How Can the Fact and Theory of Evolution be Reconciled with the View that Jesus is Christ

[Sunstone]

How can the fact and theory of evolution be theologically reconciled with the view that Jesus is Christ?

PLEASE SEE POST NUMBER TWO IN THIS THREAD BEFORE YOU RESPOND WITH THE INFINITELY WITTY, ALWAYS INSIGHTFUL, AND ENDLESSLY ENTERTAINING "THE TWO THINGS CANNOT BE RECONCILED".​

As a non-theist, I am in no great danger of becoming a Christian theologian. However, I think it is obvious that were I to become one, I would be fated to become the most important Christian theologian since Tertullian, "the founder of Western theology", albeit so much more modest than that august man.

Recently, I have been whiling away my idle moments doodling, scratching myself, staring at the ceiling, and creating the most impressive theological reconciliation of evolution and Christianity the world is ever likely to see. Speaking in all modesty, 'tis a tragedy I don't have much more time for theology than an idle moment here or there.

Having now properly introduced the true subject of this thread (that would be me), let us hie to the comparatively unimportant part -- the theological reconciliation of evolution with Christ.

Traditionally (to some Christians, but not all), the essential problem evolution presents to Christian teachings is NOT (as many of us believe) that it contradicts the Biblical account of creation. Traditionally (to some Christians, but not all), the essential problem is that evolution renders unnecessary the incarnation of Christ in the form of Jesus. That is because evolution destroys the notion that all of humanity is descended from Adam and with it, the notion that Adam's fall must be atoned for by every last one of his descendants. Or something like that. I mean, no need to be too precise about the traditional view now -- because I have invented a much better view.

My much better view begins by asserting that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains how evolution works. It goes on to claim that the fact and theory of evolution shows us how God involves himself in the world. That is, he operates through nature, such as through evolution, in order to bring about his divine mission -- which is to save every last human soul (except, apparently, Mileus Hornbreaker's soul, the only kid who ever succeeded in beating me up during the entirety of my childhood. A soul damned to hell if ever there was one.)

Now an obvious implication of the view that God involves himself in the world through natural processes is that God loves materialism -- much in the same way Tertullian pushed philosophical realism almost to the point of becoming and out and out materialist. In short, if God decides to do something, he decides to do it his way -- by involving himself in the (material) world. (Of course, this has the incidental consequence that Christianity and the sciences are rendered theoretically compatible because studying the material world now works out to studying the will, mind, or intentions of God. No need to thank me for reconciling Christianity and the sciences. I had an extra minute this morning -- what better way to spend it?)

Hence, what could be more "natural" of him (shameless pun intended) than to save humanity via incarnating himself as a human? I will answer that for you, if you don't mind. Nothing. Nothing could be more natural.

The only piece of the puzzle that I do not quite have brilliantly worked out yet is why Jesus had to be crucified. Why not just spend decades preaching a message of salvation, and then have done with it? But I am certain I will have all that figured out the next time I get five or so idle minutes to think about it.

Oh, by the way: The view that God works through evolution comports well with the view of at least some Jews that they and God are in an ongoing process of discovering their relationship to each other. So, I think it is fair to conclude that I am not only the greatest Christian theologian since Tertullian, but also the greatest Jewish theologian since Maimonides.

COMING SOON: My modest corrections of the Diamond Sutra.


So, how would you yourself reconcile evolution and Christ -- assuming, of course, that you have something more interesting to say about the matter than "you would not"?

Also, most mainstream Christians have no problem with evolution. Just to make sure you know.
_______________________________

 

[Sunstone]

In before anyone else: "Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Christian message."

There. Now you don't have to say it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually virtually all of science not only evolution cannot be reconciled with the ancient belief and scripture of ancient religions. A lot driving square pegs in round holes to make thing work, and even than they do not you just get splinters all over the floor and many conflicting divisions of ancient religions.

Jews use Midrash, Christians live in denial.

 

[exchemist]

How can the fact and theory of evolution be theologically reconciled with the view that Jesus is Christ?

PLEASE SEE POST NUMBER TWO IN THIS THREAD BEFORE YOU RESPOND WITH THE INFINITELY WITTY, ALWAYS INSIGHTFUL, AND ENDLESSLY ENTERTAINING "THE TWO THINGS CANNOT BE RECONCILED".​

As a non-theist, I am in no great danger of becoming a Christian theologian. However, I think it is obvious that were I to become one, I would be fated to become the most important Christian theologian since Tertullian, "the founder of Western theology", albeit so much more modest than that august man.

Recently, I have been whiling away my idle moments doodling, scratching myself, staring at the ceiling, and creating the most impressive theological reconciliation of evolution and Christianity the world is ever likely to see. Speaking in all modesty, 'tis a tragedy I don't have much more time for theology than an idle moment here or there.

Having now properly introduced the true subject of this thread (that would be me), let us hie to the comparatively unimportant part -- the theological reconciliation of evolution with Christ.

Traditionally, the essential problem evolution presents to Christian teachings is NOT (as many of us believe) that it contradicts the Biblical account of creation. Traditionally, the essential problem is that evolution renders unnecessary the incarnation of Christ in the form of Jesus. That is because evolution destroys the notion that all of humanity is descended from Adam and with it, the notion that Adam's fall must be atoned for by every last one of his descendants. Or something like that. I mean, no need to be too precise about the traditional view now -- because I have invented a much better view.

My much better view begins by asserting that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains how evolution works. It goes on to claim that the fact and theory of evolution shows us how God involves himself in the world. That is, he operates through nature, such as through evolution, in order to bring about his divine mission -- which is to save every last human soul (except, apparently, Mileus Hornbreaker's soul, the only kid who ever succeeded in beating me up during the entirety of my childhood. A soul damned to hell if ever there was one.)

Now an obvious implication of the view that God involves himself in the world through natural processes is that God loves materialism -- much in the same way Tertullian pushed philosophical realism almost to the point of becoming and out and out materialist. In short, if God decides to do something, he decides to do it his way -- by involving himself in the (material) world.

Hence, what could be more "natural" of him (shameless pun intended) than to save humanity via incarnating himself as a human? I will answer that for you, if you don't mind. Nothing. Nothing could be more natural.

The only piece of the puzzle that I do not quite have brilliantly worked out yet is why Jesus had to be crucified. Why not just spend decades preaching a message of salvation, and then have done with it? But I am certain I will have all that figured out the next time I get five or so idle minutes to think about it.

Oh, by the way: The view that God works through evolution comports well with the view of at least some Jews that they and God are in an ongoing process of discovering their relationship to each other. So, I think it is fair to conclude that I am not only the greatest Christian theologian since Tertullian, but also the greatest Jewish theologian since Maimonides.

COMING SOON: My modest corrections of the Diamond Sutra.


So, how would you yourself reconcile evolution and Christ -- assuming, of course, that you have something more interesting to say about the matter than "you would not"?


_______________________________

It seems to me that almost all of what you have said is uncontroversial and very close to the standard modern theology of the mainstream Christian denominations.

The point about the role of the crucifixion has been argued at length, through the centuries, under the various theories of the Atonement. There seem to be at least four views and I don't think any of then has been firmly ruled in or out by the main churches. (I myself incline to the "moral influence" theory of Abelard, as I'm not convinced by the notion of a God that demands blood sacrifice, but that's just a personal preference.)

P.S. It is perceptive of you to recognise the problem the fundies really have with evolution is probably their theology of the Fall, rather than conformity with the literal words of Genesis.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually virtually all of science not only evolution cannot be reconciled with the ancient belief and scripture of ancient religions. A lot driving square pegs in round holes to make thing work, and even than they do not you just get splinters all over the floor and many conflicting divisions of ancient religions.

Jews use Midrash, Christians live in denial.

[yawn]boring![/yawn]

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that almost all of what you have said is uncontroversial and very close to the standard modern theology of the mainstream Christian denominations.

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know that. I don't much keep up with contemporary Christian theology.

The point about the role of the crucifixion has been argued at length, through the centuries, under the various theories of the Atonement. There seems to be at least four views and I don't think any of then has been firmly ruled in or out by the main churches. (I myself incline to the "moral influence" theory of Abelard, as I'm not convinced by the notion of a God that demands blood sacrifice, but that's just a personal preference.)

Someone should start a thread on those four views.

P.S. It is perceptive of you to recognise the problem the fundies really have with evolution is probably their theology of the Fall, rather than Genesis.

Thanks.

 

[Sunstone]

Also, I might point out that "God as prone to work through nature" explains the Bible as the "evolving word of God". Hence, no worries about it being wrong about this or that thing. The fact it is wrong about this or that thing is perfectly consistent with the way God works.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know that. I don't much keep up with contemporary Christian theology.



Someone should start a thread on those four views.



Thanks.

From memory there are the moral influence, satisfaction and penal substitution theories, plus another I can't call to mind. But I'm not really au fait.

I'm surprised it needs reiterating to someone like yourself but, as I constantly find myself pointing out on this forum, the main Christian churches have no issue with the theory of evolution or any other theory of modern science. Their theologians are intelligent enough to realise they would be on a hiding to nothing to oppose the findings of science.

 

[Skwim]

Recently, I have been whiling away my idle moments doodling, scratching myself, staring at the ceiling, and creating the most impressive theological reconciliation of evolution and Christianity the world is ever likely to see.

Considering

​

I fail to see any need for reconciliation. Let the majority of White evang. Prots and Black Prots live with their ignorance. There will always be a segment of society out of step with the rest, and with evolution this is them.

So, instead of asserting that "Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Christian message." I'd say that, in main, Christians don't see anything to reconcile in the first place.

[yawn]boring![/yawn]

Exactly! Only in reference to the OP.

.

 

[Terry Sampson]

How can the fact and theory of evolution be theologically reconciled with the view that Jesus is Christ?

So, how would you yourself reconcile evolution and Christ.

• Affirm the Judaic Trinity
  • God the Father,
  • God the Shekhina, and
    
  • God the Holy Spirit.
• Affirm Jesus' biological (i.e. very human) birth to Mary AND Joseph.
• Affirm Jesus' unique status as the only known human who actually and literally trusted God completely and continuously from conception to death.
  
• Affirm Jesus' death, entombment, physical transformation, and ascension.

 

[Sunstone]

Considering

​

I fail to see any need for reconciliation. Let the majority of White evang. Prots and Black Prots live with their ignorance. There will always be a segment of society out of step with the rest, and with evolution this is them.

So, instead of asserting that "Evolution cannot be reconciled with the Christian message." I'd say that, in main, Christians don't see anything to reconcile in the first place.



Exactly! Only in reference to the OP.

.

Jeebers, you're in a sour mood.

 

[Sunstone]

From memory there are the moral influence, satisfaction and penal substitution theories, plus another I can't call to mind. But I'm not really au fait.

I'm surprised it needs reiterating to someone like yourself but, as I constantly find myself pointing out on this forum, the main Christian churches have no issue with the theory of evolution or any other theory of modern science. Their theologians are intelligent enough to realise they would be on a hiding to nothing to oppose the findings of science.

I'm aware the main Christian churches have no issue with evolution. I just thought that went without saying. Then again, I don't often participate in the creationist threads.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The point about the role of the crucifixion has been argued at length, through the centuries, under the various theories of the Atonement. There seem to be at least four views and I don't think any of then has been firmly ruled in or out by the main churches. (I myself incline to the "moral influence" theory of Abelard, as I'm not convinced by the notion of a God that demands blood sacrifice, but that's just a personal preference.)

There is no role of the crucifixion if evolution is true, because the idea that humanity needs a "savior" is based upon the idea that human nature is by definition "bad." But we know human nature evolved by natural selection. Thus, human nature is the nature that led to the maximal amount of survival and fecundity. Human nature isn't "sinful"; it's useful in that it promotes survival and reproduction. Most "sins" according to Christianity were the traits that led to the highest probability of leaving ancestors. Human nature is not a result of rebellion against any deity; it is the way it is because of how it was shaped by natural selection. Most of the so-called "seven deadly sins" are actually not deadly at all. In fact, they are necessary for survival.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no role of the crucifixion if evolution is true, because the idea that humanity needs a "savior" is based upon the idea that human nature is by definition "bad." But we know human nature evolved by natural selection. Thus, human nature is the nature that led to the maximal amount of survival and fecundity. Human nature isn't "sinful"; it's useful in that it promotes survival and reproduction. Most "sins" according to Christianity were the traits that led to the highest probability of leaving ancestors. Human nature is not a result of rebellion against any deity; it is the way it is because of how it was shaped by natural selection. Most of the so-called "seven deadly sins" are actually not deadly at all. In fact, they are necessary for survival.

Yes, but that's not the question posed in the OP.

 

[Skwim]

Jeebers, you're in a sour mood.

Riding Lawn mower battery's dead. Can't mow until later And there's 1-1/4 acres of grass waiting.

.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes, but that's not the question posed in the OP.

Well, how can Christianity be reconciled with evolution if sin is actually good? Christianity is based upon guilting people into believing their very nature is "bad" and that they need a savior. But human nature is simply a consequence of natural selection. If we're by nature sinful, then sin is good, since it led to the most reproductive and survival success.

 

[Vouthon]

Thanks for an interesting topic to consider for this - most peculiar, socially distant - Good Friday @Sunstone

As you correctly note, the autonomy of the natural order and of processes like natural selection are not incompatible with belief in an omnipresent Divine Being as the ultimate Creator of the universe, unless one is wedded to a belief in God as some kind of tyrannical micro-manager.

Christian doctrine actually aided primitive science and helped it become more naturalistic than Graeco-Roman thought had permitted, by enabling natural philosophy to move away from the pagan belief in 'gods' being causally involved in the everyday operation of the natural world. The father of Hellenic philosophy, Thales, had believed that:

1. The magnet has a soul [which moves it]. (De Anima 405a19)
2. All things are full of gods. (De Anima 411a7)

Plato therefore imagined that stars and planets were divine beings, while Aristotle regarded them as rational souls made out of luminous aether, since his cosmology required an individual unmoved mover for each sphere.

Darwin's evolutionary theory took us one major step further down this path of further excluding divine causal agency and 'spiritual' intellects from the natural order, instead understanding it on its own terms according to materialist processes.

The sixth century Christian philosopher John Philoponus (born around 490, dead sometime in the 570s) I think anticipated some elements of Darwinianism:


John Philoponus facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about John Philoponus

Philoponus’ main significance for the history of science lies in his being, at the close of antiquity, the first thinker to undertake a comprehensive and massive attack on the principal tenets of Aristotle’s physics and cosmology, an attack unequaled in thoroughness until Galileo.

Philoponus’ philosophy of nature was the first to combine scientific cosmology and monotheism. The monotheistic belief in the universe as a creation of God and the subsequent assumption that there is no essential difference between things in heaven and on earth, as well as the rejection of the belief in the divine nature of the stars, had already been expressed in the Old Testament and was taken over by Christianity and later by Islam.

The monotheistic dogma of the creation of the universe ex nihilo by the single act of a God who transcends nature implied, for Philoponus, the creation of matter imbued with all the physical faculties for its independent development according to the laws of nature, a development that he conceived of as extending from the primary chaotic state to the present organized structure of the universe.

This deistic conception of a world that, once created, continues to exist automatically by natural law, was completely foreign to the classical Greek view, which never considered the gods to be “above nature” but associated them with nature, reigning not above it but within it. The shock created by this conception of Philoponus’ is reflected in the words of Simplicius, who is bewildered by the idea of a god who acts only at the single moment of creation and then hands over his creation to nature.​

Likewise, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both believed in a concept known as the actualization of potential.

In De Trinitate and his Literal Commentary on Genesis, St. Augustine interprets Genesis as God having endowed creation with the capacity to develop - that is, a view compatible with, albeit different from, our contemporary understanding of evolution. Augustine employs the image of a dormant 'seed' to aid his readers in understanding this point, what Alistair Grath refers to as Augustine's belief in "divinely embedded causalities which emerge or evolve at a later stage." See:


Augustine, Genesis, & the Goodness of Creation | Henry Center

Augustine also argues for a notion of “seminal seeds.” His argument is that, when God created the world, he both created actual “stuff”—animals, vegetation, etc., but also created seminal seeds by which (over time) “new” things would come forth.

Thus, at some point after the original creation, we really do see “new” creatures, “new” vegetable life, and so on. But when animals reproduce, or when the seeds of a plant lead to the existence of a new plant, there is no autonomous creating going on.

Rather, God is still the ultimate creator, because within humans, or within other living things, exist these seminal seeds created by God, and only through these seminal seeds does new life come into being. ​

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas likewise argues in favour of the view that God created all things to have potential:

On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but “before it sprung up in the earth,” that is, potentially.…All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God’s part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world.​

It is for this reason that the Catholic Church - and the vast majority of Catholics - are utterly comfortable with the idea of the human body evolving from antecedent biological forms, so long as one continues to uphold the special creation of the rational soul by God and its infusion into the corporeal form. Pope Pius XII thus declared in 1950 that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

With that being said, the doctrine of 'original sin' is probably the most complicated element of the Christian worldview to synthesise with modern science, which strongly implies polygenism in human origins (as opposed to descent from a single 'father' who fell and transmitted a propensity to sin down to his descendants).

The Catechism defines that “the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.” (CCC 404).

Modern theologians do not generally discern any conflict between polygenism and Catholic teaching on original sin. An example of this can be found in The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church (1996 edition), on Humani Generis where the authors / editors Fr. Neuner and Dupuis, S.J. state:

"Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings...Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is sometimes rejected because 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism." (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169)​

Further, see also the article published in L'Osservatore Romano, "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" by Roberto Masi, published in 1969:

"....according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation.

Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin...It is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men...that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin.

It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated."

(Roberto Masi, from L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)​

And moreover:

"Catholic theology affirms the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations)...Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history, God prepared the way for what Pope John Paul II has called 'an ontological leap...the moment of transition to the spiritual.'" (International Theological Commission document on creation and evolution endorsed by then Cardinal Ratzinger from 2004)​

I'm curious to learn more about your thoughts on the salvific death of Jesus: what is it about this idea in particular that you find, at present, hard to square with the overall viewpoint (reconciling evolutionary theory and the dogma of the incarnation) that you set forth in the OP?

Before I speak at greater length about this specific point, I'd first like to know more about the difficulties you think it raises.

 

[sun rise]

Now an obvious implication of the view that God involves himself in the world through natural processes is that God loves materialism

From the dualistic frame of reference you used, I'd say it as God loves creation itself especially if you accept the postulate that God is love.

 

[exchemist]

I'm aware the main Christian churches have no issue with evolution. I just thought that went without saying. Then again, I don't often participate in the creationist threads.

Er, but then why start this thread? Unless you are fishing for fundies.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, how can Christianity be reconciled with evolution if sin is actually good? Christianity is based upon guilting people into believing their very nature is "bad" and that they need a savior. But human nature is simply a consequence of natural selection. If we're by nature sinful, then sin is good, since it led to the most reproductive and survival success.

Now I see what you're saying. Well, the notion I am proposing in the OP sidesteps that take on Christianity. After all, that take on it is the product of Christian Theologians -- such as Augustus -- and not the Bible. Or at least that's how I understand it. Not really my field.