The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

Lawrence87

Woodpecker
Orthodox
This is an issue that I have struggled with because I spent time studying evolution and such when I was an ardent atheist. In some regard I don't think it is beneficial to go around saying that you cannot reconcile Christianity and evolution because that will create atheists. The scientists are good at making their case.

I think of it as somewhat of a mystery, for reasons unknown to man, after the fall the world was altered to reflect our distance from God. Perhaps it would be too painful if we lived in a world that was obviously and unambiguously created by a God whom we rejected? Thus we fell into a world that has ambiguity about it's origins to it... Upon taking on animal flesh we were left in a world that appeared as though that's all we ever were. In a similar way to the fact that death was actually a blessing to save us from perpetual existence in a fallen world, perhaps the 'record' of the fallen world's history exists to soften the blow somewhat. Or perhaps God wants us to search our hearts for Him, not the world.

I also see, however, that the scientists read a lot into ambiguity, try to claim precise knowledge of one off events in the past and so forth, and that their case entirely relies upon faith based assumptions that lie at the root of the scientific method...

In any case, for people who have read a lot about evolution and developed an understanding of it, it can be difficult to process. I think telling them you cannot possibly reconcile Christianity with evolution is a needless stumbling block. Even if that is true, it's probably best to let them arrive at that by themselves, because handling it poorly could turn them away from Christ...
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
In any case, for people who have read a lot about evolution and developed an understanding of it, it can be difficult to process.
Of course it is, evolitionary theory, if true, means knowledge, mathematics, logic and reason don't exist.
I think telling them you cannot possibly reconcile Christianity with evolution is a needless stumbling block.
Christ is Truth who is the Stumbling Block.
In some regard I don't think it is beneficial to go around saying that you cannot reconcile Christianity and evolution because that will create atheists.
Atheism is foolishness, imbecility. Truth doesn't make atheists.
The scientists are good at making their case.
I've yet to read or meet one. In 9th grade I discovered biologists can't do math. Jave yet to meet one that can.
Even if that is true, it's probably best to let them arrive at that by themselves, because handling it poorly could turn them away from Christ...
People arrive at Truth not by themselves but through the Holy Spirit working through people in Christ's Body.
 

Lawrence87

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Of course it is, evolitionary theory, if true, means knowledge, mathematics, logic and reason don't exist.

Christ is Truth who is the Stumbling Block.

Atheism is foolishness, imbecility. Truth doesn't make atheists.

I've yet to read or meet one. In 9th grade I discovered biologists can't do math. Jave yet to meet one that can.

People arrive at Truth not by themselves but through the Holy Spirit working through people in Christ's Body.
Having been on the other side of the fence, I can say that once you buy into certain ideas about the philosophy of science, and all that kind of stuff, the case put forward by evolutionists is robust enough to be convincing. That is not to say it is correct, but my point is that people will cling on to those presuppositions, and it can be difficult to shake off. To tell a new convert to Christianity that there is absolutely no reconciliation between evolution and Christianity is a risky business because if they have bought into it, there is a risk that they will say 'well it seems to me that evolution is true... so...'

Ultimately I agree with you. But the process of letting go of the old man can be tough for some depending on how much they have bought into the ways of the world, and in my view it would be better not to offer such people a dilemma between the two, and as you say let the Truth work through them. When I first converted it was a difficult subject to get my head around, I decided to put it aside, and my faith became more robust through unrelated experiences, and now it doesn't really challenge me. But my experience might have been different if it had been drummed into me that 'it's either A or B'.

For this reason I think it is something that needs to be handled with discretion. I would never tell someone, especially a new Christian that they cannot follow Christ and accept evolution. Essentially that is between themselves and God, and trying to influence someone one way, might have the opposite effect than desired. I don't want to answer for telling someone that they cannot believe in Christ and evolution, and unwittingly causing them to fall away. It's not up to me really, I've got my own business with God.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
I can say that once you buy into certain ideas about the philosophy of science...
This is true, I usually hit hard against materialism & reductionism before the evolution question comes up. Hitting the heart of one's presuppositions is more effective, it's what God did to me concerning the views I was raised in concerning the early Church.
 
The Catholic Church sees no daylight between the concept of evolution and Christian faith. A believer must simply hold that God is the author of life. In 1950, well before Vatican II or the reign of Pope Francis, Pope Pius XII explained in his encyclical entitled Humani Generis:

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”


The excellent Orthodox Christian author David Bentley Hart makes the following point about how an absolute insistence on the part of some Christians that the only acceptable account of creation lies in a literal interpretation of the Biblical Genesis story has helped to fuel the rise of atheism:

There would not be so many slapdash popular atheist manifestoes, in all likelihood, if there were not so many soft and inviting targets out there to provoke them: young earth creationists who believe that the two contradictory cosmogonic myths of the early chapters of Genesis are actually a single documentary account of an event that occurred a little over six millennia ago, and that there really was a Noah who built a giant ark to rescue a compendious menagerie from a universal deluge, or Hindu nationalists who insist that Rama’s Bridge was actually built by Hanuman’s monkeys, and so forth. Here, certainly, the new atheism has opponents against which it is well matched.

It should be noted, though, just out of fairness, that the emergence of fundamentalism in the last century was not some sort of retreat to a more original or primitive form of faith. Certainly the rise of the Christian fundamentalist movement was not a recovery of the Christianity of earlier centuries or of the apostolic church. It was a thoroughly modern phenomenon, a strange and somewhat poignantly pathetic attempt on the part of culturally deracinated Christians, raised without the intellectual or imaginative resources of a living religious civilization, to imitate the evidentiary methods of modern empirical science by taking the Bible as some sort of objective and impeccably consistent digest of historical data. It is of course absurd to treat the Bible in that way—though, frankly, no more absurd than thinking that “science shows that God does not exist”—but it is also most definitely not the way the Bible was read in the ancient or mediaeval church. The greatest Church Fathers, for instance, took it for granted that the creation narratives of Genesis could not be treated literally, at least not in the sense we give to that word today, but must be read allegorically—which, incidentally, does not mean read as stories with codes to be decrypted but simply read as stories whose value lies in the spiritual truths to which they can be seen as pointing.”
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
Ever notice that people who treat evolution (and other liberal nonsense) as some sort of religious commandment from on high don't have children?
And yet, we as God fearing creationists, are the ones who have many children?

It's almost like evolutionary pressure favors those who don't overthink the world and have many children.
Sounds like we're the most fit guys. :laugh:
 

Solitarius

Sparrow
The Catholic Church sees no daylight between the concept of evolution and Christian faith. A believer must simply hold that God is the author of life. In 1950, well before Vatican II or the reign of Pope Francis, Pope Pius XII explained in his encyclical entitled Humani Generis:

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.”


The excellent Orthodox Christian author David Bentley Hart makes the following point about how an absolute insistence on the part of some Christians that the only acceptable account of creation lies in a literal interpretation of the Biblical Genesis story has helped to fuel the rise of atheism:

There would not be so many slapdash popular atheist manifestoes, in all likelihood, if there were not so many soft and inviting targets out there to provoke them: young earth creationists who believe that the two contradictory cosmogonic myths of the early chapters of Genesis are actually a single documentary account of an event that occurred a little over six millennia ago, and that there really was a Noah who built a giant ark to rescue a compendious menagerie from a universal deluge, or Hindu nationalists who insist that Rama’s Bridge was actually built by Hanuman’s monkeys, and so forth. Here, certainly, the new atheism has opponents against which it is well matched.

It should be noted, though, just out of fairness, that the emergence of fundamentalism in the last century was not some sort of retreat to a more original or primitive form of faith. Certainly the rise of the Christian fundamentalist movement was not a recovery of the Christianity of earlier centuries or of the apostolic church. It was a thoroughly modern phenomenon, a strange and somewhat poignantly pathetic attempt on the part of culturally deracinated Christians, raised without the intellectual or imaginative resources of a living religious civilization, to imitate the evidentiary methods of modern empirical science by taking the Bible as some sort of objective and impeccably consistent digest of historical data. It is of course absurd to treat the Bible in that way—though, frankly, no more absurd than thinking that “science shows that God does not exist”—but it is also most definitely not the way the Bible was read in the ancient or mediaeval church. The greatest Church Fathers, for instance, took it for granted that the creation narratives of Genesis could not be treated literally, at least not in the sense we give to that word today, but must be read allegorically—which, incidentally, does not mean read as stories with codes to be decrypted but simply read as stories whose value lies in the spiritual truths to which they can be seen as pointing.”
Anyone who does not believe that Noe lived & did what the Holy Scripture relates of him stinks of heresy. As for the infidel & apostate pigs & monkeys; they would have seized upon some other pretext to remain unbelievers or to apostatize if that rotting pile of dung Darwin, accursed be his worthless memory, had not dreamt up his absurd poppycock in the 19th century. May God preserve the remnant of the Faithful & may His wrath soon fall on those that hate Him. From the 2nd Psalm:"Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? [2] The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. [3] Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. [4] He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. [5] Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage." All that is going on in the world is only the beginning, there will be more disasters of various kinds, wars will break out & soon the wicked who in their folly & pride thought themselves to be all, will learn that they are nothing.
 
Ever notice that people who treat evolution (and other liberal nonsense) as some sort of religious commandment from on high don't have children?
And yet, we as God fearing creationists, are the ones who have many children?

It's almost like evolutionary pressure favors those who don't overthink the world and have many children.
Sounds like we're the most fit guys. :laugh:

I like to call them "Darwin's Dead-Enders"
 

cosine

Robin
Horses and donkeys are a clear set of a recently divergent species. They can create offspring together(mules), but mules are infertile and thus donkeys and horses are unlikely to ever recombine.

For those stating that evolution causes beneficial adaptations, consider that:
1. Most adaptations are bad, so most get weeded out very quickly by natural selection
2. Some adaptations take a while to kill off a species. For example the Irish Elk grew massive antlers due to female selection, in fact too big, and they had trouble holding their heads up, or would get entangled. A harsh winter came and they went extinct.
https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/ar...sh Elk, Megaloceros, is,12 feet (3.65 meters).
 

Patrick1

Pigeon
Orthodox
I worked at a children's hospital for 5 years and saw countless kids with birth defects. Alot don't live long and without modern medicine almost none would live long at all. The idea that enough random mutations (nice way of saying birth defects) happened in a beneficial way that we went from single cell organisms to fully conscious humans is the most laughable fairy tale I've ever heard in my life.
 

NoMoreTO

Hummingbird
I was thinking tonight, I don't know of any system in the physical sciences that shows the process of "evolution". The word evolution is used constantly with respect to work situations, political situations, all situations. Evolve is so part of the day to day vocabulary, it concerns me how deep this word/concept is entrenched into people's minds.
 
Look up 'axis of evil' and understand the earth is stationary and the central piece of creation. Yes, that is the name given by scientists because they see it as an evil occurrence that threatens their entire paradigm.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
Look up 'axis of evil' and understand the earth is stationary and the central piece of creation. Yes, that is the name given by scientists because they see it as an evil occurrence that threatens their entire paradigm.
Username checks out!

How do you feel about the X and Y axes in basic trigonometry?

Can a basketball player spin a spherical ball around it's axis (on his finger tip), or would this be the axis of evil as well?
 

SimpleMan

Sparrow
Enjoyable documentary.

'Is Genesis History?' features over a dozen scientists and scholars explaining how the world intersects with the history recorded in Genesis. From rock layers to fossils, from lions to stars, from the Bible to artifacts, this fascinating film will change the way you see the world. The film’s goal is to provide a reasonable case for Creation in six normal days, a real Adam and Eve, an actual fall, a global flood, and a tower of Babel. Dr. Del Tackett, creator of The Truth Project , serves as your guide—hiking through canyons, climbing up mountains, and diving below the sea—in an exploration of two competing views…one compelling truth.

Is Genesis History?​


 
Last edited:
Username checks out!

How do you feel about the X and Y axes in basic trigonometry?

Can a basketball player spin a spherical ball around it's axis (on his finger tip), or would this be the axis of evil as well?
Irrelevant concepts and I see you have no clue what the axis of evil is. I think Catholics truly worship the science given to them by their Jesuit web spinners.
 

Lawrence87

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Enjoyable documentary.



Is Genesis History?​


I am currently watching.

I think it makes the mistake of granting too much ground to science. It's not exposing the fundamental problems with the scientific/materialist worldview, it's basically playing at science. Here is such and such expert, lets stand on some rocks and talk about why our 'model' is better than the mainstream scientific model.

Whilst it does touch on one of the major problems with evolutionary science, that being the assumption that past conditions are the same as those seen today, it is still trying to work within the scientific paradigm to do this. So it's basically trying to use science to say that science is wrong. Anyone well trained in the scientific rhetoric will rip this to shreds, because they are using their toolkit and playing on their ballpark.

Really the only way to reject evolution, is to demonstrate the fundamental flaws in the scientific world view, rather than trying to use their own moves against them. One of the main things that helped me was to see that science is just as faith based as belief in God, that it cannot justify its presuppositions, and that the fruits of holding to it as a worldview are almost entirely negative. I think it is better to just step out of their ballpark and embrace faith. It's difficult, and I struggle with it because materialism is so entrenched in our mindset, but you can't win at their game when you allow them to set the bounds, and the rules etc.

EDIT: Basically they are just going 'can I bring my Bible to your science game?' which will get them laughed out of the room. Really it should be 'if you want to pick up a Bible, you've got to let go of your scientific materialism'
 
Last edited:

SimpleMan

Sparrow
Also, I once heard (maybe read) many years ago that most scientists, the deeper they look into their chosen field and niche, always come to the conclusion of the existence of God as an explanation for something that can't be explained.
 

The Beast1

Peacock
Gold Member
I like to call them "Darwin's Dead-Enders"

Also, I once heard (maybe read) many years ago that most scientists, the deeper they look into their chosen field and niche, always come to the conclusion of the existence of God as an explanation for something that can't be explained.
Personally I like to say that the evolution debate is done and finished, but the actual answer doesn't make anyone happy. Creationists, by virtue of having many children, are living proof that anti-evolutionary stances are winning the, "survival of the fittest".

Evolutionists are losing simply by not having children.

Thusly, creationism wins out even if evolution has merit. Science and more specifically intelligence are anti-nature and thusly over time, will ultimately be worked out and forgotten.

It's almost as if this was done by someone intelligently designing us...
 
Top