Are you a Christian Who Accepts Evolution?
jp169216 hours ago16 hours ago16 hours agoWTF?!? That's like saying: "Radical buddhists are taking over photosynthesis."
Ruby456: evolution and its being taken over radical atheists.
yes exactly as this is a very marked feature of popular radical atheistic discourse. on the plus side it is interesting to see how people make science their own. this latter I have no probs with but it is still important to ask now and then about what exactly is being argued by experts who have entered the public arena. I think they could do with brushing up on their humanities subjects and the human sciences for a little reflexivity.
Some specific examples would be useful Ruby
cofty I have already provided a useful link and specific examples. btw your threads that I have read are excellent but the fact that you cannot go further in genetics than indicating links between all life on earth shows the gap in knowledge and evidence from genetics regarding what makes humans so different from other creatures and indeed the gap in knowledge regarding the degrees of difference between species. I await what evidence from evo devo shows.
Intellectually speaking, I wouldn't see a fundamental problem in accepting theistic evolution, although the fundamental question of the origin of life would still remain unanswered - and without that one answered, the debate on the relevance of a creator deity would forever remain open.
What I cannot reconcile (hence my agnosticism) is the compatibility of an all-powerful and all-loving deity with the existence and persistence of evil.
EdenOne the issue as I see it is are we talking about evils that affect humans and what they value or evils that are relevant to everything. This criticism can be leveled by theists against naturalism. So it is a question of what sort of naturalism do we own for ourselves and are there even different sorts of naturalism?
Ruby - I really can't grasp your point at all. You seem to go off on tangents.
The simple point of the thread is that evolution is not necessarily in conflict with christian faith - only with a specific kind of christianity.
On this forum we constantly see posters conflating evolution with atheism. This is an error that is worth pointing out.
Ex-JWs have difficulty grasping how evolution and faith can be resolved because they have a peculiar view of the ransom that depends on a literal Adam. This is not an issue for most christians who believe Jesus' death was a vicarious punishment for their own sins not those of Adam.
apologies cofty. what I am trying to say is that the conflating doesn't only come from posters here as atheist discourse developed by some experts in science conflates the two all the time. great that you have spotted this and are addressing the issue for the benefit of posters here and I agree that this does need explanation and exploration.
anything that you don't understand please ask as I would like to be direct in my replies and not appear to go off on a tangent or appear to be confused.
cofty - Ex-JWs have difficulty grasping how evolution and faith can be resolved because they have a peculiar view of the ransom that depends on a literal Adam. This is not an issue for most christians who believe Jesus' death was a vicarious punishment for their own sins not those of Adam.
Yeah, that's a misunderstanding I had until last week. It was quite an interesting revelation because I was utterly convinced that the original sin was a central doctrine in most forms of Christianity.
I identify with Christianity. With that being said, I believe each species reproduces according to its kind. That's not me being a fundie. I have never seen a cat give birth to a dog or a monkey to a human.
I'm agreeable with macro evolution to an extent. But for their to be subtle changes over millions of years would require some 'intelligence' on the part of an organism. You don't just grow a pair of eyes because you crawled out of a cave. Macro evolution allows for variation, even hybrids - but hybrids don't reproduce so any interspecies births die at that generation.
Now onto another subject and you can chuckle if you will.
I believe man was already on this planet but as a Neanderthal. Modern humans are not designed to survive this planet's harsh conditions without shelter and clothes. Prehistoric man had more hair to protect the skin from cold weather.
I've done a lot of research and it's theory that I state. I feel that off-worlders came to this planet, saw prehistoric humans and that is when they said 'let us make man in our image and our likeness.' Prehistoric man's genetic DNA was altered to reflect the 'image and likeness' of those planetary masters.
Yes, I've been reading the works of Zechariah Sitchin.
It's possible that the story of Adam and Eve (being the first modern humans) could have a grain of truth to it. I'm not talking about the snake in the garden but the start of modern humans. And Cain married one of the prehistoric females instead of his sister. And there were enough people on the Earth (Neanderthals and a handful of modern humans) for Cain to build a city.
Truthseeker: It is possible that if this were the case, the story of Adam and Eve (being the first modern humans) could have a grain of truth to it.
But there was no "first human." This common belief shows a lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works in creating changes in biological organisms over time.
You, as a seeker of truth, may find this short PBS video informative and thought-provoking: