Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Underseer · 12-03-2006, 12:07 AM

On what theological grounds do anti-evolution Christians claim evolution is against the teachings of the Bible? I mean, it's not as if evolution is specifically mentioned in the Bible or anything. I've always been curious.

The second question is: can anti-evolution/pro-creationism views be challenged on theological grounds?

The Evil One · 12-03-2006, 05:02 AM

Evolution is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but a number of things ARE mentioned which cannot be true if evolution is true. For example, the Genesis creation story, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel, and, oh, pretty much everythign before the story of Abraham.

Underseer · 12-03-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Evolution is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but a number of things ARE mentioned which cannot be true if evolution is true. For example, the Genesis creation story, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel, and, oh, pretty much everythign before the story of Abraham.

Can you be a little more specific?

What about Genesis doesn't jibe with evolution? The only thing I can think of is the order of creation, and there are two different orders of creation in Genesis.

Noah's flood may be a problem in that there is no evidence for it being global, but that doesn't argue for or against evolution in any way.

I completely don't see how the tower of Babel has anything to do with evolution.

Malachi151 · 12-03-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

On what theological grounds do anti-evolution Christians claim evolution is against the teachings of the Bible? I mean, it's not as if evolution is specifically mentioned in the Bible or anything. I've always been curious.

The second question is: can anti-evolution/pro-creationism views be challenged on theological grounds?

I'm currently writing a book on this subject which I hope to have published in about a year's time.

First, read my article on evolution here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._evolution.htm

Specifically the first 5 sections.

There is a lot more to this issue than simply the text of the Bible. There is a lot more to Christianity than simply what is in the Bible for that matter. Indeed I would say that "Christianity" the institution is based largely on extra-Biblical theology.

In short, when the Christians came to power there was already a diverse set of philosophies in the Greek and Roman world. The early Christian fathers "made war on" various philosophical concepts that they saw as incompatible with Christianity.

The primary philosophies that they were in opposition to were the Naturalistic or Materialistic philosophies of the Greeks, these being primarily the philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus.

The fundamental concept in these philosophies that they were in opposition to was the denial of "Providence" and the idea of "fortuitous generation", which meant that the natural world is only affected by natural material causes and effects, and nothing is designed or manipulated by any intelligent force, and the world has come into being through "chance" collisions of atoms, which come together through natural laws to form the existence that we see today.

So, this was a concept that was established in Greece around the 6th century BCE, and had been a part of Greek philosophy and science for about 900 years by the time the Christians came into power. The Epicureans had developed evolutionary type explanations for the development of life, and these explanations were specifically declared heresy by the Church when they came to power.

This is one of my favorite quotes on this subject:

Quote:

Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things, induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus it appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought that there was no providence. And having persuaded himself of this, he undertook also to defend it, and thus he entangled himself in inextricable errors. For if there is no providence, how is it that the world was made with such order and arrangement? He says: There is no arrangement, for many things are made in a different manner from that in which they ought to have been made. And the divine man found subjects of censure.

Now, if I had leisure to refute these things separately, I could easily show that this man was neither wise nor of sound mind. Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own offices individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived nothing in the production of animals; for neither were the eyes made for seeing, nor the ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor the feet for walking; inasmuch as these were produced before it was possible to speak, to hear, to see, and to walk. Therefore these were not produced for use; but use was produced from them.
- Divine Institutes, Book III; Lucius Lactantius (~250-325 CE)

This idea that "use" follows form, is a very key concept to Darwinian evolution, and you can see here why this concept became so alien in Western Civilization, because it had been declared heresy for over a thousand years.

Note Huxley's explanation of the meaning of Darwinian thought:

Quote:

For the notion that every organism has been created as it is and launched straight at a purpose, Mr. Darwin substitutes the conception of something which may fairly be termed a method of trial and error. Organisms vary incessantly; of these variations the few meet with surrounding conditions which suit them and thrive; the many are unsuited and become extinguished.

According to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin, organisms are like grapeshot of which one hits something and the rest fall wide. For the teleologist an organism exists because it was made for the conditions in which it is found; for the Darwinian an organism exists because, out of many of its kind, it is the only one which has been able to persist in the conditions in which it is found. Teleology implies that the organs of every organism are perfect and cannot be improved; the Darwinian theory simply affirms that they work well enough to enable the organism to hold its own against such competitors as it has met with, but admits the possibility of indefinite improvement. But an example may bring into clearer light the profound opposition between the ordinary teleological, and the Darwinian, conception.

Cats catch mice, small birds and the like, very well. Teleology tells us that they do so because they were expressly constructed for so doing--that they are perfect mousing apparatuses, so perfect and so delicately adjusted that no one of their organs could be altered, without the change involving the alteration of all the rest. Darwinism affirms on the contrary, that there was no express construction concerned in the matter; but that among the multitudinous variations of the Feline stock, many of which died out from want of power to resist opposing influences, some, the cats, were better fitted to catch mice than others, whence they throve and persisted, in proportion to the advantage over their fellows thus offered to them.

Far from imagining that cats exist 'in order' to catch mice well, Darwinism supposes that cats exist 'because' they catch mice well--mousing being not the end, but the condition, of their existence. And if the cat type has long persisted as we know it, the interpretation of the fact upon Darwinian principles would be, not that the cats have remained invariable, but that such varieties as have incessantly occurred have been, on the whole, less fitted to get on in the world than the existing stock.

If we apprehend the spirit of the 'Origin of Species' rightly, then, nothing can be more entirely and absolutely opposed to Teleology, as it is commonly understood, than the Darwinian Theory. So far from being a "Teleologist in the fullest sense of the word," we would deny that he is a Teleologist in the ordinary sense at all; and we should say that, apart from his merits as a naturalist, he has rendered a most remarkable service to philosophical thought by enabling the student of Nature to recognize, to their fullest extent, those adaptations to purpose which are so striking in the organic world, and which Teleology has done good service in keeping before our minds, without being false to the fundamental principles of a scientific conception of the universe. The apparently diverging teachings of the Teleologist and of the Morphologist are reconciled by the Darwinian hypothesis.
- CRITICISMS ON 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES'; Thomas H. Huxley, 1864

Sauron · 12-03-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

Can you be a little more specific?
What about Genesis doesn't jibe with evolution? The only thing I can think of is the order of creation, and there are two different orders of creation in Genesis.

The idea of creatures being fully formed on their first day of existence, as opposed to evolving over millions or tens of millions of years.

Quote:

Noah's flood may be a problem in that there is no evidence for it being global, but that doesn't argue for or against evolution in any way.

Except that:

1. creationists cannot account for how specialized creatures - those requiring specialized food, habitats, etc. - walked or flew from Mt Ararat to places like N America, S America, Australia, etc.. Their habits as well as their specialized food sources would have been destroyed;

2. lack of affirmative evidence for even a *regional* flood of the kind described in Genesis -- AS WELL AS the presence of contradictory evidence - i.e., evidence that could not exist -- if any flood (local or global) had occurred

3. creationists believe that only "kinds" went onto the ark - a "duck" kind, or a "cat" kind - and that all variations on those kinds (mallard duck, teal duck, muscovy duck, wood duck, - house cats, bobcats, lynxes, ocelots, tigers, etc.) have evolved since Noah. That presupposes an evolution rate far, far faster than anything science has proposed. It also begs the question as to why creationists believe that species can evolve, but not an entire genus or family;

4. various engineering problems with any such ark, as well as animal husbandry requirements for the floating zoo - not strictly an evolutionary issue, except that creationists try to explain hibernation as having started during the boat ride, as a way to keep animals from eating each other, and to avoid the extra workload for Noah to feed everything;

Quote:

I completely don't see how the tower of Babel has anything to do with evolution.

Human evolution. It centralizes all humanity in the fertile crescent at one time, using a single language, at a level of advancement sufficient to build towers.

As opposed to coming out of Africa in multiple waves, using different languages, at a point of technological development that didn't permit stone towers.

The Evil One · 12-03-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

What about Genesis doesn't jibe with evolution? The only thing I can think of is the order of creation, and there are two different orders of creation in Genesis.

Sauraon's answer covers much of what I would have said. But here's some more notes:

Genesis has things beng created in days, we know it took billions of years. (Of course you could interpret a day as an age, which reduces the problem *a little*, but now you're reading things into the text that aren't there to force it to harmonize).

According to Genesis human beings were created ex nihilo (or ex a pile of dust, in the Genesis 2 version). We know that human beings are descended from earlier apes. You can make the same point for any animal.

The OT books give lifespans & relative birthdates for every generation from Adam onwards. Depending on how much fudging you allow, the creation of Adam cannot have happened more than 6 to 10 thousand years ago if these details are correct. We know there have been human beings around for ten times longer than this, and human ancestors for a thousand times longer.

Genesis places the origin of humanity in Eden (northern Iraq). We know that human beings originated in Africa.

I could probably come up with more, but that should be enough to demonstrate that there is no way that evolution can be true if Genesis is an accurate account.

12-03-2006, 12:07 AM	#1
Underseer Contributor Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburbs Posts: 39,172	What is the Biblical basis for anti-evolutionism? On what theological grounds do anti-evolution Christians claim evolution is against the teachings of the Bible? I mean, it's not as if evolution is specifically mentioned in the Bible or anything. I've always been curious. The second question is: can anti-evolution/pro-creationism views be challenged on theological grounds?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-03-2006, 05:02 AM	#2
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Evolution is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, but a number of things ARE mentioned which cannot be true if evolution is true. For example, the Genesis creation story, Noah's flood, the tower of Babel, and, oh, pretty much everythign before the story of Abraham.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.