Evolution in a Theological context

PSacramento

In “Human Evolution in Theological Context”, physicist, theologian, and minister George Murphy offers a theological look at human evolution and the implications it has for Christianity.

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/murphy_scholarly_essay.pdf

leavingwt

Related. . .

". . .modern science has shown that the traditional understanding of original sin is entirely false."

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/12/evolution_and_original_sin.php

leavingwt

From the PDF file:

How are we to deal with these challenges as Christians? An adequate response requires honest
study of scripture and willingness to rethink in a respectful way some of the interpretations of it that
Christians through the centuries have worked out. It also demands that we take the results of scientific
investigation seriously (always remembering their tentative character), for if God is the creator of the real
world, we need to know what the real world is like. We should then try to understand scientific results in
the light of the scriptural witness—the whole of scripture, and not just isolated texts.

Sounds like progress, an unwillingness to reject science, simply because "the Bible says so".

PSacramento

Nice find, it would have been nice to see his view in regards to other views of sin and original sin though, but he was addressing one person/article in specific so...

Here he does raise an interesting point:

As we have seen, there is no basis in scripture for thinking that Adam was meant metaphorically. It is sometimes argued that since “Adam” was not a proper name at the time Genesis was written, but instead is just the Hebrew word for “man”, we are justified in treating Adam metaphorically. That this is specious becomes clear when you consider everything that Adam does. In Chapter Two the specifics of his creation and that of Eve are used to explain the origins of marriage. In Chapter Three, specific actions he takes result in the curse on creation. In Chapter Five we are given a meticulous list of descendants linking him to Noah. It seems a bit odd to think that a metaphorical man could leave literal descendants. And in the New Testament he is discussed in terms that make him sound as real as Jesus. Metaphorizing Adam is easier said than done.

PSacramento

Sounds like progress, an unwillingness to reject science, simply because "the Bible says so".

I don't think that it is science proper that even the most fundamentalist of fundies have issues with, it is scientists, LOL !

While some do tend to view anything that MAY put a strain on their literal interpreatation of the bible ( notice I say THEIR), the vast majority are open to scientific FACT ( not hypothosis, though sometimes those are very cool too) and try their best to reconcile the bible to what has been rpoven to be so.

Notice that no one has issues with the water cycle, gravity, thermodnamics and the laws of physics in general.

leavingwt

PSac: Please recall my earlier thread. 40% of Americans are strict Creationists. Perhaps these folks do have an issue with (some) science proper. We're talking about more than 100 million people.

For thousands of years, outside (secular) forces have been forcing the church to change/adjust.

PSacramento

PSac: Please recall my earlier thread. 40% of Americans are strict Creationists. Perhaps these folks do have an issue with (some) science proper. We're talking about more than 100 million people.

Someone should ask them why they believe what they believe.

For thousands of years, outside (secular) forces have been forcing the church to change/adjust.

Not sure about that...I mean...oustide and secular ( non-religious) are not the same thing and many of the changes in church doctrine came about by research done by religious people funded by the church.

Evolution in of itself was never a threat to church doctrine per say though I am sure many see it that way.

The fact that things evolve is actually accepted by the majority of believers, I don't think you will find anyone that argues that a virus for example can evolve.

I think the issue is when evolution tries to threaten or is viewed as threatening the place of God or the place of man in God's "plan".

I also think that many people don't realize that evolution doesn't cancel out God's role in creation, merely "gives more information about th eprocess he used".

wobble

Dear P.Sac,

I love your posts, and your evident faith, may it give you peace, well being and fulfilment,.

But, you have to realise that there are many of us who simply cannot believe in the existence of God, because of the lack of any evidence for His existence, so your, and your fellow theists, retreat in the face of scientific discovery looks like a rear-guard action to defend the indefensible.

PSacramento

love your posts, and your evident faith, may it give you peace, well being and fulfilment,.

Thank you, from the heart:)

But, you have to realise that there are many of us who simply cannot believe in the existence of God, because of the lack of any evidence for His existence, so your, and your fellow theists, retreat in the face of scientific discovery looks like a rear-guard action to defend the indefensible.

I totally understand that.

You will notice that I never try to prove God exists and the reason is because no proof can ever show it or be enough.

Allow me to play the atheist:

Since I don't accept personal revelation as proof I come to this because, see, that's what it does boil down to - "personal revelation" - as such, there is no "proof" of "god" possible, because atheism fundamentally is proscriptive of the possibility of "god", so there is no possibility of "proof" - because, for myself at least, I believe that as the concept of "god" was created by man (for a variety of reasons), there is no possible way of proving the existence of that which never existed in the first place!

so that's why if someone argues "god's" existence, I never ask them for "proof", because I know that there never could be any forthcoming!

this was always the problem with "agnosticism" - one holds out for the possibility of "god", so then one gets into the whole burden of proof thing; atheism goes beyond that - no god, no possibility of proof; end of story;

leavingwt

because atheism fundamentally is proscriptive of the possibility of "god", so there is no possibility of "proof" - because, for myself at least, I believe that as the concept of "god" was created by man (for a variety of reasons), there is no possible way of proving the existence of that which never existed in the first place!

This is certainly not my position and it's probably rare to find an atheist who has excluded the possiblity of "God".

I'm open to the possibility of God, in the same way that I'm open to the possibility of Time Travel. I haven't yet seen anything that leads me to believe it exists.

PSac, you've already excluded the existence of God, as defined by a Young Earth Creationist. So, you do understand how one might go about excluding certain definitions of God.

Evolution in a Theological context

Share this