goes, "You know, there is an Indian cosmology which is much older than the cosmology with which you are familiar..." I've never considered 'age' to be a particularly great selling point for a cosmological model, but I was listening. Then he went on to explain how he believed the earth was a flat disc and that communications satellites hung over the disk like pendant lamps over a table. He had this very complex mental model of how all this would work, like a mental geocentric orrery, with scads of extra gears and escapements to make the model fit the data. It was actually pretty fascinating to hear him explain it. This guy was the kind of guy who could easily have been working on the software systems that power rockets and satellites, and here he was, absolutely convinced that the world was flat.
posted by jeb at 12:42 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
Best answer: brownrd, here's a thought. The people most likely to virulently attack the seven-day-creation narrative are not evolutionists who also happen to be Catholics or mainline Protestants or whatever Christian/theistic belief that accepts evolution (like yourself). Instead, creationism is attacked by people like Dawkins and other zealous atheists -- people who tend to see evolution and atheism as inextricably intertwined.
Because of this, many Christian creationists perceive (often rightly so) that an attack on creationism is also an attack on theism, and that to accept evolution, they have to discard their basic belief in God and join guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins in naturalistic utopia.
In other words, they don't want to take a bite of evolution because they sense that it means they have to drink the atheism juice too.
posted by BurntHombre at 1:08 PM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
Because of this, many Christian creationists perceive (often rightly so) that an attack on creationism is also an attack on theism, and that to accept evolution, they have to discard their basic belief in God and join guys like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins in naturalistic utopia.
In other words, they don't want to take a bite of evolution because they sense that it means they have to drink the atheism juice too.
posted by BurntHombre at 1:08 PM on July 27, 2011 [4 favorites]
Best answer: Others have said this, but it bears repeating over and over. Whatever reason you have in your mind for excluding "human evolution" (whatever that means) from your view of evolution, is the answer to your question. You obviously think that it contradicts something, and whatever explanation you have in your mind is the reason that you're looking for.
Also, a gigantic, extremely common error that anti-evolutionists make is to think that evolution makes claims about where life came from, i.e. abiogenesis. Evolution makes no claims about the beginning of life, only what happened to life once it came about. Anti-evolutionists usually don't distinguish between these two things, and so they think that evolution contradicts Creation in describing how life got started.
posted by RobotNinja at 1:18 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
Also, a gigantic, extremely common error that anti-evolutionists make is to think that evolution makes claims about where life came from, i.e. abiogenesis. Evolution makes no claims about the beginning of life, only what happened to life once it came about. Anti-evolutionists usually don't distinguish between these two things, and so they think that evolution contradicts Creation in describing how life got started.
posted by RobotNinja at 1:18 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
Some Christians believe the universe to be deterministic, others non-deterministic.
Some Christians believe God hand-crafted the world and humanity, others believe he created a universe of rules and laws that produced the world without direct interference.
Some Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, others that he was only a great man.
Some Christians believe in only what they can verify with their eyes, others distrust evidence that cannot be verified by their heart.
Within those (simplistic) boundaries there is room for almost all beliefs.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:28 PM on July 27, 2011
Some Christians believe God hand-crafted the world and humanity, others believe he created a universe of rules and laws that produced the world without direct interference.
Some Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus, others that he was only a great man.
Some Christians believe in only what they can verify with their eyes, others distrust evidence that cannot be verified by their heart.
Within those (simplistic) boundaries there is room for almost all beliefs.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:28 PM on July 27, 2011
Changes in organisms in response to environmental factors, up to and including speciation.
Ah. Well, the way I understand it, organisms do not change in response to environmental factors (although I guess you could summarize the process like that). Organisms change, period. If they change in a way that is prosperous for the species, that change continues in further generations. If the change is not prosperous, the organism most likely dies or is not able to pass on its genetic material, and the change is thus not continued. If the change is prosperous and allows a certain type of organism to outcompete other species over time for resources or adaptability to changing conditions, that species survives and the other ones die out. Evolution does not have an end goal of a certain type of organism.
posted by LionIndex at 1:30 PM on July 27, 2011
Ah. Well, the way I understand it, organisms do not change in response to environmental factors (although I guess you could summarize the process like that). Organisms change, period. If they change in a way that is prosperous for the species, that change continues in further generations. If the change is not prosperous, the organism most likely dies or is not able to pass on its genetic material, and the change is thus not continued. If the change is prosperous and allows a certain type of organism to outcompete other species over time for resources or adaptability to changing conditions, that species survives and the other ones die out. Evolution does not have an end goal of a certain type of organism.
posted by LionIndex at 1:30 PM on July 27, 2011
Also, please keep in mind that man is fallible, prone to mistakes, eager to believe, and searching for meaning in what appears to many to be meaningless.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:30 PM on July 27, 2011
posted by blue_beetle at 1:30 PM on July 27, 2011
I do not want to answer that here. Suffice it to say that in my opinion they are separate.
Then you already know the answer to your question. Other Christians reject the fact of evolution for the same reason you reject the fact of evolution. You think there is a difference between human evolution and other types of evolution, but there isn't. So you already understand perfectly; both you and some other Christians reject those scientific facts which you believe contradict your faith.
Does that make sense?
posted by Justinian at 1:57 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
Then you already know the answer to your question. Other Christians reject the fact of evolution for the same reason you reject the fact of evolution. You think there is a difference between human evolution and other types of evolution, but there isn't. So you already understand perfectly; both you and some other Christians reject those scientific facts which you believe contradict your faith.
Does that make sense?
posted by Justinian at 1:57 PM on July 27, 2011 [6 favorites]
I find it hard to believe, myself, that there are any Christians that actually believe evolution does not exist, but I have had fundamentalist Christians explain it this way:
Since according to the Bible, when God created Man, "In His own image created He them," people were created as close to God as they could ever hope to be. There are, by definition, at the pinnacle of Creation, above the animals and the plants (dominion over all living things).
But once the serpent tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge after God told her and Adam to stay away, all bets were off. God punished humankind through banishment, they lost whatever claim to immortality they would have had if they'd stayed away from the Tree of Knowledge, and as a bonus Eve gets to bear children in pain and suffering.
So now, people are imperfect and sinners. But that's their own fault, and as a result of their own actions they can never regain that immortality and the perfection of the Garden. So, no Evolution for people. Because the God of the Old Testament is very strict, unlike his son Jesus, and doesn't give second chances.
*Of course, this could have all been avoided by just leaving the Tree of Knowledge out of the Garden altogether. But then people wouldn't have Free Will to choose whether or not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. But God is Omniscient and Omnipresent, so He knew what they would choose all along. So the Fall was predetermined and couldn't have been avoided anyway...but none of that matters for the purposes of answering this question.
posted by misha at 2:14 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Since according to the Bible, when God created Man, "In His own image created He them," people were created as close to God as they could ever hope to be. There are, by definition, at the pinnacle of Creation, above the animals and the plants (dominion over all living things).
But once the serpent tempted Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge after God told her and Adam to stay away, all bets were off. God punished humankind through banishment, they lost whatever claim to immortality they would have had if they'd stayed away from the Tree of Knowledge, and as a bonus Eve gets to bear children in pain and suffering.
So now, people are imperfect and sinners. But that's their own fault, and as a result of their own actions they can never regain that immortality and the perfection of the Garden. So, no Evolution for people. Because the God of the Old Testament is very strict, unlike his son Jesus, and doesn't give second chances.
*Of course, this could have all been avoided by just leaving the Tree of Knowledge out of the Garden altogether. But then people wouldn't have Free Will to choose whether or not to eat of the fruit of the Tree. But God is Omniscient and Omnipresent, so He knew what they would choose all along. So the Fall was predetermined and couldn't have been avoided anyway...but none of that matters for the purposes of answering this question.
posted by misha at 2:14 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I guess, following that line of reasoning, there is no reason that animals could not evolve (except the serpent), because they did nothing wrong--but I think they decided to submit to our dominion over them and so can't evolve past us for that reason. Maybe.
posted by misha at 2:16 PM on July 27, 2011
posted by misha at 2:16 PM on July 27, 2011
Response by poster: Marking as resolved. Thanks to all - I can see it's not evolution per se, it's evolution as it affects the historicity of Adam and Eve.
posted by brownrd at 2:56 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by brownrd at 2:56 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
I find it hard to believe, myself, that there are any Christians that actually believe evolution does not exist
Believe it. Some live down the street from me. They won't even let their kids play Pokemon because it implies evolution.
For myself, I see absolutely zero conflict between the Bible and evolution, up to and including human evolution. The Genesis story is obviously allegorical, as there are two different versions of it right there next to each other and they can't both be true. And I personally take the "created in God's image" thing as referencing the soul rather than the body anyway. But for people who have a lot of capital invested in forcing inerrancy on the Bible, the fact that the process of evolution isn't documented in Genesis is troublesome, I guess.
posted by KathrynT at 3:06 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Believe it. Some live down the street from me. They won't even let their kids play Pokemon because it implies evolution.
For myself, I see absolutely zero conflict between the Bible and evolution, up to and including human evolution. The Genesis story is obviously allegorical, as there are two different versions of it right there next to each other and they can't both be true. And I personally take the "created in God's image" thing as referencing the soul rather than the body anyway. But for people who have a lot of capital invested in forcing inerrancy on the Bible, the fact that the process of evolution isn't documented in Genesis is troublesome, I guess.
posted by KathrynT at 3:06 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
The scriptures are actually wildly insconsistent in literal terms. The Bible is therefore incredibly fluid, relative to the socio-political context of the people through whom it's texts are being interpreted and propagated. Different orthodoxies cherry pick from the source to build meta-narratives to fit their needs.
This book may be useful, it's written from a neutral perspective and covers some of the reasons for the fundamentalist swing towards anti-evolution in the last century (and is also a cracking read in general).
posted by freya_lamb at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
This book may be useful, it's written from a neutral perspective and covers some of the reasons for the fundamentalist swing towards anti-evolution in the last century (and is also a cracking read in general).
posted by freya_lamb at 4:14 PM on July 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
The authoritative text on questions like this for evangelical Christians is The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
I'll give it my own stab from my evangelical upbringing:
1) THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT:
(a) Old Testament: The Bible is either infallible or it is not. Implicit in the Protestant doctrine of infallibility has been the doctrine of "perspicuity": the Bible is clear as written and does not require "interpretation" of any kind. "Interpretation" is generally a word used when what one truly means is "a sinful desire to justify what I believe apart from what scripture clearly teaches." The Bible says the earth was created in six days, and the animals were created "according to their kinds"--that is, wholly in their current form. Adam walked with God in the Garden and gave all creatures names. The days cannot be "ages" or "like a thousand years to God" because plants were created before the sun and would have withered without photosynthesis. Death and carnivorousness did not enter the world until Adam disobeyed God. Lions did not eat lambs until sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were formed as adults and not as infants, and so the world was formed as "an adult"--complete with fossils and rock layers that would have formed had the earth actually undergone an aging process.
(b) New Testament: Jesus quotes Genesis in Matthew 19. Jesus regards the Genesis account as literally true, Jesus is God, and the story is accurately recorded. Therefore the Genesis account must be literally true.
2) THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
(a) Complex: The Biblical salvation narrative is either a straightforward transaction or it is not. A person's Christian faith begins when that person accepts Jesus as his or her savior. Savior from what? The wages of sin, which is death. How does Jesus save us? Jesus is God's effort to restore a correct relationship between God and humanity. God is restoring the relationship because we ruined it. How did we ruin it? Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden by eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Isn't that just an allegory? No. St. Paul quotes the story and interprets Adam's sin to belong to humanity because all of humanity was in Adam's seed at the time of Adam's sin. St. Paul's word are inspired by God and therefore his interpretation of Genesis is the only valid interpretation. Therefore the Genesis account is true.
(b) Simple: Scientists are in rebellion to God, using their reason to justify their immorality. Any attempts to disprove the traditionally-accepted account must inherently be based on a sinful desire to dislodge God from His proper place in the universe. No arguments advanced by scientists that contradict faith need be so much as considered: the fact that they disagree with traditional faith alone shows they are rooted in sin and are therefore a false muddle of sinful confusion designed by Satan to steer you away from the clarity of God's revelation. It is the sinful nature within you that wishes to consider these arguments, and your salvation depends on repudiating whatever within you doubts God. As Oswald Chambers said, "If your mind finds something in scripture objectionable, it is your mind that is wrong. Scripture is always and everywhere God's perfect word to you."
3) THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT: The only "missing link" ever found was the archeopteryx, and there is debate as to whether the specimens found actually prove that a transition between reptiles and birds ever occurred. The fossil record does not record generations of gradual change but rather "punctuated equilibrium." Evolution cannot adequately explain the Cambrian explosion. Rock that is formed immediately after lava cools can be carbon-14 dated to suggest it is actually millions of years old. The fossil record is unreliable and cannot be used to substantiate evolution. Evolution appears to make sense because we can witness microevolution such as the selection of breeds in dogs. No one has ever witness macroevolution, such as the speciation of birds from reptiles.
3) THE "I'M A LAZY MORON" ARGUMENT: "I can't make sense of your argument about how it is I'm supposed to be a monkey, and I'd really rather be drinking a Venti Caramel Frappuccino and watching Real Housewives of Atlanta, so....GOD SAYS IT, THE BIBLE PROVES IT. I BELIEVE IT. THAT SETTLES IT."
posted by jefficator at 4:43 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
I'll give it my own stab from my evangelical upbringing:
1) THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT:
(a) Old Testament: The Bible is either infallible or it is not. Implicit in the Protestant doctrine of infallibility has been the doctrine of "perspicuity": the Bible is clear as written and does not require "interpretation" of any kind. "Interpretation" is generally a word used when what one truly means is "a sinful desire to justify what I believe apart from what scripture clearly teaches." The Bible says the earth was created in six days, and the animals were created "according to their kinds"--that is, wholly in their current form. Adam walked with God in the Garden and gave all creatures names. The days cannot be "ages" or "like a thousand years to God" because plants were created before the sun and would have withered without photosynthesis. Death and carnivorousness did not enter the world until Adam disobeyed God. Lions did not eat lambs until sin entered the world. Adam and Eve were formed as adults and not as infants, and so the world was formed as "an adult"--complete with fossils and rock layers that would have formed had the earth actually undergone an aging process.
(b) New Testament: Jesus quotes Genesis in Matthew 19. Jesus regards the Genesis account as literally true, Jesus is God, and the story is accurately recorded. Therefore the Genesis account must be literally true.
2) THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
(a) Complex: The Biblical salvation narrative is either a straightforward transaction or it is not. A person's Christian faith begins when that person accepts Jesus as his or her savior. Savior from what? The wages of sin, which is death. How does Jesus save us? Jesus is God's effort to restore a correct relationship between God and humanity. God is restoring the relationship because we ruined it. How did we ruin it? Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden by eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Isn't that just an allegory? No. St. Paul quotes the story and interprets Adam's sin to belong to humanity because all of humanity was in Adam's seed at the time of Adam's sin. St. Paul's word are inspired by God and therefore his interpretation of Genesis is the only valid interpretation. Therefore the Genesis account is true.
(b) Simple: Scientists are in rebellion to God, using their reason to justify their immorality. Any attempts to disprove the traditionally-accepted account must inherently be based on a sinful desire to dislodge God from His proper place in the universe. No arguments advanced by scientists that contradict faith need be so much as considered: the fact that they disagree with traditional faith alone shows they are rooted in sin and are therefore a false muddle of sinful confusion designed by Satan to steer you away from the clarity of God's revelation. It is the sinful nature within you that wishes to consider these arguments, and your salvation depends on repudiating whatever within you doubts God. As Oswald Chambers said, "If your mind finds something in scripture objectionable, it is your mind that is wrong. Scripture is always and everywhere God's perfect word to you."
3) THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT: The only "missing link" ever found was the archeopteryx, and there is debate as to whether the specimens found actually prove that a transition between reptiles and birds ever occurred. The fossil record does not record generations of gradual change but rather "punctuated equilibrium." Evolution cannot adequately explain the Cambrian explosion. Rock that is formed immediately after lava cools can be carbon-14 dated to suggest it is actually millions of years old. The fossil record is unreliable and cannot be used to substantiate evolution. Evolution appears to make sense because we can witness microevolution such as the selection of breeds in dogs. No one has ever witness macroevolution, such as the speciation of birds from reptiles.
3) THE "I'M A LAZY MORON" ARGUMENT: "I can't make sense of your argument about how it is I'm supposed to be a monkey, and I'd really rather be drinking a Venti Caramel Frappuccino and watching Real Housewives of Atlanta, so....GOD SAYS IT, THE BIBLE PROVES IT. I BELIEVE IT. THAT SETTLES IT."
posted by jefficator at 4:43 PM on July 27, 2011 [5 favorites]
This book is a good read and covers your question in a way you may find interesting.
posted by dpcoffin at 11:12 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dpcoffin at 11:12 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older Looking for a book about living your life by... | What's the best thing to say during teacher... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by brainmouse at 11:34 AM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]