| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
>A literal reading of Genesis suggests that human history and Earth history are quite nearly co-extensive (a few days difference in age). This literal reading didn't begin to be abandoned by the academy until the 18th century.<
To my knowledge, the first suggestions that the earth was much older than humanity come from the second half of the 17th century, largely as a result of early geological studies. Although some earlier religions proposed an old earth, they assumed people were around, too.
>One rather strong strain of evolutionary theory opposes determinism. So in this sense it stands in direct opposition to a particular popular (in the US) strain of Christianity.<
The fact that evolution shows no teleological purpose does not say anything about whether God could use it for some purpose. Even in an atheistic context, the randomness of evolution could be equally cited as evidence of determinism. Even if a replay would give totally different results, the determinist could argue that we are stuck with the way things turned out. Conversely, even if we find strong evidence for tight constraints on the range of possible evolutionary scenarios, the indeterminist could argue that we have evolved to the point of being able to change things. Either one is a philosophical position; neither is actually based on scientific evidence.
>>Evolution does conflict with religions that claim that things are fundamentally cyclic
>... unless one works with a taxonomic group in which iterative
evolution is common (like the planktonic foraminifera). Happily, the law of faunal succession provides an excellent framework within which we can observe that climate is quite cyclic.<
The particular concern for such religions is with humans, and iterative evolution will not satisfy someone who wants Cretaceous humans.
>>However, such a reading of Genesis 1 has been questioned at least since Origen (a 3rd century A.D. Christian theologian), well before geology provided external evidence against such an interpretation.<<
>Did this view ever represent the status quo or was it always heterodox?<
Augustine (a little later than Origen) favored instantaneous creation rather than six-day. His views were quite influential, especialy in medieval Europe, but probably never was the majority view. However, the evidence of geology resulted in the majority of those who wrote on the subject (i.e., clergy and Christian geologists but not necessarily the majority of the folks in the pews) accepting an old earth by the late 1700’s to early 1800’s. Only in the past few decades have the “creation scientists” repopularized the young-earth view. The reception of evolution has been mixed, but there were theologically conservative Christians who were quick to accept Darwin's ideas. The picture of modern young-earth views as the historical orthodoxy of Christianity is no more accurate than the claims of creation science.
>>Overall, evolution is largely irrelevant to Christianity.<<
>I would love to dismiss fundamentalist Christianity as irrelevant, but that would be rude.<
Actually, The Fundamentals, the publication from which fundamentalism derives its name, explicitly rejected young-earth views. Any young-earth fundamentalist is not faithful to tradition.
Christianity is supposed to be about a right relationship between humanity and God. Thus, natural laws such as evolution are largely theologically irrelevant in principle. In practice, there are plenty of Christians and people who claim to be Christians who attack evolution, but in doing so they generally neglect Christian principles. Thus, what I meant was not that evolution is not an issue for many Christians, but that it ought not to be one.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Partial index: