Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Can Theology Evolve? More trouble for fundamentalists.

More data, knocking at the door. Recent discoveries suggest that most homo sapiens have a bit of Neanderthal DNA in them.

If there was no Eden, there was no original sin. This isn't actually a problem for most Christians, who interpret these beautiful ideas metaphorically, but for the Fundamentalist Christian-ists currently running the Tea Party, their entire worldview cannot bear to look science in the face.

I note it because they seem to be hijacking America and dragging the rest of us along with them.

Here's the link and a clip.

Can Theology Evolve? - Forbes

University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne sums up the problem in his inimitable fashion:

I’ve always maintained that this piece of the Old Testament, which is easily falsified by modern genetics (modern humans descended from a group of no fewer than 10,000 individuals), shows more than anything else the incompatibility between science and faith. For if you reject the Adam and Eve tale as literal truth, you reject two central tenets of Christianity: the Fall of Man and human specialness. These can then be saved only by post facto theological rationalizations about why humans are special in an evolutionary sense, and also sufficiently sinful to require salvation.

I don’t know about human specialness, but on the Fall he is correct.


Kevin Scheunemann said...

Denying the Fall of mankind into sin, denies the very need for Christ for redemption from sin.

Merely viewing Christianity as beautiful metaphors may make you a lot of things, but it does not make you "Christian".

A Christian accepts the need for Christ's redemption. That is the basic tenant of Christianity.

Anyone not accepting that basic tenant is simply kidding themsleves about being a Christian.

The bible considers denying the Holy Spirit and the need for Christ's redemption from sin an unpardonable sin.

Your logic that one can be a Christian while committing an unpardonable sin against Christ, and the Holy Spirit, seems to be typical in the academic square these days.

Mpeterson said...

You've assumed what you're trying to prove.

But you're not a Christian Kevin, you're just sort of "Christianist" really. Your comments make you into more of a Marcionite Paulist than a real Christian... although heresy kind of suits you. Of course, since, technically, you don't believe in the one true God, these statements make you an atheist.

lol... that probably explains why you can so easily put economics ahead of Christian morality.

Kevin Scheunemann said...

So you stand by your assertion that accepting the most basic tenant of Christianity---the need for Christ to redeem you from sin---is a "fundamentalist" position?

If that is correct, it truly shows how radical the UWWC philosophy dept. has become.

"Christian morality", I suspect I will find your academic definition of this interesting, given that you think one can be a Christian by rejecting the need for Christ to redeem you from sin.

Mpeterson said...

By "Christian morality" I meant the moral precepts of most Christians... but most Christians are willing to accept the metaphorical interpretation of the Garden of Eden.

Radical? Grin. What makes anything "radical" is the willingness to reexamine the foundations of your beliefs to make sure they're firm. What makes you a conservative is your unwillingness to do that. Ironically, my radicalism, as you call it, is nothing more than Socratic method. It's only scary -- or radical -- to people who refuse to examine what they believe.

Which turns out to be a lot of people, don't ya think?