Why Christians/Conservatives Should Accept Evolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]

And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.

True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.

Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.

[center]You can’t have evolution without death.

You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]

Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]

Well, I do not see the dump on the scriptures, however I should reconcile my statement above. The Catholic Church assumes reason and faith cannot go against each other. So, even though they have not claimed that evolution is truth they are accepting of it because of various reasons.[/quote]

I was raised Catholic and I’ve always thought of the Church as a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand you have this Medieval prohibition on birth control. On the other hand, the Vatican has its own observatory, staffed by priests (all are Jesuits, not surprisingly), that apparently does serious work with Arizona State University. I watched Bill Maher’s “Religulous” and he interviewed the director of the observatory. He tried to pull his chain by asking whether the Vatican having an observatory was a contradiction. The priest just laughed and said “Not at all.” He then went on to explain that the Bible was written well-before modern science and it was never meant to explain anything of a scientific nature. He proceeded to say that fundamentalism is a plague on society. I always liked the Jesuits, and if this guy had been my parish priest perhaps I’d still be in the Church.

Is this “taking a dump” on Scripture? To a fundie, it probably is. But the Catholic tradition was never about Scripture only or sola scriptura as Sloth mentioned. It starts with the notion that while the Bible is an accurate account of the life of Jesus it was not meant to be taken literally. Instead, Scripture is combined with philosophy, reason, and traditions. I realize that this injects human interpretation into the Bible which has its own problems. I have a big problem with the doctrine of papal infallibility, but I’d much rather see the Pope and the cardinals use their reason and think about things rather than take the literal word of a book that was written 2,000 years ago and has gone through several translations. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m going back to the Church, though.

43

after the first few replies…i stopped caring about this thread.

44

“Evolutionary physical death can take place without violating the immortality of the soul. Maybe Adam and Eve were the first creatures to be given souls, this would also make them the first human beings in the philosophic sense, and allow for the physical deaths of evolutionary theory.”

I really don’t see this as requiring a sledgehammer to pound a square peg into a round hole. It’s a reasonable interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. When I was religious I always viewed the eternal life thing as being about the soul - the body dies but the soul lives. But I guess the key word I’m using is “interpretation” rather than a belief in the literal word of Genesis.

46

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

If you take the Bible for what it is, then Evolution and the Bible can work together. The Catholic Church accepts evolution.[/quote]

And in doing so the Catholic Church takes a great big huge dump on Scripture.

True Christianity - which states death came into this world through the sin of man - cannot be reconciled with evolution because evolution calls for millions of years of death up to and including the evolution of man.

Theistic evolutionists like Pat and Sloth CANNOT make this dichotomy come together with any remote sense of logic and theological merit. When they try to do so they fall flat on their faces. I’ve been through this on other threads.

[center]You can’t have evolution without death.

You can’t have Christianity without man’s sin causing death.[/center]

Catholics and other theistic evolutionists have to put the Book of Genesis and the rest of the Bible for that matter through a burger grinder in order to concoct a theology that makes their “compromise” work. It’s that simple.[/quote]

Well, I do not see the dump on the scriptures, however I should reconcile my statement above. The Catholic Church assumes reason and faith cannot go against each other. So, even though they have not claimed that evolution is truth they are accepting of it because of various reasons.[/quote]

I was raised Catholic and I’ve always thought of the Church as a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand you have this Medieval prohibition on birth control. On the other hand, the Vatican has its own observatory, staffed by priests (all are Jesuits, not surprisingly), that apparently does serious work with Arizona State University. I watched Bill Maher’s “Religulous” and he interviewed the director of the observatory. He tried to pull his chain by asking whether the Vatican having an observatory was a contradiction. The priest just laughed and said “Not at all.” He then went on to explain that the Bible was written well-before modern science and it was never meant to explain anything of a scientific nature. He proceeded to say that fundamentalism is a plague on society. I always liked the Jesuits, and if this guy had been my parish priest perhaps I’d still be in the Church.

Is this “taking a dump” on Scripture? To a fundie, it probably is. But the Catholic tradition was never about Scripture only or sola scriptura as Sloth mentioned. It starts with the notion that while the Bible is an accurate account of the life of Jesus it was not meant to be taken literally. Instead, Scripture is combined with philosophy, reason, and traditions. I realize that this injects human interpretation into the Bible which has its own problems. I have a big problem with the doctrine of papal infallibility, but I’d much rather see the Pope and the cardinals use their reason and think about things rather than take the literal word of a book that was written 2,000 years ago and has gone through several translations. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m going back to the Church, though.
[/quote]

Doctrine of Papal Infallibility has only been enacted twice. Hardly anything to get fussy over. And the things they have used it for are foundation things, nothing to do with contraception.

47

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:
I simply hate the Christian faith[/quote]

Well, isn’t that nice. At least those who debate with you know your origin. You are looking for truth, you simply hate something. That makes for irrational arguments. God speed.[/quote]

I have reasons for my hatred for the faith. It’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color.

I dont seek the truth from hyprocrites or liars.

Cheers

49

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Ben Stein had an interesting show on Showtime about evolution and how very credible scientists find it a flawed theory.

I personally haven’t dwelled on this issue much or spent a lot fo time on it, so I have no personal bent either way. I believe in God, but whatever his plan etc is, I don’t really worry much about it. [/quote]

The Ben Stein movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was a really cool movie. [/quote]

Not really. There were so many flaws it’s not funny. It was sheer propaganda.

[Michael] Shermer, in an online column coinciding with the release of Expelled, described feeling awkward about their motives soon after the interview began.

For my part, the moment I sat down with Stein (with Mathis there) and he asked me that question about firing people for expressing dissenting views a dozen times, I realized that I was being manipulated to give certain answers they were looking for me to give. I asked them both, several times, if they had anything else to ask me about evolutionary theory or Intelligent Design. In frustration I finally said something like “Do you have any other questions to ask me or do you keep asking me this question in hopes that I’ll give a different answer?”

Stein also decided to use the following quote from Darwin to propagate the falsehood that he would have supported Nazi eugenics:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

What a joke! Could it be more out of context?

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.[i] We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick;[/i] we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.[i] Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.[/i] It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

50

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
nice try Mike - believing in evolution does not mean we came from apes. In fact evolution doesn’t even suggest exactly that (some of Darwin’s papers might suggest that, yet read the papers yourself and draw your own conclusions instead of hoping on the short bus because others are doing it). There are parts that have huge holes. Learning for example has no logical path. The knee comes from where? On the simplest biology, where does the complex eye come from? The lamprey into what? When you learn and understand science, then you might have a discussion with substance.

Second point, use the little box on the upper left of the screen and use the fucking search function. You believe yourself to be the originator of this subject? My God, grow the fuck up![/quote]

Why must you regress? Irreducible complexity has been debunked countless times. Time for you to grow the fuck up and take your own advice about the search function.

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:

I have reasons for my hatred for the faith. It’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color.

[/quote]

Whew! As long as it’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color…you’re cool. Nuthin worse than Whitey hatin’ on folks.
[/quote]

This land is your land…this land is my land

52

[quote]Fallen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:

I have reasons for my hatred for the faith. It’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color.

[/quote]

Whew! As long as it’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color…you’re cool. Nuthin worse than Whitey hatin’ on folks.
[/quote]

This land is your land…this land is my land
[/quote]

Apparently racial discrimination is the same as religious.

Watch ol’ pushy or someone of his ilk twist your post to make you seem racist.

54

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Fallen wrote:

I have reasons for my hatred for the faith. It’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color.

[/quote]

Whew! As long as it’s not blind hatred ala white America hating people of color…you’re cool. Nuthin worse than Whitey hatin’ on folks.
[/quote]

This land is your land…this land is my land
[/quote]

Apparently racial discrimination is the same as religious.

Watch ol’ pushy or someone of his ilk twist your post to make you seem racist.[/quote]

And they will accomplish what by doing this? State the obvious?

Back to the subject at hand.

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance[/quote]

56

Well, at least he gave me cause to finally try out this handy ignore feature.

58

[quote]Fallen wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellatio[/quote]

59

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Doctrine of Papal Infallibility has only been enacted twice. Hardly anything to get fussy over. And the things they have used it for are foundation things, nothing to do with contraception. [/quote]

I thought Papal Infallibility applied to all of the encyclicals and such. I know that something like 98% of Catholics ignore the contraception ban even though it’s classified as a mortal sin, i.e., you’re going to hell. But apparently confession will absolve one of this.