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

I'd only look at creationist or 'intellegnet dsign' sites if you want to be confounded by pseudo-science.

I probably shouldn't ask this because I don't want to distract from the original question, but I'm fascinated to hear that Adam and Eve have also been dispensed with. Where does that leave original sin if they were just a metaphor too?

AMIS, you don't agree that Dawkin's isn't "mainstream"??!

He is about as mainstream as you can get! He is the head honcho! AND you don't get more mainstream than

he is not famous because he is controvertial. he is 'famous' because he is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

And of course thar he is at the top of his field - not on the fringes.

Actually I don't think Adam and Eve have necessarily been dispensed with. It depends on your view. It's all rather confusing...

Message withdrawn

OK, I guess maybe my view of Dawkins dates back a few years now - when I was studying evolution, some parts of his theories (the Selfish Gene hypothesis) were being accepted as an interesting way of viewing evolution, centering on the genes rather than the whole organism, but his views on cultural evolution were regarded as totally off the wall. I guess the scientific world managed to keep developing after I'd lost touch with it ...

I'm certainly all in favour of the scientific method, and agree that fighting off the garbage pseudo-science of ID has to be a priority. I know there's been a push in the UK by ID supporters to make science teachers include the "alternatives" to evolution as if they were equally valid in scientific terms, which would horrify me.

Message withdrawn

Yes pruners that was the stuff I was thinking of - back in the late 80's (I've got old, how did that happen?) the gene-based view of evolution that Dawkins had brought out was just about getting accepted into mainstream evolution theory, but he was generally viewed as a bit of a maverick for all the cultural meme stuff which was part of that same book. So while one part of his work was respected, overall he was seen as rather odd and a bit obsessed about stuff like culture and religion which was not considered to be an appropriate subject for scientists to get involved with.

Pruners

I am so proud of you!

Dawkins himself took back his selfish gene hypothesis though amuminscotland.

I really need to keep up better!

My miniscule claim to fame.....

Erm, I think you'll find he didn't OMDB!

Sorry if this is off topic, but isn't one of the main problems with Dawkin's that he turns the scientific disproval (or disapproval maybe) of creation into the grounds for disproval of God/religion? And furthermore isn't his argument and passion delivered with the same zeal (and lack of proof) that he despises within theism?

I am open to correction. I have a copy of The God Delusion on my desk and really must read it but have been put off by some reviews - both for and against.

No. That's the laziest and most common adhominem argument. I listened to the Bishop of Durham misrepresent him like this earler this year. When he was asked if he would recommend people read the book (and it isn';t just Dawkin's, but Chris Hitchens and Sam Harris) to find out for themselves he blanched at the question and said he wouldn't.

I think it's telling that Dawkins would always advise people to go out and learn more about the argument they are having, where people like the DoD do the opposite. It's quite subtle but very telling I think.

And Dawkin's is responding to an attack on science by religion, not an unprovoked attack on relition by rationalism.

The fact of this 'double-speak' is near ubiquitous now by people in religious circles however is pretty dispicable and as far from the 'truth' as you can get.

Sorry, BoD - bishop of Durham

Dinosaur article here

Here is a little funny to lighten things a little, and apt for the subject....

On
the first
day, God created the dog and said:

'Sit all day by the door of
your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will
give you a life span of twenty years.'

The dog said: 'That's a
long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back
the other ten?'

So God agreed.

On the second day, God
created the monkey and said:

'Entertain people, do tricks, and
make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year l ife span.'

The monkey said: 'Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty
long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the Dog did?'

And God agreed.

On the third day, God created the cow and said:

'You must go into the field with the farmer all day long
and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the
farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years.'

The cow said: 'That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for
sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?'

And God agreed again.

On the fourth day, God created man
and said:
'Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I'll
give you twenty years.'

But man said: 'Only twenty years? Could
you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the
monkey gave back, and the ten the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?'

'Okay,' said God, 'You asked for it.'

So that is why for
our first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves. For the
next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next
ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the
last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

There is no need to
thank me for this valuable information. I'm doing it as a public
service.

Oh well, I've long suspected I was a lazy and common hominem myself.

So, if he is responding to an attack on science by religion, he isn't necessarily attacking religion per se?

Well if someone says "you scientists are making it all up on purpose. Everyone knows the world was made 7000 years ago in 7 days" you have to say something back.

Yes and you most definitely should say something back, but surely that is representative of the limitations of some churches/leaders and Christianity at least can cope with evolution?

I used to think that it was probably best not to say anything about religion. Just live and let live and don't offend anyone. Then I saw that many religious people didn't return the compliment, but felt they had the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and what should be taught in schools.
I don't try and unconvert religious people, but I do my bit to ensure that people looking on and undecided can at least see that it's not universally accepted. I think that's more or less where Richard Dawkins stands. Though he is better at it than I am

Like I said before, if it was a case of 'live and let live' there would not be a problem, but religion, via the pseudoscientific creation of 'intelligent design' are attacking rationalism. They then defend all religion (via adhominem and appeals to emotion), and non-rational belief systems, to bolster their own specific position; for exanple, the christian church will defend the muslim faith because they have a shared goal in trying to discredit rationalism - and the ^only way they can do this is via arguments of emotion, not logic. But if ever they are successful in ousting rationalism (which includes a great deal of science and technology - all birth control - all ideas of equality between sexes) they cease to be allies and become enemies.

It is people like Richard Dawkins that have the foresight to see where these disputes may lead - and try to argue - with words to influence change.

Bit if we all can't abide being told we are less clever than Richard Dawkins and people like him, then we're fucked, and maybe deservedly so if we care more about our egos than our kids futures in a free country.

Monkeytrousers - I accept that there is a need to argue against ID and Creationism being taught as science in schools, and I agree that the way certain church leaders are going about the argument only makes them look stupid and backward-looking. The problem in a lot of cases is that the church leaders have very little understanding of science in general, or evolution in particular, and become defensive rather than looking for ways to discuss the issue sensibly. But the fact is that there have always been Christians who do actually understand science and rationalism and do not have a problem with nine tenths of what Dawkins says. The difficulty is that Dawkins adds the extra 10% which makes it difficult to talk about the areas where we can agree. If you've read my previous posts here about how I reconcile evolution and faith in God, I hope you don't think I am rejecting rationalism. I just happen to believe in God - I accept that there is no scientific evidence to support this view, but there is equally none to contradict it. On practically every other matter I would go with Occam's Razor, and scientific method, over blind faith, but on this specific one I go with my own personal experience.

I haven't read "The God Delusion" (I don't make enough time for reading these days, which I should probably try to do something about) but the title comes across as insulting my views in order to be controversial, rather than encouraging me to enter into a debate. I do not think that belief in God is a delusion. Dawkins has been very successful in stirring up debate, and making the public more aware of the issue, which is a good thing, but it really doesn't come down to the straight choice between religion and rationalism that he (or should I say the popular view of him) claims.