Philosophy Now Forum

In recent times, we have seen Christianity in the west generally become far more accepting of evolution, whilst other religions (Islam for example) are still struggling to accept it as fact. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in the US, where 35% of the population still believe that the bible is literally true. Now, taking this viewpoint, means you must automatically reject evolution since it contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible. However, i still fail to understand how even those Christians who take the bible figuratively rather than literally can still accept evolution as true, unless they fundamentally don't understand how it works. The following is why i think this.

Christianity is very, very centred around a personal relationship with God, specifically, humans interacting with God. There seems to be a general consensus within mainstream Christian theology that humans are, for want of a better phrase, 'more important', than any other creature. Most Christians i have encountered seem to point to humans having souls as the main reason for this (by implication this means animals must not). Furthermore, Christians typically take the view that it is the soul that lives on after our physical form dies. If you combine these two viewpoints, then one implication becomes very clear. There must have been a point in the evolutionary timeline at which apes/people actually started going to heaven. This doesn't seem particularly important, but in actual fact, it is, for we know that this cannot be the case. Scientists know that there was no point at which an ape gave birth to a human, thats just not how evolution works. Its more like a boy becoming a man. There is no day when you wake up a man, it is a gradual process. This leaves Christian theology with something of a dilemma. Either animals do have souls, which means there is absolutely nothing objectively special about being a human (which seems opposed to the ideals of Christianity) or evolution mustn't be true - because we know that there is no point in the evolutionary timeline at which humans actually began to exist. I wonder what others make of this. As an atheist, i have no problem with the idea that humans are not objectively special, in fact i subscribe to that view. But surely theists, in particular Christians, cannot hold the same view. The whole point of Christianity is about following Christ, God's son, a human. Jesus didn't appear as a frog or as a tiger, he was a human and interacted with humans pretty much exclusively. This seems to me to suggest that the Judeo-Christian God values humans above anything else, which is consistent with almost all other Christian texts. If this is as a result of humans having souls, then Christian theology should surely be fundamentally opposed to evolution as a matter of principle, perhaps the fundamentalists have got something right for once, just for the wrong reasons.

God created the Universe and people, and the Big Bang and Evolution are how God did it. People have souls, but I don't know if animals have souls, it's not my problem, God will have to deal with all the animal souls, if that is the case.

just for the wrong reasons.

Or for the right ones.

Interesting quandary, Norty, but I wonder if it could gotten around by simply asserting that, at time X, God endowed early humans with souls. And it needn't be two individuals, but perhaps a family or tribe through, e.g., allopatric speciation. I see no inherent contradiction with the the Xian faith, nor do I see where God would be constrained to "evolve" a soul rather than simply granting it at a specific point in the evolutionary process.

Also, the Catholic position on animals and souls (not that I'm convinced): http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... man-beings

Admittedly, I don't believe in the evolution neither in big bang theory because it is contradiction to what the scriptures said about the creation. Regarding animal soul, it wasn't mention in scriptures.

f

hazlett wrote:Admittedly, I don't believe in the evolution neither in big bang theory because it is contradiction to what the scriptures said about the creation. Regarding animal soul, it wasn't mention in scriptures.

Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish, it is understandable and expected if you take the bible literally.

ReliStuPhD wrote:Interesting quandary, Norty, but I wonder if it could gotten around by simply asserting that, at time X, God endowed early humans with souls. And it needn't be two individuals, but perhaps a family or tribe through, e.g., allopatric speciation. I see no inherent contradiction with the the Xian faith, nor do I see where God would be constrained to "evolve" a soul rather than simply granting it at a specific point in the evolutionary process.

Also, the Catholic position on animals and souls (not that I'm convinced): http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... man-beings

In response to ReliStuPhD - surely you see why God couldn't simply grant a soul at a specific point in the evolutionary process. If we accept that Christian theology makes souls an exclusively human phenomenon, and we agree that there is no point at which humans actually began to exist, then simply granting a soul cannot work. With regards to your earlier point, it still runs into the above problem.

NortyCrosal wrote:If we accept that Christian theology makes souls an exclusively human phenomenon

I'm not sure we can grant this. At least, I am unaware that it is a settled tenant of orthodox Christianity (there are a great many misinformed Christians out there).

As to your original quandary, I think we need to stop and lay out some definitions. If not, you're equivocating by using the word "human." For the word to have sufficient explanatory scope in this particular argument, it cannot be open-ended in the past. Otherwise, if you are correct in maintaining that there is no "first human," then the deficiency lies with the explanatory model posed by biologists. That is to say, if a biologist cannot distinguish between the genus homo or gorilla/pan/pongo at time X, then it is the biologist who is faced with a fundamental opposition: that between her explanatory model and the theory of evolution.

All this to say, if you cannot sufficiently bound the term "human" such that we can distinguish between a human and an ape at, say, T-minus 500k years, you're basing your argument on an equivocation, and such fallacies just don't carry the day.

(For what it's worth, I'm not saying you're not on to something here, just that if it's based off an equivocation, it's an objection that can be easily dismissed. I would suggest it's rather easy to correct simply be replacing "human" with some other term, such as "homo," "homo sapiens," etc.)

PS I deleted my earlier response in favor of clarifying terminology. Once that done, I'll bring it back in if needed.

NortyCrosal wrote: Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish

Not for Christians. Christian theology rejects evolution. Christianity becoming far more accepting evolution is not Christianity.

NortyCrosal wrote:Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish, it is understandable and expected if you take the bible literally.

Certainly it is foolish not to believe in the general concept of evolution; of things evolving. It might not be foolish to hold that evolution does not have sufficient explanatory scope to explain how we've gotten to this point. Some biologists (and not creationists) are of this opinion, no? And I doubt we'd call them foolish. After all, the science floor is littered with failed theories. Who's to say evolution will still hold strong in 100 years?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

NortyCrosal wrote:Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish, it is understandable and expected if you take the bible literally.

Certainly it is foolish not to believe in the general concept of evolution; of things evolving. It might not be foolish to hold that evolution does not have sufficient explanatory scope to explain how we've gotten to this point. Some biologists (and not creationists) are of this opinion, no? And I doubt we'd call them foolish. After all, the science floor is littered with failed theories. Who's to say evolution will still hold strong in 100 years?

This is a pretty typical creationist response. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for gravity - the only difference is that gravity doesn't contradict a pre-existing belief of yours. And before someone starts going off on the 'evolution is only a theory' rollercoaster, let me just make something clear. 'Theory' in a scientific sense is not the same as how you and i might use the term. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. In this sense, gravity is still only a theory, the only reason we don't talk about the 'theory of gravity' is because no-one objects to it since it doesn't contradict fundamentalist beliefs.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

NortyCrosal wrote:Whilst obviously not believing in evolution is completely foolish, it is understandable and expected if you take the bible literally.

Certainly it is foolish not to believe in the general concept of evolution; of things evolving. It might not be foolish to hold that evolution does not have sufficient explanatory scope to explain how we've gotten to this point. Some biologists (and not creationists) are of this opinion, no? And I doubt we'd call them foolish. After all, the science floor is littered with failed theories. Who's to say evolution will still hold strong in 100 years?

Furthermore, quite a lot of creationists try to appease science with their fundamentalist views by accepting the existence of micro-evolution but rejecting the notion of macro-evolution. This is a logical impossibility since macro-evolution is at its most basic level, just an accumulation of micro-evolution. I will try and explain this as simply as i can so those who don't quite understand can have at least very basic knowledge.

Take the example of moths in 19th century England. There was a very specific species of moth (forgive me but i can't remember the exact name of the species) that was common in the UK during the 19th century. This moth came in two distinct variations - one of a white coloration and one a darker one. Now, the white moth was the more common of the two species originally, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, the UK was going through the industrial revolution and as a result was producing a lot of pollution, namely soot. This soot was staining the trees in the British woodland, making them pitch black in many cases. The darker variation of moth was better suited to the new environment since it was camouflaged on the trees from predators. From this point onwards, it was the darker moth that had the more desirable characteristics since it wasn't getting eaten. As such, it flourished and the brighter variation of moth died out. It is small changes like this that make up micro-evolution, and all macro evolution are an accumulation of small changes like this. Imagine, if this species of moth kept having small changes like this every few hundred years, for millions of years. If you took a picture of the original creature and then the one in, say, 2 million years, the two creatures would be barely distinguishable, and would be a completely different species.

Christianity and evolution are not opposed to each other. Why because christianity is just describing god consciousness and consciousness is supernatral to the event. So death which is the main force for change in evolutionary forms is a supernatral part of the event which changes the event forms.

Ma l'evoluzione non sarà mai in grado di spiegare i salti genetici che avrebbero portato in milioni di anni un batterio a produrre dinosauri, non sono solo questione di tempo: serve spiegare (e dimostrare) che in natura esistano salti genetici che producono una specie diversa dalla madre.
Micro or macro evolution doesn't matter, evolution is a very weak theory, just a theory, it will never be able to explain (and demonstrate) genetic leaps, which would have taken in millions of years a bacterio to transform in a dynosaur. Evolution, evolutionists, can't, cannot, are not able to, may not, to explain how in nature genetics leaps may produce a species different from its mother species. Difficult for me, if you were able to speak italian I could write much more clearly all that you don't know about evolution