Christianity and evolution

[Michaelangelo]

Hi. I am not particularly religous but my 5 yr old DS is asking lots of questions about being a christian, he is also a big fan of dinosaurs and we have talked about evolution. What I want to understand so I can answer his questions in a balanced way is - is being a christian compatible with believing in evolution, how does the fact that dinosuars existed millions of years ago before people fit with God made the world. Can anyone help.

Thx

Christians have different viewpoints on this, so expect lots of different replies.

I guess I knew it wouldn't be straight forward still lots of different ideas will help me to give him a more balnced view hopefully, what is your view procratinating?

Personally I think it fits in OK. The bible is a sort of metaphor for what really happened, iyswim. Evolution occurred in the same order as the 7 days of creation, it is just the time scale that is different.

Creationists really believe that the world was made in 7 days a few hundred thousand years ago but not many mainstream churchs give that idea much time since science has proved otherwise (imo anyway).

I am (liberal) practising Catholic and believe in God and evolution! To me, God did not literally make the earth. Rather, He was the 'spirit' behind it. They teach evolution at our local Catholic schools too, so it's obviously not incompatible. I'm sorry I can't be more help!

We are christians, but Im useless at explaining these things. I will try and get DH to jump on later and explain for you, although it might get a bit deep and technical.

He is a creationist btw, no faffing or arguing with him. LOL

Message withdrawn

Yes, the Christian story of Creation is compatible with the scientific theory of evolution.

I know lots of scientists who are Christians so I don't think there is anything instrinsically incompatible between science and religion.

I am a creationist in that I think God made the world and everything in it, and that it didn't just occur by chance.

If I had to sum up my views, I would say that I don't believe the world was made in 6 literal 24 hour days (although I do think there was a real Adam and Eve) because I think the author of Genesis was not writing at that point to explain scientifically how the world was created but rather that it was created by God out of nothing in an orderly way and that everything was as it was intended to be and not just random.

There is an enormous amount to say on this topic, but that's the position of one Christian who does believe that the Bible is truthful and reliable.

No doubt there will be lots of other MNetters who can help you outh with other views ...

As a Christian and someone who has studied evolution, I have no problem in reconciling the two. The science of evolution explains a mechanism by which the forms of life have changed and developed over time, via the natural variation between individuals, the separation of groups of plants and animals from each other, and the effects these have on their relative "success" in terms of becoming more numerous / not dying out.

God is the answer to a whole different set of questions, about why it happened, and why it has taken the direction it has, resulting in a self-aware part of the natural world, which is capable of entering into a meaningful relationship with God.

I believe that in creating the universe in this way, God allows the whole natural world to actually take part in the act of creation, giving it room to become what it can be, and allowing the full richness of nature to unfold. God gave the framework in which it developed, but did not provide a detailed blue-print for each species.

The creation narrative in Genesis is an attempt by people who were in a relationship with God to explain how important the world was to God, how it came into being purely because God willed it, and how every part of it owes its existence to God's love and care. I do not believe it was intended to be an eye-witness account of a piece of history, but a statement of faith.

I went to a Catholic school. We were taught that God made the world and everything in it in 7 days. We were also taught that this was figurative - not literally 7 days.

Most of the Bible stories are figurative. They express a principle or idea.

It was the only good aspect of my school.

Literalist creationist here, just to make up the numbers

Thank you everyone for your views, actually quite compatible so far adn certainly help me to be able to explain to my son with a little more understanding.

In the end, Suebaroo, will have to burn you

I disagree with you 100%, but by heck your are resilient

MB, elephant hide, me

If you want to believe in the literal word of the bible as the WORD OF GOD, hten no, it isn't compatible. IF you want to answer yoru sons questions as he gets older, read some Richard Dawkins.

I think it's perfectly possible to believe that the Bible is the word of God without believing that it all has to be read literally. The Bible is a collection of different books and there's a diverse range of styles and genres: poetry, history, prophecy, letters etc. You have to consider why the book has been written and its genre in interpreting it. E.g. I'm sure that no-one would claim that Song of Songs was literally true - it's a poetic description of lovers that reflects aspects of God's nature. Of course there is room for debate over exactly how certain passages should be interpreted but that debate can take place between people who genuinely believe that the passage was inspired by God and points to essential truth.

In the case of the early part of Genesis, some people believe that it is literal history, others believe it's a mythical account that explains an essential truth about God to those living in a simpler society. I've known people with a deeply sincere Christian faith come to each of those viewpoints after very careful thought and I have a great deal of respect for them and their faith.

I am not a scientist and am not qualified to judge but DH is a university lecturer in evolutionary biology and a committed Christian. In his view evolution is demonstrably true but also completely compatible with a fairly traditional Christian faith. I think he'd describe it in a similar way to AMuminScotland.

Of course science hasn't (yet?) uncovered where the world came from (evolution only explains the process by which life has developed). For many, the complexity of the process and the sheer improbability of the world ever coming into being seems to reflect the divine in a profound way.

Beautifully explained catz and amuminscotland!

The more interesting question is how can we be made in the image of God if we're still evolving. Were we in His image 2000 years ago or are we now and if we change will we not be in his image any more?

I believe in evolution but it is not 'demonstrably' true because we don't yet have a lab that can replicate the last six million years or so, so there has been no demonstration.

My view on the "image of God" question is that, since I don't believe our exact physical blue-print was decided in advance, we are in the image of God in respect of our self-awareness and capacity for understanding (to a limited extent) and having a relationship with God. I believe that Homo Sapiens is the first part of the natural world to evolve to the point where we are capable of that. I don't think physical evolution has made us any more in the image of God than the earliest true humans were, as we are really not much different from them. What has changed is the development of ideas, and our ability to pass on those ideas to later generations - the people of Israel passed on the story of their developing relationship with God, first as oral tradition and then in written form, and then God took the step of moving that on in a big jump with the Incarnation, and we're still trying to get to grips with that.

One more question if God created Adam and
eve how does that fit with evolution of man from apes?

I would be wary of relying on Richard Dawkins alone as the opposition to creationism; hasn't he received a lot of criticism from both science and religious perspectives alike?

There is a diference between man in the image of God and an animal who looks like a man. The first man may have looked like an ape or may have looked like a modern human. Man is set apart from apes because of a spiritual relationship with God rather than a physical diference. It is our bodies that have evolved from apes but our souls are in the image of God.

My view is that there wasn't a specific moment of creation of Adam & Eve, although there must have been a first true human at some stage in evolution, so I don't have any need to connect the story of Adam & Eve to the process of evolution. I'd be interested to know how others deal with that question though, as it's potentially a tricky one.

And I'd agree with walnutshell that Richard Dawkins is not generally considered a "mainstream" evolutionary scientist - he's very evangelical about a set of ideas which go a long way beyond what most scientists would agree on, and is famous because he is controversial, not because he has convinced the scientific world of his theories.

Try looking at some creationist sites, such as answersingenesis, there are other.....

they can answer Dino questions, and is evolution compatible with Christianity......

hope this helps

Only cos he's a alpha male and everyone likes to have a pop.

Unlike religious dogma however, what Dawkins' writes is always open to challenge - he welcomes it. If you read it would would understand that. That's the difference between an opinion help becasue it is supported by facts, as in evolution and 'blind' faith held despite of the facts, as in a belief in god.

It is more than a bit depressing when people think criticism is a bad thing. It is the very essence of science.