Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

[RainDog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-dudley/christian-faith-requires-_b_876345.html

...beyond a certain point, (creationist) reasoning breaks down. Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.

It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.

It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.

Another writer on religion (and the way I came to both articles) gets some scrutiny by Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution Is True:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/ruse-on-adam-and-eve/

Ruse addresses the recent Christianity Today article on how to reconcile science with Adam and Eve (see our discussion here). And, as he shows without reservation, the genetic facts absolutely put the lie to the Biblical story of Adam and Eve.

If we’re not born in sin, then much of what Christians believe...falls to pieces. And of course, it makes Jesus die for nothing at all.

Or, rather, shifts the focus to Jesus' life rather than death and finds his message in his example and his talks about the beatitudes, rather than the Pauline discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or who is worthy of acceptance.

If, 2000 years ago, someone believed in a literal story of Adam and Eve, as the author notes, that would make sense in that time. To continue to believe in the literal story of Adam and Eve is the equivalent of believing in Santa Claus long after your parents had to admit it was for the pleasure of your childhood, and not, literally, the event that you were told was true.

[WCGreen]

1. Paul corupted the message of Jesus....

A snake oil salesman...

[mistertrickster]

12. I agree that he put an ascetic Greek spin on Christianity. The Gospel message

is, "rejoice, the Lord is with you." Paul changed that into "the body is evil, the world is evil, but the spirit is pure" . . . the neo-Platonism of the time.

"Those who are like me need not marry. But better to marry than to burn."

That's not Christian, but it is very Greek.

[Deep13]

23. It does seem like a remarkable shift of attention going from Gospels to Epistles...

...so much so that I wonder if they are talking about the same thing. Paul's letters predate the canonical gospels and mention no details about JC's life, no parables and no miracles. I don't think he was talking about a real flesh and blood person, but a theoretical son of God that existed only in heaven. Nevertheless, the blod sacrifice redemption of sin and the idea that eternal hell awaits those who reject JC's message are from the gospels. As bad and as misogynistic as the Pauline letters are, I find the worst of Christian theology comes right from JC's own lips. This, of course, assumes that these four mutually contradicting gospels selected at Nicea from a pile of others and edited for content under the watchful eye of the emperor are accurate accounts of JC's life. Reaching this conclusion also requires us to accept the reality of a number of magical actions that are frankly impossible.

The problem with the whole Paul vs. Jesus thing is that--while granting your freedom to accept and reject what you want--Paul is just as canonical to Christianity as the NT gospels are. The teachings of JC are a heretical version of Judaism and were directed toward Jews. What made Christianity a global religion was Paul's adaptation of it for the ears of Roman polytheists. Christianity could have survived without JC, but it could not have gotten off the ground without Paul.

[RainDog]

29. I like to read your thoughts on these things

thanks!

[white_wolf]

33. I sometimes wonder if the Gnostic Gospels don't contain the real

teachings of Jesus. I've never been a fan of Paul of Taurus. Also, I find it odd that the catholic church which claims succession from Peter who they view as the "rock on which Jesus founded his church" would accept the letters of Paul, saying as how Paul admits to opposing Peter because he was clearly wrong. What were they arguing about anyway?

[Deep13]

34. Constantine made his city the center of orthodox Christianity.

In the early days, the Bishop of Rome was merely one of five Christian Patriarchs, the others being Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Constantinople had primacy because it was the seat of the Imperial government. When the empire split, the Patriarch of Rome needed a justification to assert supremacy in the west. Eventually, the western church made up a theological difference of opinion with the east and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople as a heretic in 1054. That was the de jure beginning of the Roman Catholic Church, although in fact it had been independent of Imperial control for quite some time.

[murielm99]

2. I have no problem with that.

I went to a Christian college. They taught evolution in their science classes. No one seemed to have a problem with that at that time.

[RainDog]

3. The current head of the SBC insists that denomination must accept the young earth literalism

and that person speaks for every pastor and congregation that is part of that denomination.

[murielm99]

4. Then the smart people should leave that church. n/t

[RainDog]

5. I think I have to agree with you on that

because people should not financially support an institution that expects them to agree to believe things that are just not supportable in the modern world - that's cult think, not teaching about the nature of god. - I guess that's the point of the first article.

this same denomination also teaches that women are "subject" to their husbands and husbands are subject to god. this sort of hierarchy is anathema to democracy and is truly grotesque - but this same denomination used to teach that African-Americans were inferior by creating some convoluted explanation of race as "tribes" in the OT story of the creation of the 12 tribes of Israel - and African-Americans had just so happened to be born into a tribe that god had cursed.

The SBC is a very powerful denomination in southern states.

[okasha]

9. It wasn't the "tribes"

It was the so-called "curse of Ham." One of Noah's sons saw their father naked and drunk after the ark came to ground, and supposedly was cursed with dark skin as a punishment. There was a general belief that each of his three sons was the progenitor of a "race"--Asian, African and European.

[cleanhippie]

11. Do you believe that?

The "curse of Ham"? The entire "noah" story? Do you believe that?

[okasha]

15. No.

It is, however, the explanation given at one time for the three different "races" then recognized.

And just so you won't need to ask again, Pagans ain't real big on Biblical literalism.

[cleanhippie]

21. Fair enough. Thanks for your response.

[RainDog]

14. thanks for clarifying that one

I heard it when I was a kid and thought... wow, what a fucking nasty god to curse people for no reason.

one of the first "huh?" moments for me. the other was "thou shalt not kill" and all the killing that was supposedly cheered on or caused by gawd.

I decided that if that's what god was or is, god is not a worthwhile being with which to associate.

but it was really just the southern baptist view of god that wasn't worthwhile.

[okasha]

17. Actually, it was Noah who pronounced the curse.

When I read the story as an adult, I got the feeling the old coot had been up to more than just hitting the jug, and that's what's supposed to have caused the "shame" when his son saw him naked.

My mother, bless her, did her best to raise me as a Southern Baptist. It didn't work, though at the time the church was very different than it now is--a lot more indenpendence from congregation to congregation, no real hierarchy, and nothing between each believer and his/her interpretation of the Bible. She left when the congregation entered into a shady tax-avoidance deal with a major donor--the church, technically, owned the land the donor's business sat on, and the donor therefore paid no property taxes.

[RainDog]

20. I was sort of... disowned for a while

because I didn't share the same beliefs.

and there is a chasm that simply cannot be crossed b/c of the beliefs some of my family members hold that they think should apply to me.

my mother was from a family of farmers who were "primitive baptists." Those people are some weird folks. I don't have any contact with any of them anymore. They make my skin crawl.

[okasha]

22. That's awful.

I had the advantage of growing up among four different traditions--my mom's Baptist church, the Episcopal Church (my dad), the Catholic school I attended and my grandfather's traditional Native American beliefs, which is where I eventually came down. There was a lot of mixing and matching, no "choose one" mentality; my great-grandfather somehow managed to be both a Baptist deacon and a traditional Tsalagi holy man.

There was a primitive Baptist church down the road from my granddad's farm. My cousins and I were never allowed to check them out, even though we were mightily curious, because my grandmother was convinced we'd wind up snakebit. (I don't think the snakes were permanently in residence, but I could be wrong.)

[RainDog]

26. yeah, diversity is better

I don't know if primitive baptists do the snake thing.

but they definitely did not have a happy thing going on...it was always so grim. I don't think I would survive if I had to be in such a situation - as in, I think I would rather not be than to be if that's how I had to be.

[Curmudgeoness]

25. Go figure. Your blessed father, who is the only honorable person

on the whole face of the earth, gets drunk and swings naked from the tent poles. You see this, and you and your descendents for eternity are forever cursed. It is your fault that you father is a pig. Hey, it makes sense to me (at least if I live in Wonderland).

[PurgedVoter]

16. Quite a twist from the original Baptist Movement.

But then few Baptists know anything of their rather wonderful history. The Baptist Movement strongly argued for freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Personal revelation, your right to read the teaching and interpret them, was an important part of their doctrine. They broke with the Church of England over these critical issues. They remained distinct from the Calvinists, because they believed in free will, not predestination. In the Americas, it was the Baptists who formed Rhode Island, with it's freedom of faith tradition.

It is slightly ironic that the great and fairly open philosophy is now more prevalent in the Church of England than at the Southern Baptist Convention. I say slightly ironic, because the Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 when they split with the Northern Baptists. The split was over the issue of slavery.

[RainDog]

18. Yeah. I can't find anything to like about the SBC

I have some real horror stories about growing up with people whose views of the world were defined by the SBC. The best thing that ever happened to me was getting away from that church and those people.

I find it interesting that this denomination has been on the wrong side of history on every single social issue of note since it began, it seems.

They continue to be on the wrong side of history with full civil rights for the GBLT community, with their view of women, with their support for economic policy that would make Jesus weep... it's amazing that this organization has so much power in the south.

This is why so many people dislike the south - it's about this sort of religious bigotry.

[dimbear]

6. All the Christians that lived and died before Darwin are in a jam,

if your header is true.

[RainDog]

7. that was the whole point of the article (that's the article's headline, btw)

that people who live now need to accept that things they are told that contradict every branch of science are not the truth - and that, if god exists, god is not in disharmony with nature itself - and science, specifically biology and botany - are describing nature itself.

The entire basis of modern biology is evolutionary science.

Without evolution, the modern world could not exist - medicines we now use, ways in which we make decisions about every aspect of farming - in order to refuse to accept evolution, you have to refuse to accept reality as it exists.

...including the scientific advancements that have prolonged life, created medicines to treat illnesses...

people who lived in the past were wrong about a lot of things - the scientific method provides a corrective for those errors - and if people who live now cannot accept that evolution is part of the natural world - pre-Darwin they'd have been like someone in the Victorian Age walking around naked claiming fire is from the gods.

The Victorians recognized that belief was false - and recognized that evolution had to be considered based upon overwhelming evidence - evidence that continues to accumulate. Belief in creationism/ID provides no evidence for the same.

That's the point - religion has to accommodate reality in order to be worthwhile - otherwise, it's just an accumulation of lies.

[madrchsod]

10. i think hell is when

after you die .."i remember him,he was an asshole" and heaven is, "ya i remember him..he was a nice guy".

i`ve noticed the people who can not accept evolution are very limited in the ability to grasp complexity in their daily lives.

[RainDog]

19. I think hell is when people are inhumane on this earth

I think the experience of the Jews during the Holocaust was a version of hell.

I think pre-pubescent girls who are married to old men and denied educations is a version of hell.

I think going to war based upon lies and killing people for political power is a version of hell.

[madrchsod]

30. i agree....

[trotsky]

8. Not at all.

Everyone is forgetting the old canard: all the evidence "for" evolution is actually LIES PLANTED BY SATAN TO TEST OUR FAITH.

Even liberal believers value faith over evidence when it comes to certain things - the YECs simply apply that deeply-held principle to a couple more items. Who are we to tell them their deeply-held beliefs are wrong?

[RainDog]

13. what are YECs?

if your god can't deal with evolution - your god is false.

...and anyone who denies evolutionary science is too fucking stupid to have any political power in this nation - they honestly are a danger to us all.

[trotsky]

27. Young Earth Creationists

Those creationists who go "all in" - 6000 year old Earth, etc. There are literally tens of millions of them in the US, but many liberal believers would have us ask, who are we to tell them their beliefs are wrong?

[RainDog]

28. YEC is onomatopoeic

as in... hear people telling lies in this day and age and going... YEC.

[Deep13]

24. How does one reconcil God's supposedly creative role...

... in at least directing the course of the development of life on Earth when evolution leaves it to random mutations selected for survival and reproduction by environmental conditions. "Random" means there is no directing influence behind. This absolutely rules out any divine direction in the development of life at least from the beginning of the simplest life form. How can the creation story with all its attention on humanity be true even metaphorically if God is precluded by Darwinism from having any hand in it at all. And since God had nothing to do with the development of life (which presumably means nothing to do with human souls or morality), in what sense is he god?

[Thats my opinion]

31. It is a story

The Genesis account is not meant to be history. It is a Hebrew story written just a few hundred years BC. It points beyond history. We all live by stories.

For sincerely progressive religious people, evolution is simply the way God works. Science is not opposed to religion. What we call God is the process in which the universe is continually being unfolded. And the way we understand this unfolding is called evolution. Creationists just don't understand.

[Angry Dragon]

32. 'What we call God is the process in which the universe is continually being unfolded'

So you believe that the god talked about in the Bible does not exist as written, that there is no entity that watches over this planet 24/7. That everything in the universe is just a reaction to a force?? That the force that creates is a non thinking, non feeling force and has no conception of the human race??

[RainDog]

37. it's too bad that politicians reinforce stupidity b/c it gets them votes

many creationists actively oppose truth - they don't want to understand.

and, you know... stories are the ways we explain the world to ourselves. I don't need my children to ever hear any story about a female being the source of "sin" in the world - that's plain old fucked up sick.

those are the sorts of stories that I find repulsive - and, while that may have been the way to "explain" the world for thousands of years - it's time to stop that misogynistic shit - and to call it out as a lie.

There never was an Adam and Eve - there never was a moment in which "sin" entered the picture for humans - and those who make money trying to deal with people's sins are snake oil salesmen of the worst kind.

[GeorgeGist]

35. In related news ...

Evolution does not require accepting Christianity.

[RainDog]

36. true - but those who claim to be Christian need a "come to Jesus" moment

concerning science.

it really makes me ill that someone like the guy who heads the SBC makes a lot of money trying to make people stupid.

seems to me that's not a very well thought-out view of the world - i.e. he's so stubborn and close-minded he can't admit the truth b/c - oh, I dunno - because maybe then he'd have to admit how many other positions that conservative christians are also based upon lies.