Are religious fundamentalists on R&S even *capable* of theological thinking?

Question

I asked a question they completely misunderstood:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AppA7tLqLVcs9_hFWdVpIl3sy6IX?qid=20070523193745AAOomjV

I.e., if they can accept childbirth as the (natural or God-directed) process that produces babies (without calling doctors "atheists"), then why not the process of evolution as the (natural or God-directed) process that produces species (wthout calling scientists "atheists").

I got two main answers from the creationists, both of which missed the point completely:
1. An attempt to debate the scientific merits of evolution.
2. An appeal to the literal interpretation of the Bible.

#1 misses the point that I was asking a *theological* question ... which is why I posted in R&S. The scientific evidence is something I can (and have) provided in *spades* in the Biology forum. Not relevant to what I'm asking.

#2 is shallow.

My question: This is supposed to be the fundamentalists' expertise! Are they even capable of theology?

Wow. Now I'm getting some really interesting theological answers. (I especially like hoff-mom's reply.)

But I still don't think anyone has addressed my question directly ... perhaps I'm not explaining it well but I don't know how to say it better. So I'll try one more time:

From a purely theological point of view, why is scientific explanation of how a child is created acceptable, but the scientific explanation of how a species is created completely unacceptable? Both are natural, scientifically examinable processes that one can choose, or not choose, to imbue with divine purpose. So what is the *fundamental* difference between the two?

Answer 1

Oookay. Now, since you've asked fundamentalists a question and gotten scads of answers from NON fundamentalists, would you care for a real answer from a real fundamentalist?

First, realize you're asking the question of fundamentalists, who, by definition, accept their scripture as God-given truth. Therefore, to answer the question theologically, they would typically respond as you've observed.

Second, understand that you've asked a question that is at least half an issue of science, and if you don't want to debate science, then it may be the wrong question.

As for me, I would not automatically presume a scientist to be an atheist. There are actually a growing number of scientists who see creation as a legitimate possibility. And there are also Christians who believe in evolution in some form or another. And if it made sense to me scientifically, I might be among them.

If that was the way God desired to bring about various species, including humanity, that would absolutely be His right. There would be nothing wrong at all with the idea of God bringing about His creation through the gradual process of evolution. The idea isn't inherently bad. That's just not how I understand it. I do (as what I guess you would call a fundamentalist) believe in the scriptural account of creation. Maybe not a literal seven days, 24 hours a day, span of time, but neither do I believe that I share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

I believe it is possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. I'm really not sure how it's even possible to believe in evolution WITHOUT believing in God. What would be the possible reason for things to evolve consistently and beneficially, if they were not designed, programmed, to do so? If I were a believer in evolution, I would have to also believe in God, since I cannot rationalize the order of it all in the absence of a God.

That's the best theological rumination I can come up with at this hour of the night. Hope you liked it! :-) Have a great night.

Response to your added detail: I disagree that evolution is the only, or even the most obvious, scientific explanation for new species. And I disagree that it is examinable. We can clearly observe the process of human reproduction; we can not clearly observe the process of macroevolution. The evidence for it discovered in the fossil record thus far is debatable, at least, as far as I'm concerned, and for every piece of evidence you can provide, I can provide another question that casts doubt upon it. But now again, the question is becoming about science, not theology.

I would say that the fundamental difference, theologically, between accepting childbirth as a God-directed process, and accepting macroevolution as a God-directed process, is that nothing about the mechanisms of human reproduction contradicts what is revealed about God through scripture. By contrast, to say that evolution is the mechanism which brings about new species, contradicts the scriptural account of God's creation. Without that account, we are left wondering how the fall of man came about. What are we to make of Adam and Eve? Just two humanoids chosen by God for fellowship?
Theologically, the reason we reject evolution IS the literal interpretation of the Bible. It's kind of hard to separate.
And scientifically, the reason we reject evolution IS that we debate the scientific merits of evolution. There again, it's kind of hard to separate.

If that doesn't answer your question, then I'm still not understanding it.

Answer 2

Evolution requires death in order to work -- survival of the fittest implies that the unfit do not live long enough to reproduce, while the fit do. Death is how bad genetic traits are weeded out of the population.

The apostle Paul, paraphrasing Genesis, suggested that there was no death in creation before there was sin.

It seems hard to understand what kind of willful evil that an amoeba, or a fish, or a dinosaur, could have committed against God in order to bring death into the world, and thus kick start evolution.

So either Moses and Paul were wrong, or else they were misinterpreted or misunderstood, or else there is something wrong with the theory of evolution as we know it.

That is about as deep as I am willing to get this late at night. Have a good one.

-----edit----
"From a purely theological point of view, why is scientific explanation of how a child is created acceptable, but the scientific explanation of how a species is created completely unacceptable?"
.............................
Who said that it was? I don't think that anyone is opposed to evolution because it is "scientific" -- unless by "scientific" you mean without God at all (then it should be self explanatory why it is theologically unacceptable). I think that you didn't understand what I just wrote.

Answer 3

The 2nd answer (appeal to the literal interpretation of the Bible) may be shallow, but from the theological standpoint of fundamentalists, the Bible is the be-all, end-all of the evolution/creationism argument. Childbirth can be examined scientifically because it is discussed in the Bible. Evolution can't, because it is not. Fundamentalists' logic only extends to explanation of things through the examination of, first and foremost, the Bible. In the eyes of fundamentalists, evolution can be discussed, but it is a) bordering on blasphemy because it contradicts events of the Bible, and b) fruitless because it cannot lead to a deeper understanding of God. Childbirth, on the other hand, according to fundamentalists, is not blasphemous because it is discussed in the Bible, and shows God's greater plan by introducing us to the details, thus giving us a better understanding of Him.

This is kind of fun...I've never tried on the opposing team's uniform before. I'm not a fundamentalist believer (I'm a biology teacher, actually). This is a great question to expose the monumental gap between creationism and evolution, which, in it's essense, is the gap between scientists and fundamentalists. Each side tries to explain origins by coming from the point of view that the other isn't true, and each side attacks the question in completely opposite directions. Keep it up, secret.

Answer 4

Basically, my definition won't differ much from the dictionary's: a religious fundamentalist is someone who takes their religious texts as the literal, inerrant truth of their deity. I also agree with your definition because, when a fundamentalist takes a book, the Bible for example, as the inerrant word of a god, there is no room in their eyes for bending. This is what god said, and that is the end of it. There is no room for varied opinions, such as in a secular society, to the religious fundamentalist.

Answer 5

Yes, they are...

You just received a bad bunch that night.

-About your question though-
I believe in evolution.
I believe in the possibilities of everything actually.

Evolution is frowned upon in a fundamentalist world because it goes against Genesis...so what do you expect?

I do have some Christian beliefs....but, I think evolution is part of the plan (which could very well NOT be divine)...
Like I said, I believe in possibilites, which are blissfully, endless.
:)

)o( brightest blessings )o(

Answer 6

Fundamentalists have a very narrow and intolerant view. Be carefull for these extremists are dangerous regardless of religious affiliations. Their theology is based accordingly. I do believe they have their rights as long as they don't present a physical threat to others. Evolution is sometimes violently rejected by these groups and so they cloak themselves in a darkness that affects all humanity. They would never progress unless pulled along unwillingly by the rest of civilization.

Answer 7

Evolution "might" (or might not) be God's way of making new species. WE DON'T KNOW ("we" means EVERYONE, not just a few). You don't know either. What I do know is that you do NOT know as much as you "think" you know.

By the way, ANYONE that thinks he or she actually knows is deluded and is deluding you (this would include yourself, if you are deluding yourself into thinking you know).

Sincerely,

A Christian

Answer 8

I have answered your question to the best of my understanding of the intent of your question. I apologize if I missed the point of the question.

Answer 9

On evidence, they are not capable of much of anything. But it is provable that any theory of god is useless -- it can predict nothing. As for evolution, it is a proven fact; details on request to anyone who supplies an e-mail address.

Answer 10

You seem to have a very limited idea of what a Christian can believe. You want to limit us to your definitions, then just agree with you? Sorry, that's not how it works.