A question for Christians who accept evolution.

[Edwardo Piet]

No one can prove anything I reckon... apart from tautologies but they're true by default so I don't think they count.

[Zen Badger]

We wouldn't be aware of such a creature because our knowledge is limited. But God is omniscient and omnipotent so he is aware not only of us but of the creature who lives only a picosecond. The belief that God is interested in us doesn't mean that we are important but that God is aware of everything, even those things which aren't important.

If god is "omniscient and omnipotent" as you claim then how is it that he doesn't know that bats are mammals, not birds?

From Leviticus.....

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Bats are fowl are they?

After reading Lev I'm driven to ask the other question.

There is a looooong list of animals that god considers to be abominations, if so, why did he create them in the first place?

[Eilonnwy]

The idea that a blood sacrifice is needed for the "faults" of humanity from birth is a rather dehumanizing notion. I find nothing uplifting or good from a religion that promotes the idea that humans are naturally terrible people and in order to make it better, someone must suffer and die to satisfy god.

[theophilus]

If god is "omniscient and omnipotent" as you claim then how is it that he doesn't know that bats are mammals, not birds?

The classification system by which bats are considered mammels was invented in 1735 and the Bible was written a long time before that.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/g...y/bat-bird

There is a looooong list of animals that god considers to be abominations, if so, why did he create them in the first place?

When he created the world there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals. The world and everything in it have been changed as a result of Adam's sin.

[Peter44]

DeistPaladin mentioned something that I'd never really thought of before concerning Christianity and evolution.

Essentially, evolution means that there was no Adam & Eve, which means there was no fall, which means there was no need for Jesus.

I'm just wondering how Christian "evolutionists" explain their faith in light of this. What was the point of Jesus if there was no fall? Or, if there was a fall, when (and why) did it happen?

Evolution does not really mean there was no Adam and Eve does it ?? perhaps they were the first two to evolve ?? Amazingly dated at about 4000 years ago!.

If Christianity was really based on the 'fall' it seem to have taken 'God' (through Jesus) along time to address it. Choosing an backward and defeated persecuted people to impose the solution is also questionable.
Christians seem to deal with these issues very easily they just ignore the facts as their minds are made up. The 'fall' and issues like 'original sin' even 'virgin birth' and 'angels' etc are looked upon even by many clergy as symbolic only. In effect they ignore the difficult bits that really are less acceptable today than they were a few thousand years ago.

The issue I find more difficult for Christians who believe in evolution, to live with is the process they through which Darwin identifies evolution working. Natural Selection.

This process is particularly cruel it relies on suffering of organisms as the means of enabling progress and survival.

The designer of such a process (if he,she or it existed) would surely be classified as a sadist not a loving all caring deity.


I was once a teacher of science and psychology in the UK state system.
In fact when I have suggested this to a number of individuals (Science Teachers) who claim to be believers in the theory of evolution and Christians.

The general approach was well we accept its a 'theory' and taught bits of it as such. In short the students were short changed.

I don't believe Christians could accept evolution I think its impossible for them to accept both, as it was for Darwin. I understand Wallace took the stance that many Christian Teachers in the Uk take today and Darwin looked down on him for it. In summary they, accept evolution for animals but not for humans.

I wish Richard Dawkins book on the evidence for evolution (The Greatest Show on Earth) which squashes the 'Its only a theory' argument, was available then.

There is nothing more amusing (and in a way sad at the same time) than a Christian (Muslim or Jew)dealing with the scientific evidence for evolution.

Its still the best argument we have.

[Rev. Rye]

There is a looooong list of animals that god considers to be abominations, if so, why did he create them in the first place?

When he created the world there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals. The world and everything in it have been changed as a result of Adam's sin.

Then what would be the point in deeming some animals clean and unclean?

[Minimalist]

When he created the world there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals. The world and everything in it have been changed as a result of Adam's sin.

So how come your all-knowing god didn't know that would happen? He sounds like a complete shmuck.

[tackattack]

@Peter44- I'm a Christian and I see no problemswith evolution. Since when have Christians ever seen, as a whole, the suffering of organisms as the means of enabling progress and survival to be a bad thing. The suffering of the self for the betterment of the whole is what Christianity teaches. It also promotes gaining in knowledge through suffering in many parables.

[Captain Scarlet]

If god is "omniscient and omnipotent" as you claim then how is it that he doesn't know that bats are mammals, not birds?

The classification system by which bats are considered mammels was invented in 1735 and the Bible was written a long time before that.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/g...y/bat-bird

There is a looooong list of animals that god considers to be abominations, if so, why did he create them in the first place?

When he created the world there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals. The world and everything in it have been changed as a result of Adam's sin.

Re bats. Surely if god is all knowing he would have foresaw this and inspired the writing of the bible accordingly. There is nothing in the bible that could not have been written by fanatical bronze age men. It makes no prediction and reveals no new information. In fact quite the contrary all of it's central claims have long been dismissed and we see religious folks furiously trying to cover up the cracks.

[Peter44]

@Peter44- I'm a Christian and I see no problemswith evolution. Since when have Christians ever seen, as a whole, the suffering of organisms as the means of enabling progress and survival to be a bad thing. The suffering of the self for the betterment of the whole is what Christianity teaches. It also promotes gaining in knowledge through suffering in many parables.

Two things on that:

1. Organisms include mankind causing suffering to those you love is not an act of love.
As mentioned most Christians who have had to adopt evolution as a reality either don't agree that it applies to mankind (which was the attitude of Wallace not Darwin) or ignore it. I think your ignoring it.

2. Choosing to suffer (a very Christian concept, but one that makes my feel very uneasy as its a bit masochistic) is one thing but being made to suffer is another.
The suffering of children for instance who are basically 'not up to it' because of physical deformity, disease, malnutrition, poor parenting etc. That sort of suffering is not acceptable under the umbrella of 'love'.
The world was and is full of suffering pain etc Not all of it by a long way the fault of man kind, natural disasters, climate change etc. These have been present and active through evolutionary time.
Its likely more humans died (and suffered doing it) throughthe climate changing over the last 300,000 years than live today, by many millions.
I chose 300,000 years as that was 'around the time' evidence points to the use of fire by humans.
Although it could be earlier. Its a really good indication of the basics of being human.

Choosing to live by iron age parables is not something we should be teaching children otherwise they become confused about the reality of today. What was acceptable then is to many of us not acceptable now. We know better. They didn't. I have explained why.

I don't think Jesus even suffered much through crucifiction it was in fact his choice. He was well prepared for it. It was also a very quick event by all accounts of crucifictions. Not to mention the administration of possible analgesics whilst on the cross. Of course the real pain behind such suffering is not the pain of the nails or the body being stretched etc. Its the knowledge that you are going to die. That is real suffering knowing your life is being ended. This is the truth of many accounts of those who have escaped execution and torture.

Jesus never ever had that pain ., He knew(thought) he was going to be OK. He would rise again. He would go to be with his father. etc etc. Because of that belief it was a non event.
The only knowledge you gain through real suffering is the knowledge not to put yourself through it again. Unless your a masochist.

But in the case of evolution we are not talking about suffering through choice .
Thats your problem.