Theologians accept evolution

[d-ray657]

There was an interesting debate on Talk of the Nation yesterday. A religion professor from Calvin College had written an article about the interpretation of the Old Testament in light of overwhelming scientific evidence that supports the scientific principle of evolution. In his view, the who and what are more important than how. Also on the show was the president of the Southern Baptist seminary, whose position was that all Christian theology breaks down unless one literally accepts the story of Adam and Eve. IMHO, the view that one does not have to reject science to find meaning in Christianity seemed more reasonable.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Agreed that evolution does not neccessarily toss the Bible out. It's entirely possible that God made us in whatever way. Matter came from somewhere...

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Agreed that evolution does not neccessarily toss the Bible out. It's entirely possible that God made us in whatever way. Matter came from somewhere...

Pete

The"Watchmaker Theory" is fairly old and was generally accepted by theologians until the Talibangelists obtained political power here. Now a lot of theologians who accept the theory are reluctant to say so.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Also on the show was the president of the Southern Baptist seminary, whose position was that all Christian theology breaks down unless one literally accepts the story of Adam and Eve.

That's why so many fundamentalist Christians invest so much energy in promoting crack-pot theories that, I suspect, few of them actually believe. If they were to acknowledge the reality of evolution a large percentage of their flock (and their wallets) would desert them.

John

[bhunter]

What is interesting is how modern cosmology has almost forced the notion of something beyond. Peering further and further back simply pushes questions, that may not ever be answerable, back to the domain of philosophy and, dare I say, religion.

Here's a nice evolution page:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

[piece-itpete]

There is a line though. We can accept a theory to operate with, but hard science requires skepticism. All hard (real ) scientists should come from Missouri

Pete

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There is a line though. We can accept a theory to operate with, but hard science requires skepticism. All hard (real ) scientists should come from Missouri

Pete

But they can't procreate, Pete. Them mules are infertile.

[BlueStreak]

The Bible says God created man in his image. But, it doesn't tell us how he went about it.

If you think about it, most things come into being through an evolutionary process.
The first successful full heavier than air aricraft wasn't the Concorde.
The first was made of fabric and wood. And, even that came only after efforts to build gliders. Which came after balloons. Which came after men gluing feathers to themselves.........

Regards,
Dave

[Bigerik]

God must get a wistful laugh out of stuff like this. Does anyone really believe that if he thought it was important how he created man, he wouldn't have thrown in a couple of paragraphs describing it.

So again, we miss all the important parts and get into a huff over the small details that don't matter.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

There is a line though. We can accept a theory to operate with, but hard science requires skepticism....

And religion doesn't?