Christian endorsement of evolution.?

Question

If faith is enough for religion, then is it enough for evolution? If it can prove one thing can it prove others? By that logic, then I would be correct to say that because I believe in evolution it is real. I see christians picking at evolution, and saying faith proves christanity correct. If it works for them then it should work for us. We don't need proof if you don't. I am not looking to offend, just to see if christians could see what I mean, and if it works by their standard.

Just wondering if anyone would like to answer my question. I don't want insults, but if you are christian, then would faith be enough for you in all areas?

I don't want to know what you think about evolution, if it requres faith, but would rather I get the actual question answered. Notice, I did not say how do you feel about evolution, just once cana christian give me a yes or no.

Answer 1

It would take a stupendous amount of faith to believe that living species are *not* the product of evolution. To believe that, you'd have to believe all of the following and more:

1: That even though we can directly observe evolution occurring today, it didn't happen before people began to study it;

2: That the evidence of constant change throughout the fossil record is *not* evidence for evolution, even though constant change in the fossil record is exactly what evolution would produce;

3: That the fact that living species are more different from today's species the further back you look in the fossil record is *not* evidence for evolution, even though this is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts;

4: That the large numbers of unique species which inhabit remote islands and lakes are *not* evidence for evolution, even though this is exactly what we would expect to see if species had evolved there in isolation;

5: That whenever we find new species in the fossil record arising geographically close to other, similar species, exactly as would be expected if the one had evolved from the other, this is actually just an amazing coincidence;

6: That although we find similar species inhabiting different ecological niches in one area, exactly as would be expected if they all evolved and diversified from a common ancestor, this is actually just another amazing coincidence;

7: That even though the evolutionary explanation for the fossil record is consistent with other, independent scientific theories, e.g. plate tectonics, this is just another amazing coincidence;

8: That although the transitional fossils discovered by palaeontologists fill in gaps in the fossil record as predicted by evolutionary theory, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

9: That although we *never* find fossils in rocks which are older than their presumed evolutionary ancestors, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

10: That some mechanism exists in living organisms to limit mutation and inheritance, and thus prevent evolution, even though no such mechanism has ever been discovered;

11: That although different continents have different flora and fauna inhabiting the same kind of habitat, exactly as would be expected if they evolved independently to suit their respective ecological niches, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

12: That although living and extinct species fit a statistically valid phylogenetic tree, as would necessarily be the case if they evolved from a common ancestor, this is just another astronomically unlikely coincidence;

13: That although the chirality of DNA, RNA and proteins is the same in all known living organisms, exactly as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just another amazing coincidence;

14: That although all living organisms ever discovered share the same genetic material, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

15: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same 4 nucleosides out of hundreds of equally likely molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

16: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same 22 amino acids out of hundreds of equally likely molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

17: That although the genetic code is universal to all known species, which is as predicted by evolutionary theory, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

18: That although all living organisms ever discovered use the same energy storage molecule (ATP) instead of many other possible molecules, as would be expected if they all evolved from a common ancestor, this is just yet another amazing coincidence;

19: That although the many vestigial features which exist in living organisms are satisfactorily accounted for by evolution, this does not support evolution;

20: That although atavisms are satisfactorily accounted for by evolution (e.g. children born with tails), this does not support evolution;

21: That although the embryological development of animals confirm the evolutionary explanation of their origins, this does not support the evolutionary explanation of their origins;

22: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for parahomology (i.e. similarity in structure despite differences in function), this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

23: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for suboptimal features (e.g. the blind spot in the human eye), this is just yet another amazing coincidence and does not constitute evidence for evolution;

24: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for genetic sub-optimality (e.g. why one species of micro-organism has 3 times more DNA than human beings, and 45 times as much as an almost identical micro-organism), this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

25: That although evolution satisfactorily accounts for the high functional redundancy in molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes, this does not constitute evidence for evolution;

26: That although the rate of change in the fossil record is consistent with the rate of mutations actually observed in species today, this is just yet another amazing coincidence, not evidence for evolution.

----------------------------------

To deny evolution you would have to believe all of the above, and more. To say that evolution is false you would have to believe so many staggeringly improbable and amazing coincidences all at once - that so many things are exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory, and yet don't support evolutionary theory - that for a rational person to contemplate doing so would be simply absurd.

Answer 2

But science and/or evolution can't adhere to that scrutiny either.

The best you can say, ultimately, is that the model (evolution,
religion du jour, atheism) is self consistant. That is, if you
accept its premises, it doesn't have any self contradictions.

By the way, here is a self consistant philosophy: "None of
you exist, I am just dreaming you. Sometimes, my dreams
are really really vivid."

However, that philosphy, though consistant, fails another test:
It isn't useful for predicting anything. Evolution at least gives
you the ability to make tests, evaluate and perhaps figure out
what is going to happen next.

As a model, I don't think any scientist would say that Evolution
is a perfect model for what is actually going on. Its good, but
it needs tweaks here and there.

I would think that from a religious point of view, that is a problem.
Ultimately, scientists know that a fair number of models they
describe the universe with now will be be wrong.

Remember that scientists were originally sure the Sun circled
around the Earth, that the elements of the world were Earth,
Fire, Water and Wind and that evilness had something to do
with bumps on your head.

I cannot and will not pick on somebody's religion unless it
is either not self-consistant or causes them to hurt people
from my point of view.

Science has its blunders too.

Militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you!

Answer 3

that's what's so funny about faith,,, it's so indiscriminate that there's no good reason to have it for one thing and not have it for another.

keep in mind though,, christians don't REALLY believe in christianity based on faith. that's just something they say when they're losing an argument. they believe in christianity because of evidence. (they just use really bad evidence though, and misunderstand it.) -- that's why they're they're always saying stuff like:

- there's proof that prayer works.
- 2 billion people believe in it, and 2 billion people can't be wrong.
- sunsets are evidence of god.
- there must be a god. how else would we be here?
- christians are happier than non christians.
- christians are better people than non-christians.
- jesus died for our sins, and no other religion has that.
- the bible is the only religious book that doesn't contradict itself.
- the bible is historically accurate.
- darwinism has flaws, therefore creationism wins by default.


and all these other really bad examples of "evidence". many people practice double standards. christians are just one more example when they claim that faith is pure when put in their beliefs, but meaningless when put into some other belief.

good question. keep fighting the good fight. you're making a difference. just by asking a question like this, you've caused a couple people to think a little.

=================================

edit

BEARDOG 4314, and FIGATO,

evolution will never become proven. it will always be a theory just like how gravity is only a theory. but despite this, it's still smart to believe in it and foolish to doubt it.

the reason why is because it is based on EVIDENCE. evolutionists do not KNOW that evolution is true, they believe so. they have faith. BUT,,,, they have EVIDENTIAL faith (the same sort of faith that a person has when they sit down on a chair and trust that it won't break. they aren't 100% certain, but they have good reason [i.e. -past experiences] to be more than 99% certain.)

the sort of faith that christians practice is a completely different thing though. they practice UNCONDITIONAL faith. the two are radically different and should not be confused. this is why it's important to stop using the word "faith" to describe both, and to start quallifying them with their respective adjectives; "evidential" and "unconditional".

unconditional faith is based on NOTHING, and any one who practices it must be 100% certain regardless of what sort of evidence it lacks, or even what sort or how much counter-evidence there is against it., in other words,, no matter what conditions arise. this is the very nature of something unconditional.

also,, another word for unconditional faith is blind faith. you might not like that word, but when you do something unconditionally, you are doing it blindly. there is no difference between those two adverbs in this sense.

Answer 4

I don't think that faith proves anything! So I would not call it the "Christian Standard." Of course you can believe what you want. I do believe in creation theory as written in Gensis rather than evolution theory. I came to this belief after much research, I was always taught evolution in junior high, high school, and college. Always got A+. But when I went to the "Answers in Genesis" website I found real scientists willing to discuss radioactive dating and natural selection etc from a "creationist" point of view. It was totally shocking!

Answer 5

Just think about it. Even Darwin questioned evolution right before he died. The only way any kind of evolution happened is if God himself had created the evolution. The Bible doesn't explain how exactly the universe was created physically. It just said he spoke and it happened. It also says in the Bible that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. So when God spoke it could have taken a thousand years (to us) to have the one thing created. We won't know about this for sure until we are able to speak to God himself when we pass from this world.

Answer 6

Ironically, if you read through the discussions on this site, that is exactly what has happened. "Evolutionists" accept the theory of Evolution completely as a proven fact based on incomplete evidence. That doesn't mean they won't turn out to be right someday, but for now it's up in the air. They'll still defend it to the death, like any other religious zealot. Notice that there is no actual branch of science called Evolutionism, and scientists who study the theory actually call themselves Anthropologists.

Answer 7

The Church in basic terms teaches that each and each one issues are created by God. i do no longer comprehend what you mean by the Catholic Church accepting evolution. evidently you're misinformed about what the Church has reported about evolution and that is that some evolution technological expertise isn't incompatible with the Church practise on introduction. The Church does no longer educate or enable for the perception of many Darwinian evolutionists which have self belief all complicated existence advanced from a primordial soup. An social gathering of what the Church would say isn't incompatible is the mutation of genes in accordance to the allele frequency. God bless! In Christ Fr. Joseph

Answer 8

Another straw man.

There is NO problem, no "competition" between faith and science, including evolutionary science.

Just remember, He's God, fer Pete's sake! He can do whatever He jolly well WANTS to do. And He can do it any way He jolly well pleases to do it, including the way it looks like He actually DID do it.

Set up the parameters of creation, ie, the laws of physics, then pronounce the Word and let creation be. Then allow creation do its own schtick according to the previously laid parameters.

Intervene with a zap when you feel like it. As when you get a species that biologically bids fair to be able to handle the extras of free will and intelligence. The pick some specimens, zap 'em, and let 'em loose once again to do their own schtick. When the time is right, and that's YOUR call (as God), walk among them AS one of them and show them how to do it right. Then leave and let 'em have at again.

Of course you DO know why God came to earth as a male, don't you? Men NEEDED that kind of example. Us females just needed another female, since we already had a closer idea of what He wants than the guys, who were all too busy competing with Him. We got Mary.

Answer 9

From Humani Generis (Pope Pius XII):

"The magisterium of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation, and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically sacred Scripture and of defending the dogmas of faith"

Answer 10

On occasion when talking to someone I know isn't listening, I claim to believe in evolution through faith, or that I believe in the non-existence of god through faith. It's the quickest way to shut up a fundamentalist nutter or a JW.

Answer 11

Evolution does not need Christian endorsement. It is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the bases of provable and repeatable evidence and experiments. Its endorsement comes from the methods of science, not from harebrained religious idiots.