hilker:

southpol:

sds:

muppetpants:

amyyy:

:“There is absolutely no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and the Bible’s message,” Gianfranco Ravasi, in charge of cultural affairs at the Vatican, told reporters, noting the theory had interested Pope Benedict XVI and his recent predecessors.

Coming on the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking 1859 publication “On the Origin of Species,” the Vatican’s March 3-7 meeting — which will gather a variety of scientists, philosophers and Catholic and Protestant theologians — sharply contrasts with the stance of creationists. (via 24freedinners)

I’ve always thought the argument for evolution or that, at least, the Creation took place over more than seven days was pretty easily justified by the Bible itself. Even ignoring that throughout the Bible, parables are used to illustrate overarching ideas and general morals, thus making the notion that the Bible is itself more a series of parables than literal fact, there are a lot of verses that reinforce the notion that the Bible, which seeks to make God’s view understandable to human beings.

The following quote is probably the best way to see that how we see time is not the same as how God sees time:“Indeed, in your sight a thousand years are like a single day, like yesterday—already past—like an hour in the night.” Psalm 90:4

When you look at it that way, it is easy to see that seven days can be a simple representation of a much broader span of time, which is too large to be grasped by human beings. In some ways, even the description of Creation in Genesis seems to corroborate much of science’s explanation for the way the world and universe began: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty. Then the earth was developed, then life began, and on the final day, there was man — a peak of evolution on Earth.

I don’t understand the conflict, other than an inability to recognize that as human beings, we can’t possibly be expected to understand the perspective of God. The Bible, if it is the word of God, was told to us in a way that was conceivable to the people of its time and even conceivable to us now. And in my mind, while science can be used to figure out why things work as they do, and how those things can be manipulated to our advantage, the notion that there might be some purpose behind it all is not so far-fetched.

There is no reason why God or some supreme force can not be seen as the great architect. Religion does not have to be the end of science any more than science has to be the end of religion. Neither proves the other wrong. In fact in most ways, they prove each other right and fill in the gaps for one another, where each fails to understand or explain certain phenomenon. (via robot-heart)

I’m leaving all of this because I want my scientist friends who read my Tumblr and lambast the possible existance of God to understand that this is entirely possible. (via seagull)

excellent thoughts!

I *think* this is a view a lot of people share.  I took a couple theology courses with some folks who worked at the Vatican with whom I chatted about the idea of evolution and Genesis.  Many shared the idea is that seven days may be seven eons.  When you are the Alpha and Omega, a being that has no beginning and no end, an eon might seem as a day is to us.  I can see why many Protestant sects who believe in a literal translation of the Bible would be against this, but in the grand scheme of Christianity, Catholics are actually quite liberal.  Go figure.

It is important for people to understand evangelicalism’s perspective on this issue. It tends to be much more complicated than the reductive labels of being anti-science or anti-intellectual. We (evangelicals) have a lot of intellectual balls in the air that are of varying degrees of importance. First and foremost, we believe that the Bible is true. This is a broad statement because from there we have to decide which parts are true literally vs figuratively. Certain books/passages are clearer than others. Genesis is up for debate. There are multiple viewpoints on the interpretation of this book, which are well within orthodoxy.

So, depending on one’s theology, evolution may be considered compatible/incompatible with Scripture. It’s not about being anti-science; it’s the belief that Scripture is our highest authority for truth. The tension comes when science seems to contradict Scripture, and the rest of the world mocks you. The best approach for those evangelicals is to respectfully disagree with the current modern consensus (key word being “current”) in the hope that as science progresses it validates their interpretation. Do no mock those who hold this view. They are being consistent to their interpretation of one of the world’s largest religions.

Another thing that muddies the issue of acceptance of evolution among evangelicals is its use by very rabid atheists who seek to use it to prove their own religious beliefs. Evolution is not naturalism by default, but it is (rightly) linked to naturalists. This makes picking the truth out of the lies even more difficult for the average evangelical who doesn’t have the time or effort to get a theology degree.

By the way, I tend to lean toward a reading of Genesis that is reconcilable with evolution but which still maintains fidelity to the basic tenet that all Scripture is true.

I appreciate these thoughts and their articulation. I just want to quibble with this:

It’s not about being anti-science; it’s the belief that Scripture is our highest authority for truth.

Belief that __________ is our highest authority for truth is anti-science.

You can have your book and choose to believe it however you like, including when it is contradicted by science. But you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too.

i think more accurately, anti-Science. Science, for many, is effectively a religion, looking to it for answers of meaning, guidance of behavior & so on. (curiously, much of what is now Science was begun by Christians  - copernicus, newton & galileo, for example - working on a Christian foundation.) science - with a lowercase “s” - is the acquisition of knowledge of what is. it pertains more to epistimology than an all-encompassing philosophy.