creation vs evolution

[TheFourthLobster]

Genuinely curious here about what people with faith believe about creation and evolution.
If you start with the belief that Adam and Eve were created then are you also believing that evolution doesn't happen? If you accept evolution does happen, then how does this fit with your faith?
Or where A&E created and is evolution something that has happened since?

Do Christians still consider a soul to be an actual thing that people have and animals don't or is it a metaphor now?

Serious question because I think it used to be something god put in at either conception or a bit after, but I don't think it has come up in conversation for years so it may be seen differently now.

We camped in Lyme Regis last May bank holiday. DS1 who is fossil mad brought various chunks of sedimentary rock back to DH who obligingly split them open. In one was a perfect imprint of several small ammonites.

They are between 60 and 200 million years old.

A tiny, insignificant nugget of evidence admittedly but really, given the geological evidence, how much more convincing do creationists need? Really, it's baffling.

I don't think you could have a soul without self-awareness.

so children under 18 months and those with severe mental disabilities don't have souls? Maybe god just doesn't want babies or people like that in heaven?

Does it matter if species get 'binned off' any more that it maters that individuals die?

I have no problem with it when it's evolution but when someone wants me to imagine it was an infinitely wise creator? What about the species that didn't die and the ones that kill many people, like strains of bacteria and viruses and then the mosquitos that can transfer them. If he's a loving and wise god he's pretty messed up creating things that eat the eyes of live African children.

could you imagine sitting down and designing a creature that would eat babies eyes? But only babies in really poor countries mind that have little access to medical care?

What I can't get out of my head now is the idea that at some point god said "That's enough self awareness to have a soul" and put one in a foetus. You then have a child with a soul, but its mother - who can only be slightly different genetically - not having one at all.

God could do it a few generations earlier, but no matter where he drew the line you get parents without a soul and a child with one.

and how does that all a/effect free will?

"I won't give this baby a soul but the next one I will, and if they choose to not believe in me* they will have to suffer for eternity"

*which will be more and more difficult once they start to develop ways of testing what is real.

Eh? I'm not saying that an infinitely wise creator made those species, I'm saying that evolution did. I'm not saying that God made pathogens, I'm saying evolution did. I'm not saying that God made souls, I'm saying that evolution made self-aware species, which are therefore capable of comprehending the possibility of a God. I do not believe that God 'puts a soul' into a foetus at some specific monent before birth - that's not Protestant teaching, though it may be RC belief. The soul is a metaphor.

The only thing I'm saying that the atheists aren't is that I believe that there is some form of God out there that had some level of involvement in the Big Bang. Not that He created each species exactly as they are, or that His plan had to end up here. If that was going to be 'perfection' then a 6-day creation would have been the logical way to do it. But that quite obviously didn't happen.

Oh and I don't believe that those who don't believe in God are going to suffer for eternity. The concept of hell is a largely medieval one. The threat of hell may have some use, the reality of it would not.

But you believe in an afterlife, one in which access is gained through belief in a/any god?

God knew his system would make things that would eat babies eyes before it happen and did nothing to stop it. He isn't blameless by any stretch. It's like saying someone who throws lumps of concrete off bridges over the M11 is innocent because it's actually the lump of concrete that causes the accident and not the person who dropped it or similar.

AMumInScotland that's interesting about not believing in an actual soul. I'm not surprised that you don't believe in it, but I tried to look up what the current position was and it was difficult because too many people talk about it metaphorically without spelling out what they mean.

Surely it was the default not that long ago to believe it was a separate thing that god inserted. If not for an immortal soul then someone whose body is destroyed is gone. I suppose god can make an identical copy, but I doubt that feels reassuring to most people.

I found Pope John Paul II talking about "the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul" so it seems that Catholics have souls.

I was reading about how at one time a baby was given a soul at conception +40 days. +80 for a female child. Presumably because you women are less important :)

Still even if we replace 'soul' with 'awareness' it seems to leave a similar problem. I'm pretty sure no church thinks animals go to heaven so there'd have to be a dividing line. A decision that this hairy hominid is not human, but the offspring are.

Evolution doesn't really require a line to be drawn, but it seems one must be by god.

Roman Catholic teaching includes a lot of things that Protestants really don't go along with, and the idea that God specifically puts a soul in is part of that. But it isn't something that people even within churches really fret about in detail. To me, soul is just another word for things like mind and self-awareness which come out of something in the brain's development. So, God didn't have to draw a line when it came to early hominids - they evolved to a stage where they developed that awareness. You can say one individual had it when it's parents didn't. But equally you can label one as 'homo sapiens' and others as 'homo erectus' or whatever - science would equally have to draw an arbitrary line between which individual was part of which species. We have enough skulls etc to decide this one is species a and this one is species b, but there must have been a continuum between the two, so a theoretical point at which an individual was a different species from its parents. But we can't point to that moment. So I don't think the lack of a defining moment for 'souls' is that big a deal.

headinhands I believe there will be something when this creation stops, and that people who are in relationship with God will have the chance to be in it. But I don't know the details, and I don't know if others will also get the offer, and I don't know which faiths will turn out to be right or wrong.

I don't know which faiths will turn out to be right or wrong

Wouldn't it seem sensible for god to make it clear? And to have told those who were wrong that they were wrong and to have told them to not kill each other because for the main they all want the same things?

Just imagine you were going to try and begin to determine which faith, if any, was actually the right one? Wouldn't evidence be a good start?

The concept of hell is fairly medieval?

No. They just took the idea and ran with it. Embellished it massively for all sorts of nefarious reasons, but it wasn't their concept or invention.

We have Jesus himself to thank for that. He was pretty clear about what would happen if we didn't toe the line. Not quite sure why so many Christians disregard 99% of what he actually said. It wasn't all about loving each other, you know.

I think it might be because most don't actually know what he said...their vicars don't bother to read out the controversial bits on Sundays.

And yes, lots of Christians do believe that evolution was the mechanism God set up to create life.

Problem is, when you actually understand what evolution is all about then it becomes clear that lots of the things Christians hold dear...that we are special, made in his image, that he's omniscient...all falls apart. Evolution disproves those things.

An omniscient, universe creating God is entirely at odds with the level of randomness evolution needs.

Of course, nothing can truly disprove the existence of the Christian god - but an understanding of evolution comes very close.

So you're born and you happen to think there is some 'not seen' presence at work in your life. Your mum, however, having been born just before the point of self awareness, was unable to believe in an unseen power. Imagine that years later you arrive in paradise and notice Mum isn't there. Sadly she was born 27 months before god felt homosapiens had enough self-awareness to get to heaven. System of a just god? System of a human construct?

So people who don't believe in god are less self aware then those who do?

And and what point do you say 'that's actually not god'. What happens when my god is telling me stuff that's really horrible, like homosexuality should be a crime. But hey, as far as I'm concerned I'm in a relationship with him and that's what he said.

Good post Caffe

Basically a god who leaves it all to evolution is either incompetent or uncaring or possibly both. So not one I would choose to worship.

So, basically, IABU to believe in any sort of God, whether I believe in creation or evolution or anything else?

You might as well have said that from the start. I had this weird idea the point of threads on here was to attempt to understand someone else's point of view, on the basis that understanding had some value for its own sake.

I haven't made any attempt to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, only to explain how I attempt to make sense of my faith, from a personal perspective.

But since I will always be wrong if I believe in God, there really isn't any point in me talking about the detail, is there?

Sorry about the grumpiness. I just keep making the mistake of over-sharing on here about my faith in the belief that people actually want to understand rather than judge. I should know better by now.

What you said makes sense to me AMum :)

I guess I am hazy about evolotion and first to admit on these threads that I am really no scientist, hence not entering in depth discussions on the subject as I would quickly show my ignorance I do however know enough Christians who are scientists (Inc dh) and can enjoy listening to them on the subject.

I don't think God plants a soul after conception (+80 days for females??) - that may be an RD belief in some quarters but certainly no doctrine. I do think we are spirit/soul, mind and body and our essence is in all of these combined - for me experience of God are in all aspects, not simply some airy fairy unquantified thing called a soul.

And of course animals go to heaven! except eye worms and wasps

Well, AMumInScotland, I appreciate the details. Sometimes I wish there was a database for beliefs so I could more easily look things up. Subdivided by religion, denomination etc.

Madhairday, the implanting thing was real, but not sure when it fell from favour exactly. It got tied in with questions about abortion you see because pre-soul would be different theologically. So I 'think' it's now at the moment of conception for RCs. Mind you even that could get tricky because of twins. You could end up with some people believing the second one born didn't have a soul.

On the animals go to heaven thing that was a mistake. Of course all loved pets go to heaven, but not my neighbours rottweiler.

Anyway, I'm sure he will want to take it where he is going. :)

I asked you explain you beliefs and queried the logic behind it, you don't need to engage if it upsets you, really you don't. It's not like I have walked into your lounge while you were quietly reading your bible and shouted at you. I have at no point been rude or called you names, but I have examined the logic behind what you believe as is going to happen when you post on a public forum. Why get upset? So what if I clearly can't see it how you do and see problems with it. As far as I'm aware there are plenty here who find my lack of faith challenging and I welcome questioning and it's certainly nothing to get grumpy about, I love examining mine and others thoughts, and if I were to get grumpy with being examined I usually think 'ooh that's interesting, why have I reacted like that' rather than getting the person to be quiet.

Of course I will use judgement when listening to others beliefs, you don't? Why don't you want your beliefs judged? I like talking about what I think and seeing what others think, I welcome the opportunity to explain how I have arrived at the point I have. What difference does it make to you if I don't agree with how you see things, do you then have to believe what you do a bit less?

Honestly? I don't like feeling judged when I thought we were chatting. But there you go, I shouldn't expect anything else. It just gets a bit repetitive. But hey, guess I'm just not in the mood this evening. Laters /.