Before I ask this, I just want to point out that I am neither a convinced creationist or evolutionist.
Anyways, I was wondering if most, if not all, evolutionists believe that a man calling himself Jesus Christ roamed around the Middle East in the very early years of A.D., but, he was not son of God like he claimed.
People who accept the evidence for the scientific fact that evolution has taken place, who also happen to be Christians, would of course say “no”, since they believe that “a man calling himself Jesus Christ roamed around the Middle East in the very early years of A.D.” and that he was the son of God like he claimed.
People who accept the evidence for the scientific fact that evolution has taken place, who happen to not be Christians, are going to have somewhat more diverse opinions. For most of them (or us, I should say), yeah, I guess that’s probably an accurate enough statement. (I could quibble as to whether he ever called himself “Christ”, or whether he claimed to be the “Son of God”, or what he meant by that if he did say it, but never mind.) I think that most atheists would not go so far as to completely deny the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, but I don’t have any hard numbers here. I think most Jews (whether or not they accept modern science) would buy the “Jesus existed, but he wasn’t the Son of God” formulation.
I’m probably leaving out some oddball set of the population (“Atheists for Creationism!”), but that more or less sums it up.
Certainly not all.
Probably not most, though I doubt a reliable survey has ever been taken. Some evolutionists are Christian. Some believe Jesus was a historical figure but not the Son of God (this includes most Muslims and Jews, I believe). Soem do not believe he was a historical figure at all.
I think that he was a historical figure, that he was not the son of God (or a subdivision of God), and that he did not call himself Jesus Christ.
Well, I don’t believe that I nor anyone else can really say what most evolutionists (or any other group of people) believe about anything.
I can, however, say what I believe…
As someone who believes in evolution (and I guess that makes me an evolutionist), I certainly have no problem with the fact that there probably was a fellow named Jesus (I don’t think his last name was Christ, though - isn’t that more of a title?), who roamed the Middle East doing good works and preaching the Word of God.
As to whether he was actually the Son of God…I couldn’t tell ya. I don’t know for certain, one way or the other. Largely because I don’t know the status of God one way or the other.
However, I feel it necessary to point out that an evolutionist is not by definition a non-Christian. Evolutionists believe that life evolved (as oppposed to coming about via Special Creation). The science of evolution says zippo about theology, and, as such, the two are by no means mutually exclusive.
**
Well for Pete’s sake make a decision.
This might belong in General Questions because I don’t see a debate here. I’m an atheist and I’m pretty convinced that there was a leader of a Jewish cult that lived about 2,000 years ago. Obviously since I’m an atheist I don’t think he was the son of God. And yes I’m also convinced the evolution is real.
Marc
Now, I will admit that it has been a very long time since I last read anything in a bible (this may having something to do with them spontaneously erupting into flame when I touch them), but I have a vague memory of the word “Christ” being used as a title rather than a surname. So no, I don’t think anyone ran around calling himself Jesus Christ. When you factor in linguistic shifts, I also doubt anyone was calling himself Jesus (Jeez-us in American parlance) at the time.
And I would like to know where I can purchase those cute decals you place on the back of your car… you know, the one that shows the profile of a fish with legs with the word “Darwin” inside, and the really cool one that I saw for the first time yesterday with the words “N’CHIPS” inside the same profile.
I’m afraid that you have a false dichotomy, here. There are a great many Christians, who firmly believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, who also happen to accept that life on this planet has developed over aeons through the method of Natural Selection as originally outlined by Darwin.
This discussion on the SDMB always tends to get defined as Biblical Literalists = Creationists vs Atheists = Evolutionists, but there are a lot of personal philosophies and beliefs that don’t fit nicely into those two camps.
There is a Gallup poll that gets (mis)quoted from time to time. (I’m having trouble finding the original.) the summaries sometimes list the results as
and sometimes list the results as
Obviously, the people summarizing the poll don’t seem to have read the same document (although the 9-10% figure seems to be consistent).
However, if you create a group people who accept (some version) of the Theory of Evolution by combining the 10% and the 47% mentioned in the first summary, you conclude that almost 60% of people accept the reality of Evolution, while only one sixth of that group don’t believe in God.
For a better description (without attaching numbers) of the various attitudes of religious people toward the Theory of Evolution, try looking over the THE 3 MAIN EVOLUTION &
CREATION SCIENCE BELIEF SYSTEMS presented by the religioustolerance.org web site.
I’m an evolutionist that believes that Jesus of Nazareth was/is the Son of God.
Maybe MOST evolutionists believe the contrary, but certainly not ALL.
-Soup
I’m a scientist. Show me the evidence!
There’s a lot of evidence for evolution. OK, I’ll use that until some contrary evidence comes along.
There’s a reasonable amount of evidence that there was a preacher called Jesus. (He said a lot of good things, like love thy neighbour). OK, I believe he lived (and I value his advice).
There is, alas, no evidence at all that Jesus was the Son of God. Some very pleasant people tell me they have had profound personal experiences that make them believe in the Son of God. I haven’t.
I also note that there are a large number of Christian sects, who disagree on many things. (e.g. is the Pope God’s ambassador on Earth?)
There are also many well-supported religions that don’t mention Jesus at all. (Still no evidence for them either.)
So to me it’s clear. Based purely on the evidence, evolution exists and the Son of God doesn’t.
Here’s a link to some Gallup poll results on various religious questions which contains those numbers:
*Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process:
1982 - 38%
1993 - 35%
1997 - 39%
1999 - 40%
2001 - 37%
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process:
1982 - 9%
1993 - 11%
1997 - 10%
1999 - 9%
2001 - 12%
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so:
1982 - 44%
1993 - 47%
1997 - 44%
1999 - 47%
2001 - 45%
No opinion/Other:
1982 - 9%
1993 - 7%
1997 - 7%
1999 - 4%
2001 - 6%*
To put it another way, throughout this period just under half of the population have been “evolutionists”, and of the “evolutionists”, about 80% have been believers in God (which is not the same thing as believing that Jesus was or is the Son of God, of course).
I believe that Jesus is God, and I believe that natural selection is the mechanism by which He created man.
“Christ” comes from the Greek for “anointed one” – the same thing as “Messiah,” which derives from Hebrew. And the name “Jesus” is a form of Joshua, or Yeshua in Hebrew. Jesus would have been called Yesha bar Yosip (son of Joseph) by his contemporaries.
Checking in as one who accepts the fact of evolution:
My concept of the Divine is not consistent with the notion of anyone being the “Son of God”, except in a poetic sense. To the extent that Jesus of Nazareth was one such child of God, of course he was a son. The only other possibility is daughter of God, and being male, Jesus had to be a son. QED.
That said, so was (and is) everybody else (a Son or Daughter of God, poetically speaking). Those who recognize this, and live their lives accordingly, probably have a bit of a leg up on the rest of us with regard to the whole enlightenment thing.
bagkitty wrote:
Put me down as another Christian (believing that Jesus is in fact the Son of God) who accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting evolution, an earth that’s about 4.6 billion years old, and a much older universe.
As for how much God guided this process, I don’t know. I figure that chance plays a large part in genetics, not to mention molecules coming together into organic molecules in the first place, and chance seems to be one realm where God could reign while still leaving things more or less to His natural laws. And having a God to guide evolution is certainly one way to combat the exaggerated creationist claims of the improbability of evolution.
However, aren’t there several non-Christian religions that have creation myths and thus may not believe in evolution? While I hear a lot about Christian creationists, I wonder why I don’t hear much about creationists of other religions.
All of the below is meant with a hug. Please bear that in mind. 
Ohhhh for goodness’ sake.
Alright, I hope I’m becoming known as the arch-Christian of these boards. If I am not, I hope to find out who is, so I can join his or her retinue.
I have no problem with evolution, or with creationism. What has kept me from entering any of the relevant threads is that I don’t care to see Christianity and science set against one another as gladiators when both are precious to me. Can I say this once and for all? CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT EXCLUDE EVOLUTION. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXCLUDE CHRISTIANITY. NEITHER EXCLUDES CREATIONISM. GIVE GOD THE CREDIT OF YOUR IMAGININGS - HE DID BUILD THEM, AFTER ALL!
It’s not like I’m claiming to know what it’s all about. I know we can see some animals evolving right now. That is well cool.
All I want to say is… firstly, that I am not an idiot, or an easily-swayed fool who needs to believe. I am a seasoned intellectual, seasoned enough to know damn well it ain’t no compliment, which is why I inflict it upon myself.
To follow: spiritual matters are spiritually understood. That fact is not going to go away, however many folders of facts you pile on my desk. I try daily to explain mysticism to physics graduates - the very essence of mysticism is that it can only be understood by the mystics, which DOES make it too heavy, but the imbalance of a frightening universe should make us huddle together, if anything.
Oh, and Christianity-assassins: you have one almighty advantage. I love you. Whoever you are. We are not only duty-bound, but actually gut-driven, to love everyone who wants to destroy us. That means we will help advance your honest argument just as far as we will advance our own. Respect that, please, and maybe we’ll all learn something!
(gruffly) and a firm handshake to you too.
Some Christians do exclude evolution.
The problem with creationism is that it says the evidence for evolution is either faked, misunderstood or planted by God.
Sorry, that’s a contradiction!
I don’t understand this at all.
Incidentally, how do you know you’re a mystic?
Every civilization has a creation myth. However, not all creation myths happen to also be considered core religious doctrine. Some religions teach that the physical world is immaterial anyway. Some posit a series of cyclical creations and destructions on a cosmic time scale comparable to Science’s. Some limit their creation story specifically to their homeland and their people, and who cares where the rest of the world came from.
One reason you only hear about Christian creationists may be because the term in recent years has been mostly used to refer to followers of so-called “Creation Science,” which IS almost wholly American Evangelical/Fundamentalist in origin. I don’t think in any other society was it such a big deal in the later 20th Century.
My personal views on the creation/evolution ordeal are rather convoluted, culminating from a rather strict religious upbringing combined with a strong sense of logic.
I believe that God spoke to Moses in parable, which is the only way that an unscientific, nomadic people of thousands of years ago could understand the truths given to them. They would not understand if God had said “Well, I created the laws of physics, then I messed with the laws of probabilities to blah blah blah…” See what I mean? They would not have understood that. So God used parables to reveal His truths to His peoples, knowing that in good time, the reality of the situation would be revealed to them by their own studies and minds.
I believe that there was nothing. God created the opposing force to this nothing, the everything. An infinite to oppose the zero. The first dimension, a point. He created division between the two, the second dimension, the distance. I’m not going to go completely into it, but I think that God was confiding in His closest comrade, Moses, in terms that Moses could understand, the creation of the Universe. What is nothing to Moses? Darkness. What is everything to him? Light. These are terms that he can understand, not physics. Moses had no background to comprehend physics. So God told him what he could, the best he could. Oh, sure, God could have granted Moses the wisdom to understand exactly what he meant, but then how would Moses accurately relay this to his people?
Basically, creation is an easily understood explaination for the creation of physics which culminated in life on Earth, and then finally with the dawning of comprehension and thought in an ape somewhere in Africa or the Holy Land.
Of course, this is but a host of my crackpot religions concilations to science, so do with it what you will.
–Tim
I am a Christian. I am also an amateur scientist, and a political philosopher. I find the evidence for evolution (in its broad terms, describing the general outline of speciation among living beings over a multibillion-year span of existence) is compelling reason to treat the theory as a proven fact. I seldom discuss it in an adversarial manner except with those Christians who believe that it is false, and antithetical to their own faith.
Creationism, on the other hand is a specific political standard of acceptability for learning, and teaching of the world we live in, promulgated by cults willing to cheat, engage in demagoguery, and lie all in the name of my Savior, Jesus. It is false religion, dressed up in tattered rags stolen from science, and serves only the purposes of Satan himself. It’s also really stupid. It does allow unprincipled politicians to garner votes by selling their political respect along with their souls, if any.
Of course, I am not the lead Christian here.
“Who steals my purse, steals trash. . . but I really need that trash!” Me.