Agnostic.com

13 2

Can a person believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time?Lots of people say they do. Choose yes or no. Thanks..

  • 17 votes
  • 12 votes
Grecio 7 Sep 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Well, the vote is 17-12 for yes. That is fairly close. The question is vague to a degree. I didn't realize until someone pointed out that the book of Genesis starts right off the bat with 2 different versions of creation. Yet 2 billion Christians believe it.
I think Christians should just go ahead and drop the old testament, and declare that the rest is just anecdotal.

1

"Believe in the Bible" is wide open to interpretation. My mom (who is a Christian but not an asshole) believes the stories in the Bible were meant to inspire, strike fear, or an attempt to explain what was unknown at the time. It's not to meant to be a interpreted as a historical, fact based document. So if a person views the bible that way, then yes you can believe in the Bible and evolution.

Good point, but I can tell you in South Georgia (USA) there aren't many like your mom. However, there are a lot of Christians that will whisper "We pick and choose which verses of the Bible we want to believe".

0

Well, it's 15-9 with "yes" winning. I voted no. I was a Baptist until I was 62 years old when I finally taught high school Biology. After teaching a chapter on evolution everything changed. Now I am an agnostic. Even when I was young, I couldn't feel that the God of the universe had built one planet just for man, and made up all those rules to go by. I never believed in Adam and Eve or Noah. That whole original sin crap never made any sense, and for a God to send his son to die as a sacrifice is really beyond belief.

3

In psychology they call it "cognitive dissonance."

@Matias Granted that it is diagnosed as a disorder when holdign contradictory beliefs causes problems for a person, but there are persons who can hold contradictory beliefs without any discomfort or disturbance. It ws persons liek that that George Orwell based his idea of "Double Think" on in his novel "1984", although the actual protagonist of the book, Winston, did suffer from cognitive dissonance himself.

So,cognitive dissonance is how I simply describe persons who hold contradictory beliefs in their minds, whether or not those beliefs causes disterss or disturbance in a person. If you know of a more accurate term for those who hold contradictory beliefs, without any distress or disturbance, by all means please enlighten me. But, until I find more accurate terminology, I will use what know of as being as close to accurate as I can get.

2

Yes, as long as you don't actually read the bible, which includes 98% of xtians.

1

Evolution is evidence based, belief in the bible is taken on faith. Yes many religious people accept the fact of evolution. Religion is a la carte, hammer square pegs into round holes.

1

I voted yes, as I know many who claim to do just that. If you go only on evidence then the bible is out either way, so people just pick and choose.

3

My crazy over the top religious ex claims to. They say the buybull is not to be taken literally. It is inspired by god. To me it’s a cop out to further thier agenda to keep an educated flock from from saying” wtf?, this makes no sense”

And we should ask him, what does he think 'inspiration' means? Is it dictation? Is it physcially guiding the hand as it writes? Is it dreams? Is it vague notions of what ought to be? What does inspiration look like? Does one hear a 'voice' or have a 'vision?' How can one know when he/she is inspired, and how can he/she discern divine inspiration from a 'really good idea?' And how can a second party accurately and faithfully interpret the writings or speech of one who is 'inspired' unless they too are 'inspired?'

This entire inspiration thing falls apart immediately. God, if he wanted to, could speak to each one of us directly--he doesn't need mouthpieces called prophets and preachers! And he most certainly wouldn't rely upon a book written during the Bronze Age!

@pnfullifidian all excellent points, couldn’t agree with you more.

1

My vote of "NO" implies an acceptance of the voracity of the Bible by the Christian, irrespective of the fact that there are hundreds, if not thousands of ways in which it has been interpreted.

Apart from all the stories of miracles that directly impinge on science, including biology, the two primary foundational beliefs that, as a Christian, I once found at variance with evolution are a) the story of Adam and his fall, and b) the concept of a soul, that may exist outside of our corporeal bodies.

a) If we accept evolution, we know that humans are evolved from earlier hominids, and lower forms, and that this process took place over millions of years. Knowing what we now know from anthropology, genetics and paleontology, to name but three disciplines, the story of the first humans found in Genesis simply cannot be true. And yet, it is this very story that binds Christianity. According to Paul, it was Adam’s original sin that called for the Plan of Salvation. And yet, from an evolutionary perspective, it is as foolish to attempt to identify when the first sin was committed as it is to identify when the first human male was evolved. The very reason for Christ’s sacrifice is obliterated by evolution. No Adam or Eve, no sin, no sacrifice, no atonement—no Christianity.

b) Secondly, most Christians accept the notion that we have a soul—Catholics and others even consider it a ‘divine spark’ or ‘sacred.’ But from an evolutionary perspective, how and when did these souls arise? Were early souls unsuccessful? Did they, like George Carlin’s Frisbeetarian souls, rise only a few feet and get stuck on the roof? Were early souls able to live for only a few hundred years following the destruction of their hosts? Did Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons and Australopithecines have souls? Did Lucy have a soul and is it still wandering the African plains, 3.2 million years later? Or is Lucy in heaven with God and Jesus, along with the souls of all the other ‘good’ hominids? Unless the Christian wants to believe that God interfered one day, and spliced in a ‘divine spark’ or soul to his chosen Adam and Eve, the entire non-existent science of soul evolution contradicts Christian teaching. Again I ask the Christian evolutionary biologist: how were souls evolved?

@Matias "You give very good reasons why it is VERY difficult to reconcile both, but that was not the question."

Huh? Was not this the very question? "Can a person believe in evolution and the Bible at the same time?"

@Matias Thank you for clarifying. I had not considered that you were referencing me directly. Having blown straight through from a literalist view of scripture where the Bible is history to not believing a single word of it, I fail at times to recognize that there remains a middle ground filled with hand waving reinterpreters, creative justifiers and lukewarm Laodecian apologists. Suffice to say, I've never heard the Neolithic Revolution interpretation. Peace.

2

Yes, a person can believe in science and art at the same time. ( if you have the secret decoder ring )

skado Level 9 Sep 13, 2018
1

Most religious people who have talked to who also believe in evolution simply attribute Evolution to God. They think it's a process that he created for the creatures of this world. Sort of a middle management thing I think.

The question naturally arises, how 'inolved' was he? Did he set up his experiment, and let it run, or did he tinker (interfere)?

@pnfullifidian eh, it usually depends on the person. I have heard differing takes on it. I also just don't pay that much attention to the minut differences in these beliefs.

@HeatherRobson The differences here are not minute, at least to the believer. The first model may be Deistic in nature, where a Creator set up all the laws of nature, and allowed them to run, open loop, while he/she/it is never to be seen or heard from; the second, or Theistic, model yields the more common 'miracle worker,' who can and does interfere in the steady chain of natural causes and effects. The first model allows for agnosticism, while the second does not.

4

If you understand that the fact of evolution is true then you must also understand that the story of original sin is fiction. That eliminates the reason for the crucifixion/resurrection story or any need for spiritual salvation.

Deb57 Level 8 Sep 13, 2018

Kinda wish I'd read your post beore I wrote mine ... mercifully succint and spot on! Peace.

3

yes. one would be a fool to do so, but one can say "the world was created in seven days; how long was a day back then? maybe a day was a billion years...."

it sounds ridiculous of course, and that's because it IS ridiculous. but it's possible. i don't mean possible that creationism is true; it plainly isn't. i mean possible to delude oneself that both evolution and creationism are true.

i will add that evolution chugs along whether or not there is even anyone around to believe it's doing so. it's not a belief system! it is a natural process.

g

I like this answer!

"evolution chugs along whether or not there is even anyone around to believe it's doing so. it's not a belief system! it is a natural process."

I may steal that quote!

"...how long was a day back then? maybe a day was a billion years."

As an astronomer (amateur, not professional), I can attest that the solar 'day' (revolution of our planet) has changed very little, over the billions of years the Earth has existed. A day is only about an hour longer than it was 4 billion years ago. In any case, from a literalist's point of view (what the hell, that's what I was raised as), the Bible clearly indicates the daily cycle in its story of the Creation Week, 'and the morning and the evening were the first day,' etc.

@pnfullifidian oh i didn't mean astronomically. i meant in the imagination that it takes to believe in talking snakes. but yes, good point.

g

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:178220
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.