Are you a Christian Who Accepts Evolution? (page 5)

jp1692

Londo: The thought that all land animals evolved in just 7000 years is just utterly ridiculous.

Yes, with the majority of that evolution happening in the 4,000 years after the Noachian Flood.

Ruby456

cofty4 days ago4 days ago
If you identify as a Christian but you have accepted that the diversity of life - including humans - resulted from a process of biological evolution could you add your name please?Just to be clear I am referring to the fact that our physical lineage could literally be traced back all the way to non-human species.
There is a tendency to conflate evolution with atheism. It would be good to show that this is not the case
If you like maybe you could comment on why you see not conflict between evolution and your Christian faith.

my reply to cofty's post

atheism has a long history and in the past it was associated with the idea of there being only one GOD and one that was mostly unknowable. Only a select few could obtain glimpses of his glory as his ways were much higher. I do wonder if some types of atheism are repeating this idea and that this is what puts off ordinary people.

another thing that bothers people is that values can become relativised so an anything goes philosophy comes to exist. This is a real fear that people have regarding evolution and atheism.

also there is the problem that atheists can give the impression (often unintentionally) that they are acting for the good of all, and as they are, people should not interfere to object. This comes from Kant via Luther. Kant makes it more secular and secularism seems to have taken this to heart - that their way is the only way and everyone else must keep their objections to themselves.

I think there are quite a few hurdles that are associated with evolution and its being taken over radical atheists.

For myself I am not relativist as I do think there are universal things that are good for all people but I disagree with Kant that my agency if it is in line with the universal must determine what others should adhere too and that therefore they must not object to the universal goods that I am proclaiming.

cofty

Ruby - Evolution is a fact. It has nothing at all to do with atheism. This thread is testimony that it is compatible with religious faith.

Personally I think evolution raises some difficult challenges for christians but the majority of believers manage to accommodate it.

I think there are quite a few hurdles that are associated with evolution and its being taken over radical atheists.

The fact of evolution cannot be taken over by anybody. That is it the beauty of science. It is true whether you accept it or not. It does not require your consent.

Ruby456

I agree that evolution is fact - the problem lies is discerning what those facts are and scientists disagree vociferously about this. Nick Lane, Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett tell us about some of the disagreements.

objections raised by Jehovahs witnesses regarding disagreements and disunity amongst scientists needn't mean that we ought to present evolution as a unified thing. Disunity and divided opinions are a mark of western culture and this needs celebrating. ongoing research and humility at our lack of knowledge are priorities in good science and this shouldn't be concealed under a veneer of unity.

cofty

The problem lies is discerning what those facts are and scientists disagree vociferously about this.

Can you think of a few specific examples?

cobweb

Ruby456 I do appreciate you thoughts on this issue. The way people are able to allign Christian belief with evolution interests me and I apologise for my tone earlier in the thread. You are the only person on this thread who seems to meet the qualifications of the topic.

cofty

Cobweb if you have a look on YouTube for Francis Collins you will find some info on how he reconciles his faith with evolution. He wrote a book called "Finding Darwin's God".

jp1692

Ruby456: evolution and its being taken over radical atheists.

WTF?!? That's like saying: "Radical buddhists are taking over photosynthesis."

cofty

I think some of the confusion originates from the fact that scientists like Dawkins and PZ Myers write about both evolution and atheism.

It confuses some people who end up conflating the two topics. Atheism requires evolution - if the diversity of life cannot be accounted for by naturalistic explanations there must be a designer - but theism does not require creationism. Theistic Evolution is an intellectually respectable position.

The vast majority of the thousands of scientists working in fields related to evolution never comment on faith. Dawkins gets into it because of the dishonesty of creationists who lie to children.

jp1692

Also, the fact that some scientists disagree with details about how evolution may have occurred in no way means they are in disagreement about whether or not it did occur.

This can be a difficult concept for ex-cult members to wrap their head around as they are used to black-and-white, all-or-nothing answers handed down with absolute, unquestioned certainty and the kind of unity which exists only in cults. For example, JWs all "believe" that "the generation" Jesus spoke about is actually an "overlapping generation." There is no room for disagreement or questioning. To do so is to show disunity and apostatize. For true believers, any signs of disagreement are indicative of not having "the truth." So when they see, or hear, rumors that scientists are not in absolute agreement about how things work or how evolution happened, they mistakenly jump to the illogical conclusion that it didn't happen.

This of course is NOT how science works. Disagreements and discourse are signs of a healthy way of moving forward in our understanding of how things are and how they work.

Blind, unquestioning "unity" is evidence you're in a cult.

For anyone wanting to get a better idea of how science really works, I suggest you read Thomas Kuhn's landmark work: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

It's fairly accessible even for non-scientists as he examines how science has progressed over the centuries, abandoning incorrect understandings of our world and replacing them with better explanations. (One example is how Copernicus and later Galileo used then well known astronomical evidence to replace the problematic Ptolemaic geocentric explanation of "the universe" with a more accurate heliocentric model of our solar system).

One of my favorite parts of the book is when Kuhn examines the difficulty scientists can face when they have undeniable evidence that their current working model/explanation for a particular phenomenon has flaws, but they don't have a better hypothesis to replace it. The social dynamics of a scientific community can have striking similarities to a religious one when reality clashes with beliefs. The difference is that in a scientific community: questions are welcome, differing ideas and explanations are encouraged and progress is made by crafting explanations that fit the evidence and facts.

We all know (too well) what cults do in comparison: continue to try to force "the facts" to fit existing beliefs.

Are you a Christian Who Accepts Evolution?

Share this