Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[Whateverist]

This is an example of mature Christian thought I'm always extolling but only rarely encountering anywhere. So Frodo, I think, is already on board. Chad I guess might be too.

Sorry about being late to the party and skimming to the end of the thread...we're buying a new house and that's been the priority. Reality trumps philosophy in more ways than one.

Evolution itself presents little difficulty to me since my focus has always been on the allegorical and symbolic content of God's Word. Creation "science" is certainly not an essential teaching of the Christian faith. Nevertheless I believe Christian faith does entail at least two concepts :

1. God is the Creator. Whatever was created has come into existence through God's action regardless of the means by which He created.

2. The products of evolution come from Providence and not purely by chance, i.e. there must be teleological or final goals in evolution.

While the scientific method intentionally excludes teleology, that has no real bearing on whether final ends are actually present or not.

Belief in teleology is not entirely unjustified. Similar geographically isolated environmental niches have produced remarkably similar morphology in species of different ancestry. While chance could account for this result (1000 heads in a row is theoretically possible) it seems reasonable that final ends may be intrinsic to evolution. As I recall hard science fiction writer Greg Bear extrapolated his ideas for "Darwin's Radio" from research into that possibility.

Interesting. Teleology may just be the tipping point between coming down atheist or theist. There is probably no way to prove that change has been purposeful but likewise no way to rule it out. In actually doing science it would be necessary not to assume it, but that doesn't mean science would have you deny it. It would be a gross mistake to think science shows there is no teleology at work on a grand scale.

On the issue of teleology, I would have to say I'm on the balance point. Absolutely agnostic. I still wonder some time. But even when I wonder, I can't imagine any action I would take or should avoid on account of the possibility of the cosmos' intentions. What I never imagine is that galactic intentionality would look anything like ape intention. To me it is deeply mysterious and beyond my powers to speculate. This leads me to dismiss facile explanations such as religion provides as snake oil.

[Bad Writer]

There is no such thing as teleology in nature. One would argue that it is absent in human achievement as well, but I suppose it could exist on a personal level.

[Drich]

...and if it is a literal account? (Literal meaning someone doing there best to describe event for event what they saw.)

Well, so long as you think it is a literal account then you will miss the allegorical message. If in fact, every word in the bible was written by a person possessed by God himself who wrote with literal intent, it is surprising just how little specificity there is in the writing. It seems much more likely that a being capable of what you believe your God to be would find communication limited by the ability of his intended audience. Poetic allusion seems a likely recourse. If so, and you insist on reading it simply, you will miss the boat.

"...and if it is a literal account?" Then I fry in hell yada yada yada.

Maybe I should try asking a question, how about: Why can't creation be a literal account?

[Bad Writer]

Well, so long as you think it is a literal account then you will miss the allegorical message. If in fact, every word in the bible was written by a person possessed by God himself who wrote with literal intent, it is surprising just how little specificity there is in the writing. It seems much more likely that a being capable of what you believe your God to be would find communication limited by the ability of his intended audience. Poetic allusion seems a likely recourse. If so, and you insist on reading it simply, you will miss the boat.

"...and if it is a literal account?" Then I fry in hell yada yada yada.

Maybe I should try asking a question, how about: Why can't creation be a literal account?

I don't know. I keep an open mind, so maybe you should point us to an account that can't be proven false.

[Minimalist]

The Bible is not a science book, was never meant to be and it will never be one.

For once in your life you got something right, G-C.

The Bible is an account of God and what He has done in His infinite wisdom and power and how man fits in His divine plan.

Short-lived though it was.

[Mister Agenda]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-d...76345.html

I've learned not to trust any article that manipulates the facts for persuasive purposes.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth,

Some birds have teeth. Some birds have scales on their legs. Both fill vital roles now--unrelated to history.

whales to make legs,

Baleen whales have a hox gene that, when switched, can affect expression. But there have to be other genes to produce the legs once turned on by the hox gene. These genes do not exist.

and humans to make tails.

Human embryos have tails in certain stages of development to aid assembly of the vertebrae. Later in life, people have tailbones to support their spinal cord. Both are in full use today.
The question evolutionists should be asking is this: If evolution is happening today, why do DNA codes contain no new dormant genes from which to build future organs?

That still doesn't explain why toothless birds and legless whales and tailess humans have genes for traits they don't possess. Sometimes bird species that are normally toothless present individuals with teeth. Sometimes individual whales present vestigial legs. Sometimes people are born with tails (which are usually promptly lopped off). Evolution explains the phenomenon handily: they all had ancestors with those features and still carry genes for them that can be activated by a point mutation or by a 'hormonal event' during gestation. Genesis neither explains nor addresses it. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're trying to make the Bible into a biology textbook.

It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.

Most evolutionists believe humans arose from one biological ancestor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ev...cestor.htm

Yes...several million years ago, not several thousand.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.phpIf science is on his side, why not just be honest?

You've failed to establish that he was dishonest, you've only established that you dislike his position.

[Neo-Scholastic]

There is no such thing as teleology in nature.

Your statement cannot be falsified. That makes it an unscientific observation. It is a philosophical position and the only justification I can think for holding it is Occam's Razor.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This is so weird seeing this thread because I have heard atheists argue that Christians all must deny evolution to be consistent with their faith.

[Bad Writer]

There is no such thing as teleology in nature.

Your statement cannot be falsified. That makes it an unscientific observation. It is a philosophical position and the only justification I can think for holding it is Occam's Razor.

I suppose that's true, but I think I was speaking for the side of a nature that wasn't designed. On the other side of the argument is creation, for which teleology has a place.

[Undeceived]

I've learned not to trust any article that manipulates the facts for persuasive purposes.

Some birds have teeth. Some birds have scales on their legs. Both fill vital roles now--unrelated to history.

Baleen whales have a hox gene that, when switched, can affect expression. But there have to be other genes to produce the legs once turned on by the hox gene. These genes do not exist.
Human embryos have tails in certain stages of development to aid assembly of the vertebrae. Later in life, people have tailbones to support their spinal cord. Both are in full use today.
The question evolutionists should be asking is this: If evolution is happening today, why do DNA codes contain no new dormant genes from which to build future organs?

Evolution explains the phenomenon handily: they all had ancestors with those features and still carry genes for them that can be activated by a point mutation or by a 'hormonal event' during gestation.

Don't you mean Natural Selection explains the phenomenon? If an organism used to have certain genes and lost them, that is a loss of genetic data. Losses of genetic data are consistent with Creation. All the example above shows is that God created birds with teeth, or the switch for teeth when needed, and that certain birds lost or haven't yet had the need for teeth. Take the appendix, for example. In primal and medieval times, its ability to store good bacteria fended off many illnesses. Today, with medicines and health codes, we have less need of the appendix.