Ever since Darwin first published his theory on the Origin of Species it has been met with fierce resistance by religious groups. Understandably so for it directly disproves much of what is written in the Bible. The opposition to Darwin's theories was at first met with outright denial, but as time went on, and more and more evidence mounted the fierce Christian denial of these theories was gradually reduced.
Today, Christian denial of Darwin's theories is restricted to a small segment of fundamentalists (crazies) who propose teaching "creationism" (Christianity under a guise of science) in lieu of, or in comparison to, the Theory of Evolution. In attempt to make a case for Creationism anti-evolution lobbyists created a list of 1,000 scientists who espoused creationism as a valid theory. While at face value, this seems to be a threat to the legitimacy of evolutionism, the pro-evolution response was devastating. The pro-evolution lobbyists also came up with a list of 1,000 scientists that supported their view. The only difference, they restricted their scientists to only those with the first name of Steve. That relying only on scientists with the first name of Steve, evolutionists were able to garner as many signatories as creationists relying on all Scientists of any name shows how widespread acceptance of evolution is in the scientific community.
Most Christians have accepted the theory of evolution as fact, and merely incorporated it into their faith system. Believing that evolution proceeded as supported by Science, but God created the world and set things in motion. While this new belief seems rational and believable it raises many questions that in my view, undermine Christianity as a legitimate faith.
The first issue raised by belief in evolution and God is the most obvious. Why? If God has the power to create life why would he start with such a simple form of it? Why not simply skip all the intermediate steps and simply create man in his image as the Bible states he did? Why start at the most basic form of life and wait billions of years for it to slowly develop into humans who could then be saved? If God could create life out of nothing then there was no valid reason for him to use evolution at all.
The second issue raised by evolution is that of the soul. The Bible states that we all have an eternal soul that lives on after we die. Whether we spend our eternal afterlife in heaven or in hell depends on our behavior in this life. The problem is that evolution was an extremely gradual process, with change slowly occurring over millions of years. There is no clear demarcation between stages. The problem that arises from this is at what point did we develop a soul and thus the eternal life?
There was no clear moment at which we transformed from beast to man. It was a gradual process that took millions of years. The Bible definitively states that animals do not have souls, otherwise eating meat would be a horrendous act. If that is the case, at what point did we evolve a soul. Was it a slow process with a limited eternal life ate first? Will we be sharing heaven with men that are part beast? Or enduring torment in hell with beasts that are part men? At what point in evolution did God create a soul in humanity? Since humans as a species have very gradually evolved obviously any point at which God imparted us with an immortal soul would be very arbitrary. The belief that humans hold an eternal soul and animals do not is incredibly illogical in the face of evolution.
The third issue that Evolution confronts Christianity with is that of timing. Seen on an evolutionary scale God's great plan for human salvation seems at best poorly thought out, and at worst, idiotic. By believing in both the Bible and evolution we are supposed to believe that God created the world several billion years ago, waited billions of years for life to evolve, millions more for humanity to evolve from primitive apes to the fun-loving, genocide wreaking, homo sapiens that we represent. Then the fun really begins.
The date that humans as we understand them today is still debated but most estimates range from 50,000 to 30,000 BC. Going with the conservative estimate we will say modern humans appeared around 30,000 BC. We are then supposed to believe that God watched 30,000 years of humankind struggling, fighting against disease, nature, animals and ultimately dying young in a harsh cruel world, and did nothing, then a mere 2,000 years ago he decided to send his son to earth and reveal his master plan to humankind in order that they might be saved. We are supposed to believe that he decided the best way to carry out this plan, one he was so passionate about he was willing to sacrifice his own son, was to send him to a mostly illiterate tribe in the desert and spread the message by word of mouth?
If God truly wanted to spread the word why not go to one of the centers of civilization, Persia with its marvelous postal service, Rome with its dominion over most of the known world, China with its already thousands of years old tradition of literacy? Why go to a provincial backwater and die in relative obscurity? The earliest account of Jesus' teachings was almost 6o years after the fact by Mark and is woefully inadequate. Jesus' teachings spread painfully slowly through the Middle East with thousands upon thousands of humans being born, growing old, and dying without ever hearing God's message. If God's intent as Jesus states in the Bible was to spread his word so that “all may know the Glory of God and be saved” then it was an unequivocal failure. For another 1400 years after Jesus' arrival a whole continent, North America, full of sentient humans was cut off from any word of God. Viewed in the light of evolution and human history it is readily apparent that God's master plan to spread his word to the world was poorly though out, and a clear failure.
Seeing the World through scientific view of evolution in my mind, disproves the Christian theory of God. It is absurd to think that an all knowing all powerful God created the world and let it function for Billions of years only stepping in in the last nanosecond of time on an evolutionary scale to act. The fact that this supposed action on his part resulted in ultimate failure further proves its absurdity. Why God, out of all the possible societies and cultures in the world, would choose to only share his message to a small, nomadic tribe of patriarchal illiterates in the desert and rely on them to further spread his vision cannot be believed by a rational human being.

How?
How is the popularity of the estimation indicative of accuracy? Many estiments are much much more recent under 30k years and as small as 6,000.
That's not what the bible says so nice of you to assert that it does. Now we have split worldviews into at least 3. But some things you overlook.
-The suffering is part of the plan a punishment for the fall.
-Immediately (not 30k years later) after the fall the process began of setting things back to their original order. If Jesus came immediately after the fall no one would believe who he was, he wouldn't have taught us as much because the social heiraries didn't exist yet, clearly we weren't ready to receive our messiah. The time following the fall is one of establishing who will make up God's chosen people to bring up the messiah, a time of God letting us know his expectations of us as a people, a process of historical accounts that give Judaism its rich culture and teachings.

Your post is totally ignorant of biblical accounts and fairly ignorant of the concept of biological evolution.
-

So it is your belief that your perfectly good and just god is punishing 10's of billions of people -- making many of them suffer horribly, because of something none of us are morally responsible for?

@Bo

Your question is fairly subjective. The fall explains why the world is the way it is. Personally, I'm don't feel like I am suffering I can't speculate on other people. But yes my belief is that the world is the way it is instead of a better world because man rebelled against God.

The idea that it is unjust to punish future generations for the actions of their ancestors may not seem "fair" or "popular" by a subjective socialistic view of morality today but the view is certainly shared in many cultures as just.

If a gradfather took out a huge loan for his grandson's college education his debt should be repaid by his assets and if they aren't enough its a common practice that his debts are passed to his next of kin otherwise we could have people who are about to die take out loans for us. Ignoring the inconsistencies that may exist with the analogy the point is that the idea of inherited credit passing to future generations is popular and the concept of debts passing is not but only in some cultures.

Similarly, People often boast in their parent's achievements but not in their parent's follies.
If your dad was the president you might expect special attention or treatment.
If your dad was a crooked televangelist that has no connection to you.

I'm not saying we deserve the legacy of our parents but I am saying we are often given our lot in life by them and we play the hand we are dealt and I never felt that idea was unfair. Its also a waste of time thinking it is unfair.

Trust me, Shawn, there is suffering in the world.

Of course morality is subjective. But is this consistent with YOUR world view? I am not talking about bank loans or unfair reputations, I am talking about moral infractions. Should you be put to death for the a murder that your great great grandfather might have got away with? How does this example of perfect morality fit in our culture's morality? Are we wrong not to hold people morally responsible for the moral "evils" of their ancestors?

Exactly... and people who hold the kids responsible are unfair and unjust -- so why should God?

We are not simply talking about playing the hand we are dealt, we are taking about saying it is unjust (according to our current morality) for the dealer for deliberately deal us a bad hand. Unless, you want to invoke special pleading and say that God can hold us morally responsible for the moral infractions of our ancestors -- but we shouldn't do the same. In which case, you are just pulling out the God Wildcard and the conversation comes to an abrupt end.

@Bo
>>Trust me, Shawn, there is suffering in the world.
My comment was toward the subjective nature of the concept of suffering. Why should a just God not allow consequences for things like murder, rape, and deception?
This is not to say that absolute morality doesn't exist but just that subjective morality which is fairly unrelated exists as well.
Isn't your analogy loaded to evoke an emotional response to me or to abuse my instinct of self-preservation? Isn't that what wars boil down to most of the time. Punishing a nation (especially their military) for the actions of a few people??
I would feel terrible if I found out a family member of mine murdered someone. I'm not a big eye for an eye person my death won't bring the other person back. That type of judicial system might have a reduction in murder though because people who have nothing to loose might think twice. Families might turn in fugitives rather than harbor them to avoid taking on their sentence. I certainly have no argument that that system is ineffective or completely deprived of justice though personally it seems too extreme when you bring in the death penalty. however, we aren't separated from God for our parents sins.

Why DID a just God allow for things like murder, rape, and deception?

No.
The morality of this aside, this is not even close to the same thing.

My question remains. Why is it perfectly just for God to hold us responsible for the moral actions of an ancestor at least 6000 out, but it is not perfectly just to hold people morally responsible for the moral wrongs of our ancestors? Or do you think it is?

Why DID a just God allow for things like murder, rape, and deception?

natural result of free will.

This is getting derailed I want to see Caleb defend some of the claims he makes about what the bible says and what the theory of evolution claims.

Consider these claims
-There was no clear moment at which we transformed from beast to man. (this asserts that man "transformed" from a non-human beast) there isn't evidence of this. There is very little conclusive fossil evidence (let alone empirical evidence of such a mutation) even to support this theory let alone enough to assert it as fact. However you have also presupposed that evolution from a universal common ancestor is factual and there isn't empirical evidence of this either.

So which is it? Do we have suffering because of free will, or because of punishment from our "fall"?

In other words, special pleading, God wildcard, end of discussion.

@Bo
How's your morning going by the way?
I think you are confusing cause and effect.
In other words poisoning the well with the "God wildcard wildcard". "If you claim God is omniscient you're cheating." sorry I don't worship a limited God.

Also I gave a speculative answer (two of them) so I didn't end my post there.

Sorry, not going to let you off that easily. Could we have murder, rape, and deception with free will but no fall? In other words, could we have suffering without the fall?

Shawn, your "i know you are but what am I" type responses are becoming tiresome. Realize that you have been attempting to justify your gods actions until you realize they are unjustifiable. Your god is holding mankind morally responsible for the actions of one man, countless generations prior, who was not even able to know good from evil. This makes no sense in any way -- and it is foundation of your religion.

It was a pre-fall existence so commenting on it is speculative and I'm not comfortable doing so because the information available is very limited and the term suffering is subjective. However, because you insist so strongly I'll speculate.

Deception existed via the serpent so he clearly could make man suffer enduring a lie. So essentially suffering was possible by some definitions and I don't know that the bible says suffering wasn't possible anyway. It does say that death and sin nature (where most of our suffering comes from) entered the world at the fall as well as some world changes to plants and provision. The specific ways man will suffer for his transgression against God is outlined in Genesis so it makes sense to understand these verses telling us that these changes were a response to the fall. What we need is not freely provided to (most of) us. We get our provision by the sweat of our brow. What incentive would there be to steal if all we need is provided? Most sins we do against another seem to be based on motivations that could have not existed pre-fall.

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Which part of this states that God holds mankind morally responsible for the actions of one man?

Fiona,

Thank you for the Catholic view, but this is not the standard Christian view, as Shawn would tell you, or the view that is argued here carm.org/adam-our-federal-head

Now for the Catholic view...

Most Catholics do not believe in a literal fall by a literal Adam (thank goodness), so the concept of federal headship must be modified. The Catholic view states that we are sinful "by nature", but this leaves the question as to why a perfectly good God would create us this way, and back to pulling out the wildcard.

@Bo
I don't think that just because the cataclysm has a view that I have the opposite view. As far as I can tell that view is scripturally sound. I don't think we are judged for being born but for the sins we conduct as a result of our nature which we inherited. This nature is also an absence of holiness.

The only Christian view similar to the one you are forcing on me is Calvinism and even that isn't exactly as you describe it.

www.gotquestions.org/original-sin.html

I will admit that I am only a layman in scientific evolution. History and Political science are my true fields. However, my post operates off the assumption that evolutionism is correct. I believe the multitude of evidence from many distinct fields of science such as biology, physiology, psychology, archeoloy, anthropology, an others, overwhelmingly supports this view. No, just because something is widely believed does not mean it ins necessarily true. But if the vast majority of scientists believe in a particular theory and can support it with empirical evidence then I am inclined to believe it.
If you don't believe in evolution despite all the evidence that is presented in support of it then it is essentially pointless for us to discuss this post. Also, you say that I make false assumptions about the Bible in my post. Could you please be more specific? I'll admit it has been a while since I seriously read the Bible.
A final question, when you refer to "the fall" I assume you are referring to Adam and Eve's fall from Eden, and thus you believe in the story of the Garden of Eden as a literal event, not a metaphor?

My perfect God created this world. When He created man, He created him in God's own image. God walked and talked with Adam in the Garden. That right there disproves evolution. Man walked and talked from the beginning. A perfect God could only create perfect things, therefore no evolution necessary.

But the world is not a perfect place. If God created everything perfect than there would be no war or suffering in this world.

@Caleb
Evolution is an ambiguous term. I find it dishonest if you aren't ignorant of this but evolution meaning the fact that mutations exist and favorable mutations are more likely to be passed on generation to generation is proven. However, the limits to evolution are also facts. A mouse can evolve to be strong but the material we are made of has limits. A mouse will never be immune to molten lava for example. No organism exists in molten lava that I know of. Organisms are never 100% impervious to radiation, cold, heat, poisons, disease, or physical trauma. Evolution has limits both material limits and genetic ones.
@Bo
Are all these new posters unique IP's? I really don't buy that someone came on and made Angela's post first thing. Looks like more dishonest propaganda. Its almost a cut and paste of the YEC's monologue from the movie Paul where she tries to use the eye as an example of irreducible complexity.

I believe God created us to evolve. This all happen for a reason and evolution is a easy way for people to base facts off of. God did create us from his image but we truly don't know what that is. Even to this day humanity is evolving and becoming better. It is a hard topic to wrap your mind about but, in my views God created us how it was supposed to happen. If that was is evolution than it is Gods path for us.

Seriously make sure caleb isn't the same IP as these new posters.

I thought we were being spammed, thus I removed all the posts last night and suspended all the new users. New user "Heather" told me in a private message that her professor gave them this site to debate their point of views, thus all the same IP addresses. Despite my hunch, I took Heather for her word and reinstated the users. I do find it curious that all the users seem to have the same style of writing and setup and answer each other's questions so perfectly..."Hey Bo, why are you such a great guy?" But, admittedly, this is the skeptic in me, and it could be due to them all being the same age, same rough demographic, and in the same class. I rather make a type II error here (null hypotheses being new users are legit) allow a little potential abuse, rather than preventing possible legitimate users from participating.

Not sure what the issue is with new posts, but my name is Angela....43 year old female....just found this site.....my son is studying to become a pastor so we talk/debate about things regularly. We have been talking about evolution vs. creationism for a couple of weeks. I was researching it on the net, and I found this site. Hope that is good enough to settle that issue.

I am not sure there will ever be an agreement about this issue. I, as a Christian, have total faith in what I read in the Bible. Do I understand everything in the Bible....no. Do I have to understand everything in the Bible to go to heaven.....no. Can I prove everything that is in the Bible...no. That is where my faith comes in.

Can scientist prove evolution.....no. They base their findings on carbon dating and other stuff. Who came up with that stuff? Humans. Based on what? Humans having ideas that they use to get others to agree with. Scientist can no more prove that the earth was created from a big explosion and we evolved from a single celled organism, than I can "prove" there is a God. I can take my Bible and try to convince you that it is true, but that is all I can do. We as humans have to decide for ourselves whether we got here from and accidental explosion, or from a supreme Creator. I choose God.

Actually, you choose a old book that tells you a story of one of the many gods -- and you are choosing to believe that story. The emotive phrase "I choose God" may make people stand up and cheer in church, but here, you can't get away with such rhetoric. This is what is great about the site -- you will be met with opposition that will make you really think twice about what you think is true.

Welcome to site