Sin, Evolution, and Christianity

Great Debates
1

I’m sorry if this question has been asked before, but I have been unable to find very much information on this particular topic over the www or in previous straightdope threads. I’m hoping that someone might have some insight that may help clear this up for me.

I have never before had any serious problem reconciling Christianity and the science of evolution, that is, until now. My problem revolves around Christianity’s core concept, sin, at least in its traditional sense that sin entered the world through one man’s transgression of God law and has every since been passed down to all of his descendents, dooming us all to death.

The crux of the problem comes down to this, in my understanding of evolution, humans would not have had evolved from a single individual (or individual family), rather humans would have had evolved as a population. And since we evolved as a population, how could one man’s transgression doom all of mankind?

So with the assumptions that both evolution and Christianity is true, how is the problem of original sin rectified and thus the need for a savior to save us from our sins?

2

Is there any reason you must take original sin as literal concept? I am no longer a practicing Catholic, but even when as a child when such literally concepts were presented to me, I always chose to alter them in my own mind, reconciling them as more symbolic concepts. In this way, original sin can be thought to be man’s very nature- his potential to act selfishly and violently. Striving to overcome this is what separates decent people in polite society from animals [using the word both literally and figuratively].

3

I’m not a Christian myself, but I don’t see this area as particularly unresolvable. In fact, I see a couple solutions.

1: The Genesis tale of the Adamic origin of sin is allegorical. Did you know “Adam” means “man”? “Man” once lived in paradise, chose to disobey God’s Will, and the rest follows along with the tenets of the faith.

If you’re from a tradition that demands that Biblical accounts are literal and not allegorical, that won’t solve anything. In that case, howzabout number two:

2: Evolution describes entirely physical processes. Flesh is weak and corruptible, and things made of flesh have been dying for as long as such a thing as flesh evolved. That’s not the kind of “death” Christianity is on about. What evolution, or indeed any part of science, does not describe is spirit, the soul, which is an entirely separate thing from flesh. Originally, man’s spirit as allegorical one-man, or even the individual Adam and Eve’s spirits as literal people (take your pick) lived in paradise. It doesn’t matter what flesh was doing at the time–the spirit was in Eden. Disobedience, original sin, and the curse of death is something that refers to the affliction of the spirit. Evolution’s got nothing to say about that.

A variant of number two could, I suppose, be used to keep Biblical literalism without rejecting any of the scientific lore folks have figured out over the years. Sure, the physical earth might be a couple billion years old–but the Creation’s timeline refers to the spiritual earth. Tohu and bohu, the darkness and void, actually referred to the long, long stretches of time that the physical universe was without spirit.

For myself, I reject that primarily because I reject dualism. I hold more to a kabbalistic view, that the physical is not a separate thing, but an emanation that the divine is immanent both within, and composing. But if I’m wrong, I figure a combination of number 1 and 2 pretty much covers it, but in a bit less compressed and simplified form.

4

Or, we could reject both sin and Christianity and be free of such a tedious argument, being as Evolution cares not nor is affected by Christianity and sin.

If one wants to understand evolution without a heapin helpin of Christ, look at other animals (i.e. not humans).

5

Yes, of course we could. However, the OP asked it if the two beliefs were mutually exclusive. I’m sure it has already occurred to him [or her] that the dilemma can be avoided by discarding one set of beliefs. Please don’t hijack this thread with rapid anti-Christian sentiments. You have your own threads started already for that purpose.

6

Wow, Lolo way to read the OP. Believe it explicitly assumes (for the purpose of the debate) both Christianity and evolution to be true. If you can’t set aside your biases, then stick to debates where they are appropriate.

Accipiter, I think that Drastic’s first solution and Waverly’s are the ones that I would agree with most, although Drastic’s number two is very interesting.

For my part I believe that the story represents man’s development of a conscience. Figure that humans started out as other animals, with no conscience, they just acted on instinct. Hence, the idea of paradise without sin. There couldn’t be any sin in Eden because no one knew right from wrong. Somewhere along the line people developed the ability to distinguish the two and so left the sinless paradise and had to start worrying about those things.

7

Is this really the only problem you have? Well, YMMV, but it seems straining at a gnat after swallowing some fairly large camels. Either you accept that Genesis is myth and addresses these questions in non-literal ways (in which case this is yet another non-literal mechansim) or you accept Genesis as literal, in which case the single ancestor should be the least of your worries.

In either case, if this is your concern, science helps, not hurts. Mitochondreal analysis indicates that all humanity did indeed have one single ancestor (i.e., that there is a single couple (woman) in the ancestry of all human beings). Call those Adam and Eve and you’re still golden, even with evolution and all that.

8

There’s this: Sin is not a biological matter. It’s a juridicial one. Through Adam’s sin, sinfulness was not genetically encoded into humans. Rather, humanity came under the judgment of sin.

But, if you’re a Christian, there is also this:

Not all Christians accept that the Bible teaches the total depravity of human nature. The doctrine of total depravity goes more-or-less like this: As the result of Adam’s single representative sin, all of future humanity came, irrevocably – in the absence of Christ’s finished work – under bondage to sin.

Some Christians believe that the Bible teaches something that might be called “sufficient depravity”. Sufficient depravity (my term) treats human sinfulness thus: Whether or not Adam’s single representative sin actually precludes one’s ever performing so much as a single righteous act, the fact of the matter is that everyone does – eventually – commit sins of their own, and therefore still comes under the judgment of sin.

It’s Calvinism v. Arminianism.

–B

9

It’s entirely possible that Adam could be a metaphor for mankind. Whether or not that’s the case, I believe that Genesis shows us that humans have a sexual drive that compels them to commit sin. One of the things we must learn to do is overcome that desire and be able to resist the most powerful seduction, even that which isn’t sexual. Then we can stay within the confines of God’s rules and still be fruitful and multiply. I don’t think it would be fair to say that we need to pay for Adam and Eve’s sin (the “I wouldn’t have taken of the forbidden fruit” argument). The crime is man’s sinful nature, not an act committed by one dude in the past.

FTR, I do believe in evolution and Christianity. I don’t believe that one compromises the other.

10

However, Waverly, the argument will never be resolved as the two are mutually exclusive. So my advice, my brilliant and solicited advice, is to reject sin and Chrsitianity when discusing evolution.

You may as well try to bake a cake with a turkey.

“how ever are we going to incorporate this turkey into this delicious desert.”

“Oh, dear. we could pretend turkey is readily combined with the cake ingredients.”

“yes, yes. and then we would insist the cake was still cake though it clearly looks absolutely dreadful.”

“But we love cake!”

“and we love turkey!”

“Look, everyone, turkey cake!”

11

An unsupported assertion with which many do not agree.

12

Please, let’s avoid a hijack.

13

Wouldn’t that be Augustianism vs. Pelagianism?

14

Unsupported?

Following the most recent, as I can recall and have been informed (and I’ll be sinfully ballpark with the numbers), information regarding human evolution our most recent common ancestor with chimps and bonobos existed over a million years ago.

that undermines any biblical claim of “god created man”

hence, support.

15

I believe several participants in this thread have already given examples of how it need not be mutually exclusive. The OP was specific in stating that the discussion was not to include dismissal of the Christian perspective. Your disagreement with this premise is noted, now kindly return to Jesus: I’m not impressed where you can continue to irritate Christians without hijacking.

16

I suggest you start reading some of the responses. Then you might realize that, no, no it doesn’t undermine anything. All the evolutionary evidence does is give more evidence to the fact that the Bible is full of allegory and metaphor that contains some elements of history in it, but on the whole is not, nor was meant to be, a literal history of the world.

I’m sorry if some Christians take it that way and it annoys you. I really am. But you’re inability to read other people’s posts and comment intelligently and within the parameters of the OP is astounding to me.

17

Two minor cavils:

Accipiter’s OP states in part:

A significant part of the problem may lie here. Much of historical and present evangelical theology does focus on the concept of sin, to be sure, but I would say that Christianity’s core concept is God’s love. Particularly as expressed through the person of Jesus.

There are branches of Christianity which either reject the concept of “original sin” or place it in a “this is a minor sidelight issue” status – focusing instead on God’s work of reconciliation of human foibles to His intended ways of life for them through His love expressed in Jesus and through the work of the Holy Spirit in those who follow Him.

I’ve tried to phrase this in such a way as not to overemphasize the dichotomy, but many evangelicals, whose arguments would be based on sin-and-repentance, would nonetheless agree that the concept of His love is ontologically prior to any examination of human response or lack thereof.

Now, evolution as generally understood deals largely with the physiological ontogeny of humanity, not with the moral. But a work such as The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind may give some indications of the sources of human nature as we know it today, and can be profitably read in conjunction with moral theology to give insights into “a world where sin is rampant.”

Lolo:

No. It undermines a literalistic adherence to a six-day creation in 4004 BC. There is exactly one member of this board who I have heard assert the truth of the latter proposition. Wildest Bill, meet Lolo. Lolo, this is Bill.

For the rest of us Christians, it simply provides useful information on the technique of how He did it.

18

Waverly, Poly, Nuerotik,

alright then. As I see it, and as I’ve read from your posts, pretty much any intrepretaion you give of the bible could be how God meant it. So, day doesn’t necessarily mean day, up could mean down, etc.

Fine. Let me ask you this; when exactly does the bible mean anything it says?

It seems to me, a bible, an inspired word of God if not the word of God, wouldn’t be so misrepresentative(is that a word?).

Like I said,; you guys are trying to make cake with turkey.

and by the waverly, my analogy was no more silly than your attempts to equate science with myth.

I see now what I’ve seen before;[in a leave us to our tedium, Christy whine] "You just don’t get it![end whine]

who wants turkey cake?

19

Lolo do you still not get it?

Stop your hijack.
Stop it.
Stop…your…hijack.

Start another thread.
Start…another…thread.

Everyone’s point is that you are DISREGARDING THE FRIGGIN’ OP!!!

I once thought that you had to be able to read in order to type. Lolo congratulations on your continued ability to make me question that assumption.

20

where the F%#@ in the bible does it mention anything about evolution?

aside form your own wishful thinking and manipulating?
I’m sorry, but that last post by Poly has really tickled my curious bone. I mean, Poly seems nice enough, but this is getting a bit ridicurous!