18 Responses to If evolution is true….

  1. Andrew Chmielewski says:

    Having a scientific upbringing, that’s essentially what I’ve always believed (about evolution being a divine instrument, and Genesis being non-literal). That’s not so heretical when you consider how easily most Christians accept Revelation as a largely symbolic text. I really don’t see what all the fuss is about.

    Like

  2. Deri says:

    It’s not so difficult to think that science is a method for trying to understand how some divine plan unfolded. I have stopped trying to be a christian but I do think and hope there is a spiritual element to our universe. Which came first, spirit or cosmos? That seems a more interesting thing to ponder than chickens & eggs. And if Prof Hawking and colleagues can come up with a theory of everything, I want to see spirit accounted for.

    Like

    • Thanks for the comment Deri. Can Prof Hawking come up with a theory for why we find music beautiful, or indeed what beauty, or love, or joy are? If we think about it, none of what actually matters to us as human beings is explicable by physics….

      Like

      • C Jones says:

        A friend once said to me (in regards to there having to be more than science said) that “math is colorblind”. And basically, what he meant by that is what you just said. Most science comes down to math. Has anyone found a mathematically perfect song? No. And no one ever will. Has anyone found a mathematically perfect image? No. And no one ever will. Has anyone ever weaved a mathematically perfect story? No. And no one ever will.

        Why? Because Math is colorblind. It may reach a person’s mind, but it will never reach a person’s soul.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. unklee says:

    Hi MC, just another response. I am a christian (have been for 50 years) and I accept that evolutionary science is true. It hasn’t destroyed my faith to think that, but it has changed my beliefs in a few more ways than your post suggests. For example:

    * It makes it possible that more than Genesis 1-3 in the OT is mythical.
    * It makes it more difficult to explain evil in the world, because animals preying on other animals was there before the fall of humankind.
    * It means some parts of the NT, which refer to Adam & Eve, have to be reconsidered.

    None of that is all that big a deal, and I think accepting evolution is very freeing for my faith and understanding. Well done for raising these questions.

    PS I’m interested to see (1) you’ve written a book (well done!) and (2) you’re an engineer (I was a civil engineer until I retired).

    Like

    • Dear Unklee, Thanks for the comments. Some further thoughts:
      – I agree that there may be more ‘myth’ or ‘parable’ in the OT, which doesn’t detract from its value I feel. We don’t take Jesus’ parables literally, but they still convey truth.
      – I’m not convinced that animals preying on animals is evil – we anthropomorphise and tend to think it is, but what actually is evil? I feel it’s something like the deliberate choice to harm another thing – and I don’t think animals do that. (Is it evil to drill holes in children’s teeth and fill them with metal?)
      – Denis Alexander writes some interesting suggestions on Adam and Eve in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/1854247468

      PS – you can read the start of both my books from links above… 🙂

      Like

    • By the way, just checked out your blog – I gave up discussing with Arkanaten. I decided have better things to do with my time.

      Like

  4. unklee says:

    Hi MC. I agree that the “problems” with interpreting Genesis in the light of evolution are presumably capable of resolution, but I only meant that there was some work to be done. I checked out the Denis Alexander book on Amazon, and it looks excellent.

    Thanks for visiting my blog, but I hadn’t realised you had been discussing with anyone. Yes, some discussions go somewhere, some don’t.

    I checked out the start of both of your books, and they look interesting. Was it easy to get the first one printed and published? Do you get many sales?

    Best wishes.

    Like

    • I think we probably agree on most things!
      The first one I self published, so it was easy. It was mainly written for people I know, but I have had some further sales. The difficulty with self publishing is that nobody knows… I’m looking for a publisher for the second.

      Like

  5. Phil Groom says:

    I think you’ll find the vast majority of Christians accept evolution as God’s creative process: there really isn’t any problem here except, unfortunately, with a certain sector of die-hard conservatives and biblical literalists…

    Like

    • Hi Phil, thanks for the comment and follow. My concern is more that the image outside of Christian circles is that the general public think Christians view evolution as in conflict with the bible and therefore wrong. It’s a myth propagated by extreme atheists and extreme evangelicals, so if both ends of the belief spectrum say the same thing they must be right…?

      Like

  6. Pingback: Things that a Minimalist Christian does not have to take literally – The Genesis account of Creation | Thoughts from a Minimalist Christian

  7. I just wanted to say, I had teetered on the edge of being for and against evolution for a long time, until a couple years ago when I had a chance to talk to some passing seminary students about the literal and non literal interpretations of Genesis. I still don’t have everything sorted out, but I lean towards evolution, and don’t support young earth creationism.

    I would also add that throughout the first thousand years of Christianity, Christian authors like the Venerable Bede and St. Thomas Aquinas believed that predation existed before the fall of mankind. Here’s Aquinas’s reply: (question 96, reply to objection 2) http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm

    “In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede’s gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.”

    Like

  8. I do write a lot about faith and evolution. Not all of it serious. I believed the theory of Evolution long before I was a Christian. Seems bizarre to reject something so obviously true.

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      I’d have to say that evolutionary theory is neither obvious nor “true”. It is valid and has some elements of verifiable, evidential support but it has HUGE holes in it. Science is working hard on “proof” but most of the “facts” are based on conjecture, as is most of Archeology. That doesn’t make it wrong either…

      Like

  9. Pingback: The End of Evolution | Thoughts from a Minimalist Christian

Please leave a reply and I will try to get back to you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s