Thanks to Jerry Coyne’s latest post at Why Evolution Is True many of us have been directed to a Mike Aus article on RichardDawkins.net that confronts what should be obvious to all thinking people: evolution and Christianity and other Abrahamic faiths are not compatible.
If there is no original ancestor who transmitted hereditary sin to the whole species, then there is no Fall, no need for redemption, and Jesus’ death as a sacrifice efficacious for the salvation of humanity is pointless. The whole raison d’etre for the Christian plan of salvation disappears. . . . .
Science has now shown us that both selfish behavior and altruistic impulses are at least partially heritable traits. The instinct for self-preservation and a concern for the well-being of other individuals appear to have both played a role in the survival and evolution of our species. If that is the case, then the tension between “sin” and selflessness might actually help define who we are as humans. The project of religion has been sin eradication, and that approach now appears to be a fundamental denial of human nature. . . . .
That last sentence should hit us as profoundly as the notion that the earth is not the immovable centre of the universe did in the days of Galileo. Studies in genetics and human nature leave no room for “sin” or a “sinful nature” in the sense portrayed by religion. How can God judge someone whose behaviour is not governed by competing angels fighting one’s soul but by the way the brain is wired, what nutrients the body receives, the rest it has, and who knows how many other physical real-world things?
God has been used to explain what science could not understand in the past (the cause of thunder, earthquakes, and such) and the soul has been used to explain or conceptualize our natures. But as science progresses it is leaving as little room for souls as it is for gods.
Let’s conclude with the same paragraph Jerry Coyne loved the best, too:
When I was working as a pastor I would often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing” and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions. Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world. Religion, even “enlightened” liberal religion, is generally not interested in the facts on the ground. Religion is really not about “knowing” anything; it is about speculation not based on reality.
The article by Aus does not address it, but another point that needs to be kept in mind, too, is that the idea that God somehow guided evolution so it produced a being in his image so he could carry out his Jesus-on-the-cross plan is as sensible as saying that there is a little man inside your computer making all the bits and circuits work properly. (But it’s much worse. Is all the suffering of hosts of sentient creatures part of being “worth it” for the glory that will be revealed in those God saves in the end?) Evolution says that there is no such thing as a “pinnacle” species. Nor is there any discernible difference between species except in hindsight when we look at the gaps in the record.
Evolution cannot co-exist with the Christian gospel of salvation through the atoning death of Jesus.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- 4 Jewish Word Plays behind the Word Becoming Flesh / 3 … (Charbonnel: Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier) - 2021-04-14 07:27:37 GMT+0000
- Jewish Origin of the “Word Became Flesh” / 2 … (Charbonnel: Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier) - 2021-04-12 10:30:06 GMT+0000
- The Jewish Origins of the Word Becoming Flesh / 1 (Charbonnel: Jésus-Christ, Sublime Figure de Papier) - 2021-04-09 10:17:03 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!