The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evolution May Explain the Problem of Evil and Suffering

As an academic biologist, I could no more reject evolution than I could my own identity. The situation I’m faced with is having to find a theology that is compatible with evolution, which I see as a near fact. It hasn’t been easy! Theistic evolution is a possibility, and I find Universalism very appealing, though I have yet to fully embrace it. So, theistic evolution within the framework of Universalism is an attractive option.

Interesting… I am always puzzled why people think religion and science cannot co-exist. Science explains the ‘how’ and religion, at least in simple terms explains who was behind it all. I fully respect a true atheist, or an agnostic because I can see their point and from their perspective. I also am not distressed when people are atheistic or agnostic. God is the one who grants faith and in due time all will be granted it. In the end, all we really have is conjecture. No one knows for sure… I guess we will all know someday, or if the atheists are correct, we won’t know. After all, the dead know nothing.

I am a firm believer that God smiles upon us when we invent and figure out things he has created. He obviously created us for the capacity to learn and he created a seemingly infinitely complex sandbox for us to explore. Science will never disprove God in my beliefs, it will only reinforce how great He is. Science is always (or should be, provided politics and ego stay out of it) self-correcting. So taking an agnostic approach isn’t all that bad, since a correction to a theory could be down the corner. Just some food for thought.

You know what’s interesting? It’s that mainline churches (i.e. not necessarily bible nor fundamentalist churches) would probably be more accepting to this: Someone embracing either old earth or theistic evolution viewpoints over universalist viewpoints, coupled with mainline church theological doctrines and positions. As Jerry Seinfeld might ask:

Just to clarify - so there is no misunderstandings. I’m a firm believer in the Christian faith. But I’m agnostic on the theory of evolution as scientific fact, in regards to theistic evolution.

Lancia, thank you for the thought-provoking thread.

I recognize evolution in general as factual. The only part of it that I doubt is human evolution. (That said, I don’t deny human evolution. I recognize that it is a distinct possibility, and if human evolution is indeed a fact, my religious beliefs would not change.) Tongue in cheek, I like to put it this way: “I believe in most of evolution, but not in the monkey business.” :smiley:

Consider Genesis 2:8: " The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. "

I understand this to mean that God specially placed Adam in an “enclosure” (so to speak)–a relatively small area on planet earth that He specially renovated to be free of “nature red in tooth and claw”, rather like an idealized Disney version of nature: gentle, beautiful, and harmless. But after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God kicked them out into the world dominated by biological evolution, thus subjecting them to all the stuff you mentioned in your opening post, lancia.

I found these articles interesting and thought I would share them. No theologians here who are not scientists and written for lay people:

Evolution as fact and theory
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
Just How Well Proven Is Evolution?

Hey. I wouldn’t mind playing a nerd on the crew from The Big Bang Theory. Look at “Actual Salaries” and you see they probably are paid more than real life, scientific counterparts.

In your third linked reference, Morris challenges evolutionary biologists to devise an experiment to verify evolution. He suspects that such a verification could not be done. Well, such experiments have been done, and they have verified evolution without fail.

One set of particularly well-known experiments was done by Richard Lenski. He has cultured the bacterium *Escherichia coli *for thousands of generations, starting with 12 genetically identical strains. Certain bacterial characteristics evolved in every one of these cultures. One was an increase in cell size: each culture evolved an increase in cell size. Similar results have been observed in other bacterial cultures. In general, if bacterial cultures are raised on a sub-lethal concentration of some substance, they will all eventually adapt to that substance, as measured by an increase in their population size to a new stable level, without fail.

Thanks, Geoffrey.

Hi, Lancia:

I was curious how creationists might respond to this or what questions they might ask. in Creationist Answer to Lenski’s Ecoli, the author asks this:

I’m curious how you would respond to this question and criticism, for example.

You’re kidding, right??? Or is this a test?

I say that because talking about recessive traits makes sense only in the context of a diploid organism in which chromosomes exist in homologous pairs. The diploid condition produces a total of two copies of each gene. Only in diploid organisms can a recessive gene copy be masked by the dominant gene copy on the other (homologous) chromosome.

But bacteria, such as E. coli, are haploid organisms in which chromosomes do not exist in pairs. So, gene copies do not exist in pairs the way they do in diploid organisms. That single gene copy will be expressed in bacteria. It cannot be masked in the same way that a recessive gene copy can be masked by the dominant gene copy in diploid organisms.

You passed. On the other hand, the site Science Meets Religion, has this interesting article (also, the second one is good, from another site):

What are the theological advantages to an evolutionary worldview?
God’s Creation Through Evolution and the Language of Scripture

Actually, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that. What some do think is that a belief in creation by God as recorded in Genesis is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Those who subscribe to a young-earth theory (that the earth is less than 10 thousand years old) believe so. But that is by no means universal. Many people believe both, by assuming the “days of creation” were long periods of time (known as the “day-age theory”). Around 1920-1950, a significant number of Christians subscribed to the “gap theory”. They were able to accomodate evolution by assuming that there was a gap of millions or billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2—plenty of time for evolution to have occurred. (They “translated” verse 2 as “and the earth BECAME without form and void.”)

Yeah nobody actually thinks that science doesn’t exist, science being “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” It would be absolutely unreal to deny that that exists.

At the same time, to be fair to Gabe, there are an alarming amount of people who basically do phrase it like that, despite them obviously believing that science exists - people who quite happily take many of the results and positives of science but then slag off the whole mechanism when it appears to give evidence for something the person doesn’t like (e.g. the evolution of man).

Paidion, I am puzzled why you always seem to take a statement of mine and read into it literally or in a way not intended. I am also puzzled as to how you have never heard that phrase before. I have personally had this conversation many times with people in the real world.

debate.org/opinions/can-scie … on-coexist

FYI- 36% say it cannot coexist as the question is understood. You can even read their responses and it should help you understand what the question/statement means. Clearly, you don’t get out much and converse with people who are not religious.

And now for something completely different.

Recently, I have the opportunity to watch reruns of the TV series Kung Fu. While his science is outdated, If I were to embrace Christianity and evolution together, it would be with the vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in The Phenomenon of Man. Teilhard talks about an endpoint of evolution in Christ.

Let’s work on the hypothesis that we are created in the image of God (where we will take the Eastern Orthodox view).

Could we in the garden of Eden all use 100% of our brain capacity and were really like the crew from The Big Bang Theory?
Could we do the mystical stuff we see on the Kung Fu series, like the Shaolin monk walking through walls? Or any of the mystical stuff we read about in the church saints (i.e. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox), as well as saints and holy people from traditions like Islamic Sufism, Indigenous native traditions and Eastern traditions?
As we go towards the end point of Teilhard, would evolution, the Holy Spirit and God’s grace re-empower more people with these gifts and abilities, found in the garden of Eden?

As I said to Cindy in a post above, I think evolution is still occurring in humans, as well as in other species. We cannot easily see recent or ongoing evolution in us because our long generation time means such changes are inevitably slow. Given that much of what separates us from other species is our intellectual capacity, that capacity may be where we will see many future evolutionary changes, such as the ones you alluded to above. So, evolution, I think, should not be seen as a static process that is finished in species, even humans. In fact, that evolution is dynmanic could be said to be a major reason why God could have chosen evolution to accomplish his purpose: it does it better than the alternatives.

When one thinks about this issue more than superficially, one can easily envision God’s choice of evolution as way to create humans, and other species, to be based on the fact that evolution allows living things to track environmental change. If God had created all species de novo, or even just humans de novo, we would be static entities needing constant tweaking to keep in tune with environmental change, which is inevitable. Every time a period of cold, hot, dry, or wet climate-change occurred, tweaking would be required for survival and flourishing in the world. And that holds not just for environmental change we can reasonably predict. What about other, less predictable ones? In the history of the world, there have been periods of tremendous increase in cosmic events that could be lethal or near-lethal to us, e.g., increases in harmful radiation. In addition, our own species creates environmental change, some caused by population increases and some cause by advances in medicine and technology. For example, I mentioned the increase in C-sections, which will likely favor larger babies with larger brains. All of these environmental changes could be tracked by evolution. But in the absence of evolution, God would have to intervene often or we and many other species would go extinct.

Thus, evolution is advantageous because it’s so dynamic, always capable of keeping life abreast of the latest environmental changes, without constant intervention by God. That is not a commonly held view of the advantage of evolution as a tool used by God to continue to perfect life in this world.

You know Lancia, what you are saying makes sense. Evolution in the vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in The Phenomenon of Man, would explain some things.

At one time, in the garden of Eden, I believe they could do the mystical stuff and were as smart as those on the The Big Bang Theory. We lost that during the fall. But the Eastern Orthodox had the correct perspective, in how we were created in the image of God. It would explain things like the book Psychic Gifts in the Christian Life: Tools to Connect by Tiffany Snow on Amazon. It would explain the mystical stuff you can read about in the saints of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as the holy people from traditions like Islamic Sufism, Indigenous tribal religious traditions, and eastern traditions. And as we go towards that end point, we can truly envision the words of Christ literally:

or "

But here’s the catch. This was once explained to me by a Native American elder. In order to have God’s gifts and power flow though you, you must become as empty as a hollow flute, so God can play his music through you.

Well, I tend to assume that people mean what they say. But if they don’t, how can I know in what way their statements were intended?

.

Why do you think that I’ve never heard it before? I simply stated, “Actually, I don’t know of anyone who thinks that [religion and science cannot co-exist]”. Thanks for the link. I read some of the comments of those who affirm that they cannot co-exist.

I know what it means.

Why have you stated this opinion? That fact that you have, seems to indicate that I have irritated you in some way. That was not my intention. I will endeavour to be more cautious in the future.

Randy,

I always thought the faith statement made by Jesus was to show the object of the faith is what mattered. For example, two passengers on a plane… One is scared the entire time. He does not have faith in the plane or pilot. The other guy is sleeping soundly, he has faith in the pilot and plane. The plane lands. Did the faith save either of them? No, but the person who had faith was at peace with himself. I think this analogy might be a glimpse as to why it is better to believe in this life. Our faith doesn’t change what God does, but it allows us to be at peace with it.

To be honest, Paidion, I have a great deal of respect for you and your positions, but am often frustrated by some of your responses. For example, I have created many threads where I EXPECTED you to comment, but you didn’t. Then, you tend to quote some obscure single sentence of mine and run off course with it in a way I would have never guessed. Your style sometimes has me wondering if you are completely sarcastic or serious in your replies. I know you are a good person, so I don’t doubt that aspect. I’ll make every effort to overlook what appears like sarcastic statements knowing that it is not your intent. Perhaps some of this is because I have not spoke to your in person. Sorry for the derail. God Bless.

That’s a great analogy.