jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/12/85)
In the past few days the local Christian TV station, Chicago's channel 38, had a program on origins. The program, titled Crossroad, discussed evolution and creation from Christian perspective. They "proved" using the same outdated arguments (which we regularly see on net.origins) that evolution is false. And, therefore biblical creation must be true. They also argued that evolution is the philosophy of origins of the secular humanist just as creation is the origin philosophy of the Christian. They tried to draw parallels between creationism and and evolution implying that both depend on faith and, therefore, are both religions. The moderator of the program concluded the show by saying that If evolution is true then creation must be false. If creation is false then there is no Adam. If there is no Adam then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin then there is no need for redeemer. The bottom line is that evolution is the antithesis to Christianity. Evolution should be opposed because propagating evolution undermines the faith. As I did not see this argument previouly on the net, I wonder whether any of you feel that if evolution is true then the logical conclusion is that Christianity is false. Even if the question is not phrased as: "Either Christianity or evolution" do you think that teaching evolution undermines the religion? -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (09/13/85)
In article <672@ihu1m.UUCP>, jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > > The bottom line is that evolution is the antithesis to Christianity. > Evolution should be opposed because propagating evolution undermines > the faith. As I did not see this argument previouly on the net, > I wonder whether any of you feel that if evolution is true then > the logical conclusion is that Christianity is false. Even if the question is > not phrased as: "Either Christianity or evolution" do you think > that teaching evolution undermines the religion? Interesting question. The biggest problem is that when Christians use science to reinterpret the Bible, they get yelled at and screamed at for cheating and being hypocrites. When Ptolemy (et al) finally figured out that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it revolved around the sun, everybody laughed because Christians had to go back and find a new interpretation to the story in Joshua (about the sun standing still). The same can be said on a smaller level with Christ's remark that the mustard seed being the smallest seed. It's not, there are other seeds smaller than it, so as new science creeps in, now the parable is analogous and figurative and no longer literal. This is what is taking place with the evolution issue. On the surface, it sounds like God created the world in six days (actually the Hebrew word isn't only used for days, but also for periods of time) and that He made man out of the dust and women out of his rib and that the animals reproduced each after their own kind. But now that we've seen lots of evidence that shows the high plausibility of evolution, both organic and animal (that's not the proper scientific term but I couldn't think of what it was) so now we go back to Genesis and start rethinking what might have actually taken place. I guess my only point is that why shouldn't Christians be allowed to make mistakes in interpretting a document that has baffled people for centuries. A wider range of actions has been taken in the name of the Bible than can be imagined. Even on spiritual issues, religious leaders have gone back and forth, trying to keep out heresies that have cropped up (think about Luther and the Catholic Church of the time). The only thing I think scientists and modern philosophers and any Biblical critics have the right to laugh at is that many Christians have CLAIMED to KNOW that their interpretation was from God, when in reality, very little of it came from God. That has been one of the major factors that makes re-interpretting the Bible today so difficult. People want a book from God to be perfect throughout time; and I claim that the book is. It's just people's interpretations and biases that they bring to the book that have the unfair consequesnce of reflecting back on it. When God finally reveals Himself to the world, fully, I believe that no one will be able to hold the Bible up and say, "not so fast God, you screwed up here." Somehow, I'm not sure how, God said, "Let there be light" and there was. Rick Frey
scs@wucs.UUCP (Steve Swope) (09/14/85)
In article <672@ihu1m.UUCP>, jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > I wonder whether any of you feel that if evolution is true then > the logical conclusion is that Christianity is false. Even if the question is > not phrased as: "Either Christianity or evolution" do you think > that teaching evolution undermines the religion? I don't believe that evolution and Christianity are necessarily mutually exclusive. Recall the scripture that says that a thousand years are to God "as a watch in the night". If this is so, the "days" referred to in the Genesis account could be interpreted as being geologic eons during which the described events took place (e.g., parting the land and sea could refer in some sense to plate tectonics). Note that I am not trying to spawn a sub-discussion on biblical interpretation here; I am simply stating my belief that these two (evolution and Christianity) need not be considered mutually exclusive. In view of this, I don't see how the teaching of evolution could undermine the Christian faith. Steve Swope (aka scs@wucs.UUCP) "Brigadier, A straight line may be the shortest path between two points, but it is by no means the most interesting!"
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (09/16/85)
In article <672@ihu1m.UUCP> jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > They >also argued that evolution is the philosophy of origins of the secular humanist >just as creation is the origin philosophy of the Christian. They tried to >draw parallels between creationism and and evolution implying that >both depend on faith and, therefore, are both religions. >The bottom line is that evolution is the antithesis to Christianity. Hmm, well I have never found that accepting evolutionary theory has in any way interfered with my Christianity! It seems that evolution is not quite so tightly connected to secular humanism as they would have us believe, and not quite so antithetical to Christian faith. >The moderator of the program concluded the show by saying that > > If evolution is true then creation must be false. > If creation is false then there is no Adam. > If there is no Adam then there is no original sin. > If there is no original sin then there is no > need for redeemer. Well, actually both 2 and 3 are questionable premises! In fact, depending on how youy define "creation", even #1 may be false. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (09/18/85)
Interestingly, an analysis of the reception of Darwin's work in the nineteenth century suggests that not all relidious traditions had quite as great a difficulty as the Evolutionist/ Creationist controversy might imply. If you're interested in chasing this down a little, I'd refer you to an article about the historical origins of the Fundementalist/Darwinist controversy written by George Marsden and published in the British journal (I think the title and date are right here...forgive me if they aren't) Science in late 83-early 84. You might also want to locate a recent book examining the reception of Darwin among the Calvinist tradition (maybe a University of CHicago Press book...any librarians out there?) whose title escapes me. THe basic hypothesis is that the Darwinian issue provided the early Fundementalists with a kind of concrete enemy against which to wage their battles. In turn, the whole Darwinian method was itself located in the midst of an ongoing philosophical argument about the uses and limits of the Scientific method (yep....a number of philosophers and scientists *also* debate the "Does Science have a kind of Orthodoxy which masks *its* failures. Just be glad there are few of them on this net, or the arguments might REALLY get interesting), and engagement with the FUndementalists had the net effect of polarizing the argument considerably (some Darwinists being as unwilling to stake out and defend a "middle ground" as their Baptist opponents).