What do Theists (including Christians) who believe in Evolution believe?

[Pamela H in Texas]

it has always been so and ever will be so.

 

Except that the scriptures very clearly say that it won't "ever be so." THANKFULLY. I cannot wait until people no longer get sick, die, hurt, mourn, worry, battle, etc. The Bible talks of people living here in an abundance of peace, exquisitely delightfully.

 

Not to mention, kinda odd that the Genesis account is brought up as fact in later parts of the Bible. It all "works" together when it's fact. It doesn't work correctly without it. This was one of the things I learned a decade ago that I couldn't believe I hadn't caught prior to that.

[dawn of ns]

Except that the scriptures very clearly say that it won't "ever be so." THANKFULLY. I cannot wait until people no longer get sick, die, hurt, mourn, worry, battle, etc. The Bible talks of people living here in an abundance of peace, exquisitely delightfully.

 

From my perspective, what the Bible mentions much later is different from what was intended or meant in the Ancient Hebrew stories of Genesis.

 

Not to mention, kinda odd that the Genesis account is brought up as fact in later parts of the Bible. It all "works" together when it's fact. It doesn't work correctly without it. This was one of the things I learned a decade ago that I couldn't believe I hadn't caught prior to that.

 

I think if you're approaching the Bible with certain expectations or viewpoints, you're right. From a different perspective the Bible can work perfectly well as a collection of myths, legends, letters, poems, etc. If you're curious about another view you could try EFM. It's a course on the Bible and Christianity from a liberal-moderate view of biblical scholarship. Sample lessons are here and the first 4 lessons in year one might give you an idea of a different perspective.

 

I don't mean to try and change your mind, just offer you some resources if you're curious about how different people might view the Bible. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

Is Evolution Compatible With the Bible?

Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?

What Does Design in Nature Reveal?

 

I haven't read these yet. I have no idea what they say, other than the idea that variety in animals could follow the same progression as variety in humans. My mom just called me about her tumor removal, so I am going to look into that. I wanted to share them and intend to add them to this list of articles to read. Thank you all for sharing your resources.

[squirtymomma]

humans die, men work, women labour in childbirth, humans sin - it has always been so and ever will be so.

 

Dawn - You're right that if there wasn't a literal Fall, then it never can get better than this. I'm with Pamela - that's horribly depressing.

 

You're convincing me of what I suspected... in order to accept evolution of species, you must either reject the Bible OR stray from the orothodox view of scripture.

 

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12)

 

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Rev 21:3-5)

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you, Katy! Aren't there more than the one about a literal fall from perfection?

[dawn of ns]

Dawn - You're right that if there wasn't a literal Fall, then it never can get better than this. I'm with Pamela - that's horribly depressing.

 

You're convincing me of what I suspected... in order to accept evolution of species, you must either reject the Bible OR stray from the orothodox view of scripture.

 

A literal view isn't an orthodox view in most of Christianity. Literalism, to the degree we have it today, is a fairly new outlook which evolved out of fundamentalism (itself only surfacing in the 1800's) and is fairly limited to certain Protestant churches. Regardless, I think you give too much weight to a couple of posts on a message board by a housewife if you're willing to let them convince you of this. Best to follow up with some further resources. I've provided a few links in past posts for anyone curious.

Edited February 6, 2009 by dawn of ns

[Lovedtodeath]

I had no idea that a belief in some forms of evolution would mean no belief in the origin of sin and suffering. I don't really see why it does.

[lionfamily1999]

I had no idea that a belief in some forms of evolution would mean no belief in the origin of sin and suffering. I don't really see why it does.

I've never understood why creationism and evolution are held to be mutually exclusive. Why couldn't God have created evolution? Why couldn't sin be the root of suffering, if one believes, also, that disease can evolve. Isn't the evolution of disease a sign of the state of the world?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I've never understood why creationism and evolution are held to be mutually exclusive. Why couldn't God have created evolution? Why couldn't sin be the root of suffering, if one believes, also, that disease can evolve. Isn't the evolution of disease a sign of the state of the world?

Yeah, makes sense. I believe the two or seven of each kind and then He directed the changes into variety. And diseases have definitely "evolved".

[FO4UR]

I think years from now we will all look back at this and have a chuckle:tongue_smilie:...at our misunderstandings of the world around us.

 

Science and understanding of our world changes with each new discovery. Faith is involved regardless of what a person believes about Creation - whether one believes in God Creator, or whatever else. None of us were there on the day that the Earth was formed - kwim.

 

I am a theological conservative - I don't believe every word in the Bible is meant to be literally interpreted - there is a lot of poetic language in the Bible. I do believe in a literal 6 day Creation. I also believe that Jonah was literally in the belly of a whale for 3 days.

 

God *could* have used evolution to create the world just as easliy as he *could* have Created the world in 6 literal days. I believe God's word over fallible human science.

[Alice]

 

You're convincing me of what I suspected... in order to accept evolution of species, you must either reject the Bible OR stray from the orothodox view of scripture.

 

 

I have a problem with this statement as someone who considers herself a Christian with orthodox views and who believes in evolution. I think there are a lot of us out there who hold these views and who don't "reject the Bible" and who believe in reading the Bible faithfully. From what I understand St. Augustine didn't believe in a literal 6-day creation. I'd say he's pretty "orthodox". I'm not Catholic but I understand that the Catholic church's official position is fairly close to theistic evolution. I'd say they are fairly "orthodox". I'm currently reading Tim Keller's new book. If you don't know him he's a prominent pastor in the PCA church (my own demonination and a fairly conservative Reformed demonimnation). He mentions that his own views fall close to Theistic Evolution.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone who believes in young-earth creationism to change their views. But I get tired of feeling like my views are dismissed as somehow not being Christian enough. And unfortunately, this happens the most in the homeschool world than anywhere else.

 

In my view, the only necessary criteria for being a Christian is to believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. Everything else is open to discussion. But it would be nice if the discussion didn't always seem to end up with someone saying that Christians who believe in evolution aren't quite Christian enough.

[squirtymomma]

A literal view isn't an orthodox view in most of Christianity. Literalism, to the degree we have it today, is a fairly new outlook which evolved out of fundamentalism (itself only surfacing in the 1800's) and is fairly limited to certain Protestant churches. Regardless, I think you give too much weight to a couple of posts on a message board by a housewife if you're willing to let them convince you of this. Best to follow up with some further resources. I've provided a few links in past posts for anyone curious.

 

Literal is a loaded word, but just a glimpse of the church creeds over the centuries can tell you that the orthodox church has believed that the stories of scripture are historical facts, not just mythological stories.

 

I am not a young earth creationist (necessarily). I do not think that you have to believe that God took 6 24 hour days to create the earth in order to take scripture seriously.

 

Please hear me. What got me on this track is the idea that theistic evolutionists believe that death and disease were around since life began (thus before the Fall). If there is some way to believe in evolution of species without this being the case, I'm anxious to hear about it. But the story of scripture is the story of God's redemption of mankind. If there wasn't a Fall, then there is no need (or even possibility) of redemption. The validity of the story of scripture, and even the need for Christ, are dependent on a literal Fall.

 

I'm still interested in an explanation for why death and disease had to have always been present since life began in order for evolution to be a valid explanation of the origin of species. Maybe it isn't. But someone, towards the beginning of this thread, listed the views of 4 major "camps" of theistic evolutionists and every one of them had this view. That is why it sparked my interest.

 

Alice - I am not at all saying that your view is not Christian enough. I'm trying to make sense of what I'm reading. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm only hoping that someone will explain:

 

1) Why a believe in the evolution of species requires a belief that death and disease were around since life began

 

2) If this really is the case, how a Christian can take scripture seriously while holding this view

[lionfamily1999]

I think those issues are a direct result of the need to compartmentalize people and beliefs. IOW, if you don't fit into a box, you don't need to cut off your legs and make yourself fit, make your own box. I am a 'believe that God created everything, including evolution. Believe that sin causes disease and the evolution of disease. Believe that Jesus taught in parables to make information more accessable to the masses, so God could teach in parables to make creation more understandable.' That's my box. You're more than welcome to join me.

[squirtymomma]

Believe that sin causes disease and the evolution of disease.

If sin caused disease, then disease was not present before the Fall (and thus has not been present since life began). Is that consistent with the evolutionary view? That's all I'm asking. I don't know the answer.

 

so God could teach in parables to make creation more understandable.'

But do you believe that God created man without sin and the consequences of sin? I don't care (at the moment) if that happened via evolution or not. My concern is that evolution be somehow compatible with the idea that man fell from his original state, and is therefore capable of being redeemed back to that state. If it's not compatible, then the Genesis account of creation is the least of my concerns. The entire story of scripture hinges on the idea that man fell.

 

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from my box. I don't even know what my box is!

 

But, I do believe that ideas have consequences, and that if you embrace an idea, you have to embrace the consequences of that idea as well. If we can't agree about that, then I guess we don't have enough common ground to even have this discussion.

 

Please please please understand me. I am not attacking, judging, labelling anyone. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just trying to clarify my question because I'd really like to know the answer.

Edited February 6, 2009 by squirtymomma
grammatical error

[Alice]

 

1) Why a believe in the evolution of species requires a belief that death and disease were around since life began

 

2) If this really is the case, how a Christian can take scripture seriously while holding this view

 

1) You can't have evolution over millions of years without death. The whole theory of evolution is that species change over time, some die and the ones that are best suited for survival survive. That's simplistic but I think an ok summary. Disease is a different thing. Not sure exactly what you mean by it. I don't know when "disease" began but it's not an important part of my faith.

 

2) I don't read Genesis the way you do. I don't think it's a myth. I think it's real. But I think that the first part of Genesis is a type of literature that is more poetic than scientific or factual. I read it as telling what happened (God made the universe) and who did it (God) but not as a how-to.

 

As far as the death issue I take it you are referring to this passage "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17) There is no passage that I am aware of that specifically says that there was no death and disease until the fall so I'm assuming that idea comes from this passage.

 

I believe Adam was a real person as was Eve. I don't know exactly how it happened but I believe God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden which was a real place.("The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." Genesis 2:15) I believe that man is created special in God's image. I believe the fall happened.

 

To my reading, the "you will surely die" is more of a statement that man will be separated from God after the fall than a statement that this was the first instance of death ever in the history of the universe. I believer that man was created to be in relationship with God through life and into eternity...but once the fall occurred we are separated from God because of sin. And once we die that separation is permanent unless we place our hope in Christ.

 

I don't see this as a less "literal" reading of verse. After all, Adam and Eve didn't immediately die after eating the fruit. The immediate consequence was separation from God and expulsion from the Garden. I believe that the other consequences of the fall are numerous, including much of the disease and sin that we live with today in our fallen world.

 

I'm not sure about the idea that all disease occurred because of sin. As I've said, I don't see that stated in Scripture although I've heard that view often in church. A passage that might suggest otherwise..."As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned.' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" Perhaps disease serves some purpose in this world that we can't understand and is not simply a consequence of the fall. I don't know the answer there.

 

As I pointed our earlier, I would also ask how Adam and Eve would even know what death is if there was no death. Clearly it was something they understood when told them as a consequence.

 

That's how I take Scripture seriously and hold the view of evolution.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Alice

[dawn of ns]

 

Please hear me. What got me on this track is the idea that theistic evolutionists believe that death and disease were around since life began (thus before the Fall).

 

I think you've heard a few theistic evolutionists espouse this view. It would be wrong to think this is some universal belief, assume all Christians who accept evolution think the same things on that matter.

[lionfamily1999]

If sin caused disease, then disease was not present before the Fall (and thus has not been present since life began). Is that consistent with the evolutionary view? That's all I'm asking. I don't know the answer.

 

But do you believe that God created man without sin and the consequences of sin? I don't care (at the moment) if that happened via evolution or not. My concern is that evolution be somehow compatible with the idea that man fell from his original state, and is therefore capable of being redeemed back to that state. If it's not compatible, then the Genesis account of creation is the least of my concerns. The entire story of scripture hinges on the idea that man fell.

 

I'm not trying to exclude anyone from my box. I don't even know what my box is!

 

But, I do believe that ideas have consequences, and that if you embrace an idea, you have to embrace the consequences of that idea as well. If we can't agree about that, then I guess we don't have enough common ground to even have this discussion.

 

Please please please understand me. I am not attacking, judging, labelling anyone. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm just trying to clarify my question because I'd really like to know the answer.

No need to worry, either I'm completely dense, or you're coming off curious and not snarky in the least!

 

How about this, instead of sin causing disease, sin caused disease to enter man. Is that easier? IOW, once man sinned he was cast out of the garden. He had to find his own food, make his own way. Life was not easy. He starts eating things that carry disease. Now, that disease could have been there from the beginning of time, but it was NOT in the garden. Now that man is out of the garden he is exposed to that disease. His sin, his fall, etc. has left him open to disease. As man moves further from God, he loses guidance and invites MORE disease, the diseases evolve, their effects become more brutal. Man's sin is making him more succeptable to disease and aiding in the evolution of disease.

 

I was not trying to imply that YOU were excluding anyone. My point was that, while categorizing things can make life easier, it also places limits on those people being pigeonholed. Don't let the categories dictate what you believe. You do not have to take the 'consequences' of someone else's ideas. You do not need to alter YOUR beliefs because someone else decided they needed to fit into a catergory. That's all. I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

[squirtymomma]

Thank you, Alice and Julie for explaining some alternate views. I have not done much research into this stuff at all, so your thoughts are helpful.

 

I've heard of this guy, but don't claim him as any sort of authority, nor do I necessarily agree with everything he says. I just did a Google search on "death disease theism evolution", and this is what popped up. Here are a couple of things he mentions that are concerns for me:

 

"Even more seriously, it (Theistic Evolution) attacks the very character of God, identifying His creative activity with the violent, painful, deadly, and purposeless course of evolution."

 

That's why I say I don't believe in evolution of species by natural selection. Natural selection is the real problem to me. It's difficult for me to reconcile that with what I know of God's character.

 

There's more in the article, particularly about the Fall and about redemption, but more than I'm going to copy and paste into this post. I do think scripture refers in other places (like Romans 5:12) to death being the result of Adam and Eve's sin. It could, I guess, mean just spiritual death. But why, then, would Jesus come healing diseases and even raising some from the dead? That, to me, is Him beginning the work of restoring the creation back to it's original state, redeeming the effects of the Fall, and giving us a taste of what it will be like when God's kingdom comes in it's fullness (Rev 21:3-5).

 

Anyway, I need to do more research myself. I am interested to hear about Keller's position. I've been meaning to read "The Reason for God". Does he talk about his view of origins in it?

[lionfamily1999]

Does evolution of the species, natural selection HAVE to apply to man?

 

Although, I believe it does, if it makes you uncomfortable to believe it, then don't. IOW, when a child is born grossly malformed and dies, I see that as natural selection. If a person grows to adulthood and never 'mates' then their genes are gone, thank you natural selection. God gives us choices, those choices have consequences, one of the possible consequences could be the end of the family line iykwIm.

 

I'm not trying to argue, but I find this topic very interesting and I love discussing it.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

1

As I pointed our earlier, I would also ask how Adam and Eve would even know what death is if there was no death. Clearly it was something they understood when told them as a consequence.

 

That's how I take Scripture seriously and hold the view of evolution.

Is there something in the bible that implys that the wages of sin is death for every living thing, or does it imply that the wages of sin is death for the sinful humankind?

 

Is it possible that other things, things not capable of sinning, like plants, bacterium, one-celled organisms, animals, birds, snakes, fungi, had a life cycle, including death and birth? And perhaps the bible's Adam & Eve were aware of this life cycle? Think about it, did the trees just have fruit on them all the time, or did the tree blossom, produce fruit with seeds? Did that fruit fall from the tree and rot, allowing a new seed to germinate and a seedling to spring up? Or was the garden of eden some magical place where fruit was always on the tree at the perfect stage of ripeness? With so many ripe fruits and vegetables that for however long Adam & Eve lived there they could never deplete the supply, so a life cycle of plants was not necessary until this one man and woman sinned?

[lionfamily1999]

Is there something in the bible that implys that the wages of sin is death for every living thing, or does it imply that the wages of sin is death for the sinful humankind?

 

Is it possible that other things, things not capable of sinning, like plants, bacterium, one-celled organisms, animals, birds, snakes, fungi, had a life cycle, including death and birth? And perhaps the bible's Adam & Eve were aware of this life cycle? Think about it, did the trees just have fruit on them all the time, or did the tree blossom, produce fruit with seeds? Did that fruit fall from the tree and rot, allowing a new seed to germinate and a seedling to spring up? Or was the garden of eden some magical place where fruit was always on the tree at the perfect stage of ripeness? With so many ripe fruits and vegetables that for however long Adam & Eve lived there they could never deplete the supply, so a life cycle of plants was not necessary until this one man and woman sinned?

Excellent point!

 

Also, aren't our kids aware of things, concepts, that they don't really understand. Isn't it possible that they did not understand death, but knew it must be really bad?

[Lovedtodeath]

Is there something in the bible that implys that the wages of sin is death for every living thing, or does it imply that the wages of sin is death for the sinful humankind?

 

Is it possible that other things, things not capable of sinning, like plants, bacterium, one-celled organisms, animals, birds, snakes, fungi, had a life cycle, including death and birth? And perhaps the bible's Adam & Eve were aware of this life cycle?

Good questions leading to a logical explanation.