# Does Evolution Make The Christian God Impossible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467 "2008-09-13T18:40:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/21 "2008-09-14T05:38:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus wasn’t from the line of David. Joseph was, but he wasn’t Jesus’ father, so his lineage is irrelevant. Luke accords Jesus the Davidian line through his mother Mary. [Davidic line - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line) And Jesus could also claim through Joseph because Joseph never denied his paternity as would be required under Jewish law. [Davidic line - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/22 "2008-09-14T05:44:39Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think something that tends to get lost in the Adam and Eve story is that it’s principally a story about mortality. They are forbidden to eat from the tree of life, therefore all humans die. > > I think there’s an inherent contradiction in eating the fruit being a “sin,” since it occurred before they knew right from wrong. It was the eating that made them morally responsible. The interpretation I learned in Hebrew School had nothing to do with sin, and was a “just-so” story about why we are mortal, why we have to work, why childbirth is painful, and why snakes have no legs and bite. The sinfulness part of it is a Christian addition. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/23 "2008-09-14T05:49:21Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > I’ve held about every variation on Creationism (Young Earth, Old Earth-Gap Theory, Old Earth Day-Age) and I’ve settled now into Evolutionary Creationism. While I’ve toyed with the idea of Adam & Eve as metaphor, I can also fit quite easily the possibility that out of all the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons or whoever was around at the time, there were two who were uniquely endowed with a God-awareness and they were put to a test of their trust. Perhaps their God-awareness/falleness passed to all humanity as their family went out among them or they “flicked the switch” for all humanity in a “Hundredth Monkey” (yes, I know…:D) type of situation. All the legends from the ancient past about “great teachers” or “gods” coming to live & teach & interbreed with “common humans”- the Adamites. One problem is that we are pretty sure genetically that there is not one pair who were the ancestors of all humans. Genetic Eve and genetic Adam lived thousands of years apart. So it seems rather unfair that two random humans are responsible for all of our woes. It is impossible to prove that some deity, wishing that the end result of evolution was us, didn’t fiddle undetectably with mutations and individual survival to ensure that we would result. So, it is clear that Adam and Eve are more of a problem for Christians than evolution. For conservative Jews, at least, A&E are no big deal, and their nonexistence changes nothing. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/24 "2008-09-14T05:49:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The interpretation I learned in Hebrew School had nothing to do with sin, and was a “just-so” story about why we are mortal, why we have to work, why childbirth is painful, and why snakes have no legs and bite. The sinfulness part of it is a Christian addition. Can any of our other Jewish friends fill us in? It seems to rich and layered to be just a children’s story. And I’ve got to say that when I was a small child in Sunday school it was presented as a “punished for not obeying” sort of thing and no mention of “sin”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/25 "2008-09-14T05:50:59Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Luke accords Jesus the Davidian line through his mother Mary. [Davidic line - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line) And Jesus could also claim through Joseph because Joseph never denied his paternity as would be required under Jewish law. [Davidic line - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davidic_line) This is a common apologetic but it’s complete bullshit, totally unsupported by the text. The text of Luke clearly and unambiguously traces the line through Joseph. [quote] And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph [etc. etc. back to Adam]. The text does not even mention Mary’s name. I know that some apologists try to claim that Luke was trying to indicate that Joseph was the son-in law of Heli, but again, that’s patent nonsense unsupported not only by the text but by any Jewish tradition of doing anything like that. Matthew and Luke both give genealogies for Joseph. That’s just how it is. There is no reason to even TRY to contrive a Marian bloodline except to fill a logical contradiction between the Claim of a virgin birth and the claim to Davidic lineage. Not only that but it wouldn’t even _matter_ if Mary was descended from Joseph. The heir to the throne of David, by Jewish law, has to come through the _father_ and has to come directly by blood. The mother’s bloodline is irrelevant, and it can’t come by adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/26 "2008-09-14T05:56:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The interpretation I learned in Hebrew School had nothing to do with sin, and was a “just-so” story about why we are mortal, why we have to work, why childbirth is painful, and why snakes have no legs and bite. The sinfulness part of it is a Christian addition. From what I know of the Jewish interpretation, you’re correct. It’s Christians that get hung up on the “sin” thing. The Jewish interpretation is more about A&E bringing _death_ into the world, and the Eden story is similar (in fact, is derived from) earlier Mesopotamian myths designed to explain mortality. Serpents (ancient symbols of immortality) stealing plants or elixers of immortality from humans are a motif in ancient mythologies. The epic of Gilgamesh contains such a story. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/27 "2008-09-14T05:58:45Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Can any of our other Jewish friends fill us in? It seems to rich and layered to be just a children’s story. And I’ve got to say that when I was a small child in Sunday school it was presented as a “punished for not obeying” sort of thing and no mention of “sin”. “Just-so story” doesn’t mean “Children’s story.” It’s a story which explains how something came to be. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/28 "2008-09-14T06:06:11Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Can any of our other Jewish friends fill us in? It seems to rich and layered to be just a children’s story. And I’ve got to say that when I was a small child in Sunday school it was presented as a “punished for not obeying” sort of thing and no mention of “sin”. Dio is right. Much of Genesis consists of explanations for things in the natural world, one example of which is the rainbow after the flood. Many of the people symbolized extant tribes, and there were also stories explaining the origin of geologic features. Given that we know the true origins today through science these kind of tales have become childrens stories, but they weren’t back then. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/29 "2008-09-14T06:21:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is a common apologetic but it’s complete bullshit, totally unsupported by the text. The text of Luke clearly and unambiguously traces the line through Joseph. It’s common or it’s bullshit. Make up your mind. Either people believe religiously that their claim is supported by Luke or they don’t believe it. It isn’t a question of whether you think Luke supports it, but whether believers think Luke supports it, and they do. You are saying that what they believe is bullshit. Well la de fucking da. Is this your version of Fox News? People tell you what they believe as a religious matter and you announce, a la Bill O’Reilly that they are pinheads? Do I believe that Joseph or Mary kept genealogical records dating back 1000 years? No. I don’t think anybody in that time and place had such records and could make such a claim. But here is how the believers see it themselves: [Luke 3:23 - Forerunner Commentary](http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/25049/eVerseID/25064) and its my understanding that this has been. “Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that “Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh,” how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? ” Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2 chapter 2 “It is therefore possible that Elizabeth’s father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary’s father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron. “Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary’s father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim’s mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, TP Q31 A2 Are you claiming that you are a more authoritative source on Christian theology through the millenia than Paul, Aquinas and Augustine? It seems to me that you are merely arguing that there are mistaken in their doctrine and your reading of the text is the correct reading. I’ll grant you that you may be reading the text correctly and every Christian for two millenia has been reading it wrong, but I’m still reporting what they believe. Fortunately, we have you to straighten it out and correct them. Pardon my mocking tone, but you seem to miss the entire point that this isn’t about what actually happened, but what the culture believes. Duh. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/30 "2008-09-14T06:26:27Z")
You have a being that can do anything, and a book about him that can be interpreted by anybody to mean pretty much whatever they want. Under these conditions, nothing is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/31 "2008-09-14T06:30:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Dio is right. Much of Genesis consists of explanations for things in the natural world, one example of which is the rainbow after the flood. Many of the people symbolized extant tribes, and there were also stories explaining the origin of geologic features. Given that we know the true origins today through science these kind of tales have become childrens stories, but they weren’t back then. I’m not trying to be snarky with you. I’m trying to find out what adult Jews have been taught about the stories you mention through the ages. Perhaps a cite to a site. When I was a wee lad, I was taught that these were true stories and children’s stories side by side. Both parents were college educated, one Christian and the other atheist raised by Jews. I went to Sunday school, but I’ve only been to Jewish services for funerals and weddings (and the occasional seminar on Jewish law). Mom taught them both ways. Dad did not participate in my religious education, except to instill skepticism. Needless to say, I am deeply impressed with Judaism and its religious, ethical, intellectual and cultural traditions as monuments of civilization. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/32 "2008-09-14T06:38:56Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It’s common or it’s bullshit. Make up your mind. It’s both. There is no contradiction between those two things. 9/11 Bush conspiracy theories are both common and bullshit. > [@](#): > > Either people believe religiously that their claim is supported by Luke or they don’t believe it. It isn’t a question of whether you think Luke supports it, but whether believers think Luke supports it, and they do. You are saying that what they believe is bullshit. Well la de fucking da. I’m saying thethe of the Bible doesn’t support a particular claim you made. I don’t see what belief has to do with anything. > [@](#): > > “Thus, too, even if one were able to demonstrate that no descent, according to the laws of blood, could be claimed from David for Mary, we should have warrant enough to hold Christ to be the son of David, on the ground of that same mode of reckoning by which also Joseph is called His father. But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that “Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh,” how much more ought we to accept without any hesitation the position that Mary herself also was descended in some way, according to the laws of blood, from the lineage of David? ” > Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2 chapter 2 So Augustine is either unable or unwilling to recognize a glaring contradiction – that Jesus cannot be simulataneously be born of a virgin and be of the “seed of David” (a phrase which is defined _only_ as direct patrineal descendency). > [@](#): > > “It is therefore possible that Elizabeth’s father married a wife of the family of David, through whom the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was of the family of David, would be a cousin of Elizabeth or conversely, and with greater likelihood, that the Blessed Mary’s father, who was of the family of David, married a wife of the family of Aaron. > > “Again, it may be said with Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii) that if Joachim, Mary’s father, was of the family of Aaron (as the heretic Faustus pretended to prove from certain apocryphal writings), then we must believe that Joachim’s mother, or else his wife, was of the family of David, so long as we say that Mary was in some way descended from David.” > Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, TP Q31 A2 Not only wildly speculative and unsupported by any Biblical text, but also irrelevant under Jewish law. “Seed of” means through the _father_. > [@](#): > > Are you claiming that you are a more authoritative source on Christian theology through the millenia than Paul, Aquinas and Augustine? What kind of strawman is this? It doesn’t take an 'authority" to be able too spot a hole in logic. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that you are merely arguing that there are mistaken in their doctrine and your reading of the text is the correct reading. I’ll grant you that you may be reading the text correctly and every Christian for two millenia has been reading it wrong Plenty of Christians (not to mention Jews) are well aware of this particular logical problem. I did not discover it. As your own cites show, it’s a problem which has been recognized since antiquity. > [@](#): > > but I’m still reporting what they believe. Fortunately, we have you to straighten it out and correct them. Pardon my mocking tone, but you seem to miss the entire point that this isn’t about what actually happened, but what the culture believes. Duh. Sorry to have offended you. I understand very well it’s waht they believe. I’m just pointing out that what they believe has a logical hole in it. maybe that was inappropriate for ths thread, though. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/33 "2008-09-14T06:47:00Z")
One possible incompatibility between evolution and the Christian God is [the problem of bad design](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html). Evolution doesn’t choose the best solution to an engineering problem; it chooses the one that can be implemented with the tools it has on hand. So you have the urethra running through the prostate gland, the faulty wiring of the human retina, the hernia-prone inguinal canal, etc., etc… This is related to the problem of natural evil: if God could have made us without these flaws (many of which inevitably cause unnecessary human suffering), why wouldn’t He? Why use an unintelligent process which produces these bad outcomes? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/34 "2008-09-14T07:05:32Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I’m not trying to be snarky with you. I’m trying to find out what adult Jews have been taught about the stories you mention through the ages. Perhaps a cite to a site. When I was a wee lad, I was taught that these were true stories and children’s stories side by side. Both parents were college educated, one Christian and the other atheist raised by Jews. I went to Sunday school, but I’ve only been to Jewish services for funerals and weddings (and the occasional seminar on Jewish law). Mom taught them both ways. Dad did not participate in my religious education, except to instill skepticism. Needless to say, I am deeply impressed with Judaism and its religious, ethical, intellectual and cultural traditions as monuments of civilization. All I know is what I learned from five years of Hebrew School. Our “history” book started with Abram, and did not consider the Genesis story to be part of history. But whether it is taught as true or not is less important than the lesson taken from it. No sermon from my Rabbi and no lesson in school taught that we were sinners due to the actions of Adam and Eve. In fact on Yom Kippur we get the chance to atone for the sins we know we committed and ones we are not aware of. We finish with a clean slate, to be written into the Book of Life once again. We do not learn that we either are saved or need to be saved. Orthodox Jews believe the story to be true, Reform do not, but neither group believes in original sin. BTW, a word of warning. Don’t argue with Dio on early Christian history. You’ll find yourself missing your wallet, watch, ring and underwear. I’ve leaned a lot from reading his posts on this. For an amateur, his level of knowledge in this area is awesome. ---
**Author:** ![BrainFireBob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e495f1/32.png) [@BrainFireBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainFireBob)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/35 "2008-09-14T07:05:48Z")
It is an inappropriate thread for that discussion, Dio. And thanks to Gorsnak for apparently being clearer than I was. And I’ve always blamed the Catholic church more for the emphasis on Original Sin, in place of man being sinful, which is more the thrust of the New Testament. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/36 "2008-09-14T07:52:27Z")
> [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](#): > > One possible incompatibility between evolution and the Christian God is [the problem of bad design](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html). Evolution doesn’t choose the best solution to an engineering problem; it chooses the one that can be implemented with the tools it has on hand. So you have the urethra running through the prostate gland, the faulty wiring of the human retina, the hernia-prone inguinal canal, etc., etc.. This is related to the problem of natural evil: if God could have made us without these flaws (many of which inevitably cause unnecessary human suffering), why wouldn’t He? Why use an unintelligent process which produces these bad outcomes? This was my answer to the OP. There are better and more arguments against Christianity or other religious beliefs than just evolution. But to just discuss this particular one… All of the Abrahamic religions until you get to Deism, believe that God specifically cares about mankind and our actions. Take Genesis as an allegory if you want to, but even if you say the “creation” part is simple-speak for evolution, all the of the moralistic/“what is God’s purpose in creating all of this” stuff doesn’t translate to simple speak for something more complex (except to say that it exists as a tiding over until mankind gets comfy with Deistic beliefs.) Genesis portrays God as having a personal interest in us. The real world doesn’t bear that out. If he did, why trust everything to a haphazard process that guarantees no particular result, including the existence of humanity? If he was guiding that result, why is it that he created such a sloppy output? He did it for an “ineffible reason all to his own that need not make sense” is pretty patent BS. Only if he didn’t care about the result and his existence/non-existence is for all intents and purposes irrelevant does it make sense for him to choose to ordain things for reasons that appear to be devoid of reason. And if you’ve got a God whose whole existence is irrelevant to mankind or even the grand majority of the creation of the universe, then pretty much all you’ve done is to call rename the Big Bang, God. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/37 "2008-09-14T11:11:05Z")
Chief Pedant writes: \> ETA: for thousands of years none of this “metaphor” crap was even considered. \> It is a recent invention in an effort to salvage an obviously incorrect story. Actually, non-literal interpretations of the Bible were common in the Middle Ages. See the section on medieval hermeneutics: > **[Hermeneutics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics)** > > Hermeneutics (/ˌhɜːrməˈnjuːtɪks/) is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, as well as philosophical texts. As necessary, hermeneutics may include the art of understanding and communication. > Modern hermeneutics includes both verbal and non-verbal communication as well as semiotics, presuppositions, and pre-understandings. Hermeneutics has been broadly applied in the humanities, especially in law, history and theology. > He... I’ve heard claims that exactly the opposite of your statement is true. They say that up to the Enlightment, non-literal interpretations of the Bible were easily accepted. People then had no problem with major parts of it being purely metaphorical. It was only in modern times that the emphasis on literalness arose. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/38 "2008-09-14T11:36:21Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > From one of the many Sarah Palin threads: > > **Friar Ted** : > > _I don’t like it when some Evolutionists insist that God is totally written out of the equation and can’t even be considered by scientific-thinking people._ > > I was told for years by my parents that evolutionism (hate the “ism”…)as described by science today does not preclude the involvement of the Christian God as described in the Bible. Sure, the Genesis account is quite a bit off, but that’s just humans mistranslating the words of God over and over thru the centuries (or other such hand waving). > > I am not and was not then a believer in their god, but I never really questioned the rationale above. > > It seems to me, though, that the Hebrew god is NOT possible if evolution is correct. If evolution is in fact the way everything on the planet came to be how it is today, then there was no “first man”; i.e. Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, then there was no Original Sin, and if no Original Sin, then there is no need for Jesus to come back to redeem mankind. The Bible without Jesus is kind of pointless, isn’t it? > > My question then is how is the above reasoning false? If it isn’t, then how can you justify a Christ based faith system but also accept “theory” (read: FACT) of evolution? > > --------Obviously, this line of reasoning doesn’t apply to other faith based systems and Gods. Therefore, I am talking specifically about the Christian God, and not all other spiritual beliefs. As I understand Genesis God Created all Creation by just bringing them forth, but when it came to man he made him out of clay. At Christians funerals the priests and ministers say" Man you are but dust and to dust you will return" If this was the truth then Man would not share DNA with other species. The price for sin was said to be death, not loss of a soul, after people saw that there were some people who might have been unconsious that they thought were dead, then the idea of maybe a person didn’t really die. And since even good people died they figures that maybe they had some thing that lived after the death of the body,which they called soul,how ever they still believe that death is the soul leaving the body and never explain whrer the life went. Before Christianity each culture had it’s own God and gave Him various names, The Jewish people named their God, a couple of different names. The word God(It would seem) meant something different in BC times. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/39 "2008-09-14T11:38:08Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > You have given absolutely no reason for thinking that the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis is a literal one. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > For a pedant much less a chief one, **Chief Pedant** , you are blatantly failing to see that the critical question here is your premise that “communicates fundamentally through the Holy Scripture”. At least, if by “fundamentally”, you assume it means “literally”. That’s not a belief of the majority of Christians. In fact, it’s the belief of a tiny minority. If you pointed out that Genesis has two accounts of the creation of the world and asked which one was “rea;;y true,” they’d look at you like you were crazy. > > Anyway, the literal truth of Genesis is quite a silly question. The ancient Hrewbews wouldn’t even have understood the question “Is this literal of is this an explanatory story which helps people understand their God?” The question would have no meaning because they wouldn’t know the difference. And we can’t even really know it isn’t true. Talking about an omnipotent creator being, he can make gardens and form humanity in any way he wants, multiple times over if he wants. Well now…this thread is ranging out into a discussion of Christianity in general, isn’t it? Not unusual for the Dope board, and part of the reason it becomes laborious to participate in religious threads. \*\*Is the only acceptable interpretation of Genesis a literal one? \*\* It’s the only correct reading, period. There’s no “interpretation” involved. The notion of a metaphor only came up in modern times when it became obvious Genesis was dead wrong. If I tell you, as your authority, that the world was created by a pink monkey playing with a Barbie set who then kissed the toys and made them real, and I am aware that you’ll believe me, there’s no “interpretation.” I know you are going to take it literally and I am responsible when you do. Should it turn out that my story is nonsense, you may well try to defend my honor with an assortment of strategies, among which is the idea that the pink monkey story was a metaphor. If, for thousands of years, my entire following accepted the pink monkey story as literal (until irrefutable evidence proved it false), it’s way past lame to suddenly pretend it was a metaphor all along. It’s pretty obvious it was just…wrong. With Genesis in particular, there’s no metaphorical reason for it to be so completely wrong. To the contrary, if the Genesis story had gotten it correct, it would vastly increase the standing of Judaism and Christianity by containing the truth thousands of years before science discovered it. Those Turtle stories would look like second-class primitive myths from two-bit false religions. Here’s how Genesis might read if the author had any sort of inside scoop on the truth: “In the beginning God created a universe. A tiny part of that universe was the Earth. At first the earth was devoid of life. God created life over billions of years, gradually creating more complex forms. Humans gradually took shape over millions of years, and have been around in their present form (as of the writing of Genesis) for about two hundred thousand years.” **How does the Christian God fundamentally communicate?** Ya got two choices when it comes to communication: 1: Through stuff that was written down by humans a long time ago and collected into canonized Scripture by a committee. 2: Yesterday’s communication to me, or to someone I believe. One might say that when the New Testament was canonized (along with the OT), the fundamental beliefs of Christianity were established. Certainly the gauge by which a belief could be considered “Christian” was established. You don’t get to have Lord Krishna swiping the unmarried Gopi Girls’ clothes as a core story about your Christian God. Now I recognize that the cleverness of scholars can find a lot of “interpretations” in Scripture. Matter of fact both scholastic genius and polloi witlessness can massage, interpret, rearrange, distort and generally butcher Scripture until it supports (or fails to condemn) their personal belief. Nevertheless it is the anchor by which Christianity is held to a standard. It doesn’t seem to be a very good, very clear, very consistent or very usable anchor, but it is nevertheless the fundamental means of communication, and the only one which provides a template against which your Great Aunt Suzie’s divine revelation last nite can be judged as being consistent with Christianity. This is because the entire body of Christian thought and teaching ultimately uses Scripture as its litmus. Wander too far from that, and you can call yourself whatever you want–that won’t make it Christian. For the sake of (my own) time, I’ll sign off on this thread. I’m not about to wander down a path of what Christians believe, and why, and who gets to be a Christian. From a historic standpoint, if a belief is not consistent with Scripture, it’s not a Christian belief. It’s some variant invention. That’s why historical stuff in Scripture that’s obviously wrong is made out to be metaphor (or has some other lamo excuse made up for why it’s incorrect. Folks want to hang on to some other core belief that is anchored in Scripture, and they need to find a reason to hang on to the Baby while throwing out the bathwater. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2008, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467/40 "2008-09-14T12:00:53Z")
Chief Pedant writes: \> The notion of a metaphor only came up in modern times when it became \> obvious Genesis was dead wrong. No, you’re simply wrong about this. Metaphorical interpretations of the Bible were common in the Middle Ages. Whether this proves anything about correctness or the incoherence of the Bible is a completely different matter. It’s quite clear though that people before the time of the Enlightenment had no problem with interpreting the Bible in a non-literal fashion. It’s certainly not true that reading things in a metaphorical fashion is a recent invention. Indeed, it could be argued that an emphasis on reading things in a strictly literal way is a modern habit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-evolution-make-the-christian-god-impossible/463467.md?page=3)