Are evolution and the Bible mutually exclusive?

[stevemckay]

First a background on me. I was raised as a “Christian” (meaning my folks said they believed in God/Jesus but we NEVER went to church) then I embraced the faith wholeheartedly in my late teens (I became a bible thumper). However I have always believed in the scientific explanation of how the universe was formed and how evolution was the driving force behind mankind’s current form. About 11 years ago I was told by an elder that I could not believe in evolution and God and I was asked to either stop talking about evolution in our Bible studies about Genesis or leave the church. That started a faith crisis that took me down a path to becoming an atheist for about 10 years up to my current agnostic state.

Now my question: Can you really believe in evolution AND the God that is represented in the bible?

I think you can. For example:

Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground…

Gen 8:20 Then Noah made an altar to the Lord….

No one, I assume, believes Noah magically created an altar but, rather, had to gather stone, pile them up, etc... He had to build it in stages. The Bible does not specifically mention those steps but we should assume they were there.

So why do many Judeo-Christians assume the creation of man happened in one step and not in stages from basic organic molecules all the way up to a modern human? From what I understand the word used in the original Hebrew for “Day” actually means “an indeterminate period of time” so saying he had to do it in one 24 hour day does not fly.

[HelioPrime]

I think you'd have the clarify the title to evolution and strict biblical interpretation. A number of people already believe in both and doubt the creation story as told.

Since the writers of the bible were not clearly alive during any creation point, and lacked any scientific knowledge, they wrote their inspirational works as best they could, probably taking bits and pieces of older myths to fill in the blanks they couldn't comprehend.

[Anmon]

This is how I see it too, but explaining stuff scientifically was beyond most peoples comprehension then so storys were used instead.
For instance, Gen 2.7 could be interpreted for extremely small- 'dust' like molecules DNA, and we are know that human beings broken down to the solids are actually just a lot of minerals including iron, just like dust which is from the earth.

[Hurt]

Of course you can believe in both. It's just as helio has said. I just find it weird that you can do such a thing - pick and choose what's literal and what's not. Many people don't just skimp on certain bits.. they seriously pick and choose. This just happens to be one of them.

[rez]

Quote by: stevemckay Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground…

But thats not how man was made. No dust from the ground.

So why do many Judeo-Christians assume the creation of man happened in one step and not in stages from basic organic molecules all the way up to a modern human? From what I understand the word used in the original Hebrew for “Day” actually means “an indeterminate period of time” so saying he had to do it in one 24 hour day does not fly.

Religion uses supernatural methods to explain reality and Science uses natural methods to explain reality. That is a fact that you are going to have to live with. God using dust from the ground to create man is supernatural. We know that in nature, simple, small changes occur to create larger more complicated outcomes.

When you go and venture off to explain the Bible with natural explanations you only exchange the power of some conscious being into the hands of some unknowning, unconscious, random occurrence we call "nature". All this stuff that was explained through the power of god, can now be explained through the power of randomness and chaos. You can't worship that, you can't get people to pay money to worship that, you can't give humans power because of that. You render religion useless when you find out that reality works on its own by itself, no matter how many bad deeds you partake in or no matter how many times you hand in your church money.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez When you go and venture off to explain the Bible with natural explanations you only exchange the power of some conscious being into the hands of some unknowning, unconscious, random occurrence we call "nature". All this stuff that was explained through the power of god, can now be explained through the power of randomness and chaos. You can't worship that, you can't get people to pay money to worship that, you can't give humans power because of that. You render religion useless when you find out that reality works on its own by itself, no matter how many bad deeds you partake in or no matter how many times you hand in your church money.

On the other hand you can explain just how wonderful creation really is.

Before we assumed it just sprang into being. Now we know it came along a carefully crafted trail of design and intent.

It adds to the wonder of life, as something no impossible amounts of random chances could lead it.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime On the other hand you can explain just how wonderful creation really is.

on the other hand of what? Religion? Religion can explain how wonderful creation really is?

Before we assumed it just sprang into being. Now we know it came along a carefully crafted trail of design and intent.

Carefully crafted trail of design and intent implies there is a designer. In order to know something is designed you need the blueprints as well as the information about the designer. So far we know that order does not need order, we know that randomness can create order.

It adds to the wonder of life, as something no impossible amounts of random chances could lead it.

And yet you forget that you are a bunch of h2o, being contained in a 3 foot ditch. ALthough you think the ditch was perfectly made for you, you forget to realize you, the h2o, simply just fits itself into whatever ditch it randomly falls into.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez on the other hand of what? Religion? Religion can explain how wonderful creation really is?

Aw your a worse literalist than the creationist you hate

I was pretty clearly playing with words there. I'm talking about feelings and expressions. Finding wonder in the world around you has no literal meaning as you should clearly know, its just a term used to describe a feeling.

Sorry if I fail at being 100% objective all the time. Such a failure!

Carefully crafted trail of design and intent implies there is a designer. In order to know something is designed you need the blueprints as well as the information about the designer. So far we know that order does not need order, we know that randomness can create order.

Since I failed being objective earlier oh rly?

Can you prove absolute randomness? Or rather it might be what seems like randomness to your tuned mind. I mean how do we with complete certainty prove something was random. I guess it can only happen in the mind if those who only believe what they can see with a magnifying glass.

You don't have direct proof life is random, because you can't say randomness isn't planned supernatural design which would make it planned and thus not randomness.

And yet you forget that you are a bunch of h2o, being contained in a 3 foot ditch. ALthough you think the ditch was perfectly made for you, you forget to realize you, the h2o, simply just fits itself into whatever ditch it randomly falls into.

Such a negative view!

See! Now your playing with words. I'm seeing it half full, you half empty!

I see the wonder in design in human even allowing for mistakes and the knowledge to increase ourselves, you just see a long process of trial and error and a massive luck in fate that allows you a brief time before your worm food.

Don't be such a negative nancy

[Halofan48]

The burden of proof lies on those who say it didn't happen by chance. It's as if i said that there are invisible flying elves all over the world. It wouldn't be on you to prove they didn't exist. It would be on me to prove they did exist. understand?

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Don't be such a negative nancy

This is definitely one of the many reasons for agnostic vs atheist disagreement.


central limit theorem
Bell's theorem

to name a few, as for the reasons to my conclusions.

But, no I am not a negative nancy, I just like to interpret reality and learn the way it works, not how it doesnt work. I understand the difference between my hopes and wishes and the way reality operates. There is a difference between actually going out in the field and philosophizing about reality and sitting in your chair making shit up.

http://www.72andsunny.com/rostrum/_v...169d657494.mov

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Hurt Of course you can believe in both. It's just as helio has said. I just find it weird that you can do such a thing - pick and choose what's literal and what's not. Many people don't just skimp on certain bits.. they seriously pick and choose. This just happens to be one of them.

There is a somewhat accurate way to pick and choose, Genesis probably wasn't ever intended to ever be taken as much more than a possible explanation whose higher purpose was to express religious truth (man created in god's image, man and woman given dominion over the earth, etc.)

Exodus is relatively clearly intended to be taken as at least a partially historical text, giving the story of a people who follows their god to a land promised to them.

[HelioPrime]

ops...

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Halofan48 The burden of proof lies on those who say it didn't happen by chance. It's as if i said that there are invisible flying elves all over the world. It wouldn't be on you to prove they didn't exist. It would be on me to prove they did exist. understand?

Really? because you say so?

I asked Rez. How about you, can you really prove something happened by random chance?

To prove something give the implication you have definite proof, which there exists none. There is no proof it was guided by an alien race with nano technology made of proteins that broke down naturally after they finished guiding construction to a point. So based on lack of evidence your assuming you have proof, when all you really have is no objective evidence to counter a claim that itself has no real evidence.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez This is definitely one of the many reasons for agnostic vs atheist disagreement. central limit theorem Bell's theorem to name a few, as for the reasons to my conclusions. But, no I am not a negative nancy, I just like to interpret reality and learn the way it works, not how it doesnt work. I understand the difference between my hopes and wishes and the way reality operates. There is a difference between actually going out in the field and philosophizing about reality and sitting in your chair making shit up. http://www.72andsunny.com/rostrum/_v...169d657494.mov

lol so you have a sense of humor after all.

I had to wiki Bell's Theorem. Honestly I don't understand any of it or see how it relates. How does it prove life evolved by random chance? Or is it just proving molecules can move randomly on their own?

And if thats the case how do you know those molecules weren't designed to do that by a creator

[stevemckay]

Quote by: rez All this stuff that was explained through the power of god, can now be explained through the power of randomness and chaos. You can't worship that, you can't get people to pay money to worship that, you can't give humans power because of that. You render religion useless when you find out that reality works on its own by itself, no matter how many bad deeds you partake in or no matter how many times you hand in your church money.

Is that why religion exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me religion exists to give hope. False hope maybe but hope nonetheless. Hope that there is a reason to things. Hope that deceased loved ones live on. Hope that we will live on, Hope that the universe is not some thoughtless reality. To be sure people in power or people who want to have power will exploit that hope… but that is true with many systems that appeal to the masses such as Communism or Nazism.

You’re assuming that if the universe is random and chaotic that one can’t still worship, or appeal to, the perceived author of the laws that led to that random chaos. I do agree that coming to the conclusion that God is not completely controlling every aspect of the universe and our lives makes “giving humans power” through religion harder… but not impossible. Scientology is a great example of that.

[Clarence]

bomb there at the end though I have no knowledge of Scientology. The op is right where I am, though.

It seems to me religion exists to give hope. False hope maybe but hope nonetheless. Hope that there is a reason to things

.


and Helio too on this quote

A number of people already believe in both and doubt the creation story as told.

so true. yet why does it seem to have to be one way or the other at the church?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: stevemckay Now my question: Can you really believe in evolution AND the God that is represented in the bible?

Nope. Not without sacrificing any and all intellectual honesty.

I think you can. For example: Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground… Gen 8:20 Then Noah made an altar to the Lord…. No one, I assume, believes Noah magically created an altar but, rather, had to gather stone, pile them up, etc... He had to build it in stages. The Bible does not specifically mention those steps but we should assume they were there.

I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my mustache that no one has pointed out the fact that the bible was written by human beings who were absolutely clueless about the natural world. It's disingenuous to believe that were implying evolution in the chapters of genesis the way they were implying ship building in the fairy tale of the flood.

Furthermore, this line of reasoning falls apart when we look at how most Christians treat the rest of the bible because you're establishing a dangerously honest precedent. What you're effectively saying is "a passage in the bible that science has determined to be impossible is likely figurative and doesn't literally mean what it says." However, you still need many critical bits of the bible to be literal for Christianity to work. If you have a figurative fall of man then why do you need a literal savior to sacrifice himself. For that matter, how can you claim that Jesus came back from the dead? Isn't coming back from the dead every bit as impossible as the Earth forming in a day or Noah building an entire ark with his bare hands?

You're better off embracing intellectual honesty and discarding the whole mess.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: stevemckay Is that why religion exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me religion exists to give hope.

lol

Is that why Islam exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me Islam exists to give hope.

LOL

Is that why Scientology exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me Scientology exists to give hope.

ROFLMAO!!!!

Wow... thanks. I needed that.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Clarence so true. yet why does it seem to have to be one way or the other at the church?

Depends on the church I guess.

My grade school and above were all spent in catholic schools yet we were taught evolution. I guess the difference is we were taught its as just another subject matter, not focused on it or highlighting it compared to the creation biblical story.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: anmon This is how I see it too, but explaining stuff scientifically was beyond most peoples comprehension then so storys were used instead. For instance, Gen 2.7 could be interpreted for extremely small- 'dust' like molecules DNA, and we are know that human beings broken down to the solids are actually just a lot of minerals including iron, just like dust which is from the earth.

gee, I actually (somewhat) agree with you for a change.

Quote by: rez Aw your a worse literalist than the creationist you hate

I find that isn't uncommon for Atheists who really don't like Christians to try and tell them to be the Christians that are easy to dislike.

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. Not without sacrificing any and all intellectual honesty.

For you, believing in God by itself sacrifices any and all intellectual honesty.

Quote by: Zhavric Furthermore, this line of reasoning falls apart when we look at how most Christians treat the rest of the bible because you're establishing a dangerously honest precedent. What you're effectively saying is "a passage in the bible that science has determined to be impossible is likely figurative and doesn't literally mean what it says." However, you still need many critical bits of the bible to be literal for Christianity to work. If you have a figurative fall of man then why do you need a literal savior to sacrifice himself. For that matter, how can you claim that Jesus came back from the dead? Isn't coming back from the dead every bit as impossible as the Earth forming in a day or Noah building an entire ark with his bare hands?

This isn't really the purpose of the thread.

Quote by: Zhavric Is that why Islam exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me Islam exists to give hope.

Extreme Atheists and Extreme Christians share an alarming number of view points.

Islam was based off of the the teachings of Mohammad (mostly), and you tell me what his goal was. I think it may have been hope.

Is that why Scientology exits? To control? To have power over the masses? It seems to me Scientology exists to give hope.

Scientology isn't a religion by itself Zhavric.

ROFLMAO!!!!

no offense, but aside from being obnoxious, that is just lame.