Plenty of Christians believe in evolution

[rug]

By James Kirk Wall, Tuesday at 8:24 pm

There are two ways of reconciling religion with modern science:

#1 – A liberal interpretation of religious doctrine which allows the flexibility for the faith to meld with modern scientific knowledge and recent discoveries.

#2 – A dogmatic interpretation of religious doctrine which forces the distortion of modern science to meld with the faith.

#1 allows scientific progress. #2 allows scientific stagnation.

Anti-science religious extremists want to paint science as anti-Christian. That’s simply not true.

The truth is that science doesn’t mean atheism. There are plenty of Christians who have advanced the study of evolutionary biology and continue to do so.

http://www.chicagonow.com/an-atheist-in-illinois/2017/05/plenty-of-christians-believe-in-evolution/

[TexasProgresive]

1. I am a Christian and I believe in science.

The known facts of the progress of life in the fossil record cannot be ignored.

[randr]

2. Science, including evolution

is not something to believe in. It is something to understand. No blind faith is involved.

[rug]

3. Technically, science is not something to understand. It is a simply method to understand.

Too many anthropomorphize science with a capital letter.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No, the first use of "science" was "knowledge"

Oxford English Dictionary:

Etymology: < Anglo-Norman cience, sience, Anglo-Norman and Middle French science (French science ) knowledge, understanding, secular knowledge, knowledge derived from experience, study, or reflection, acquired skill or ability, knowledge as granted by God (12th cent. in Old French), the collective body of knowledge in a particular field or sphere (13th cent.) < classical Latin scientia knowledge, knowledge as opposed to belief, understanding, expert knowledge, particular branch of knowledge, learning, erudition < scient- , sciēns , present participle of scīre to know

On the distinction between science and art at sense 4a compare discussion at art n.1; ultimately, this distinction is informed by that in ancient Greek between ἐ????ή?? episteme n. and ?έ??? techne n., reflected by a similar distinction in classical Latin between scientia and ars art n.1

In modern use, while French science has, like the English word, come to be the usual term for those branches of study that deal with a connected body of demonstrated truths or observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, the French word continues to have rather broader application than the English word to knowledge as acquired by study, experience, or reflection.

(senses 1 to 3 are archaic or obsolete)

4.

a. Paired or contrasted with art (see art n.1 3a). A discipline, field of study, or activity concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the knowledge and systematic application of principles, rather than relying on traditional rules, acquired skill, or intuition.

▸a1387 J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (St. John's Cambr.) (1879) VII. 69 (MED), He..fliȝ into..Spayne, forto lerne curious and sotil artes and sciens þere.

b. A branch of study that deals with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and incorporating trustworthy methods (now esp. those involving the scientific method and which incorporate falsifiable hypotheses) for the discovery of new truth in its own domain.

1600 W. Vaughan Golden-groue i. lxv. sig. Mv, The name of science is taken more strictly for a habit gotten by demonstration separated from wisedome; in which last signification Naturall philosophy, & the Mathematickes are called Sciences.

c. With of. Denoting the application of scientific methods in a field of study, activity, etc., previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria.

1777 S. Cooper Necessity & Truth Three Principal Revelations 5 Thus is the Science of Mind or Metaphysics placed on the summit of human knowledge.

5.

a. The kind of organized knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various branches of learning are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3a: what is taught in universities or may be learned by study. In later use: scientific disciplines considered collectively, as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation; the collective understanding of scientists. Also with modifying word.
In the 17th and 18th centuries commonly expressed by philosophy; cf. philosophy n. 5a.

▸a1387 J. Trevisa tr. R. Higden Polychron. (St. John's Cambr.) (1865) I. 3 After solempne and wise writeres of arte and of science.

b. spec. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the physical universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. Also: this as a subject of study or examination. Cf. natural science n.
The most usual sense since the mid 19th cent. when used without any qualification.

Often contrasted with religion when regarded as constituting an influence on a person's world view or belief system; cf. quot. 1967. Cf. also scientism n. 2.

1779 tr. C. F. X. Millot Elements Gen. Hist.: Pt. Second III. 118 Francis Bacon..shewed the futility of abstractions, which the doctors made their sole study; established the basis of science on the phænomena of nature.

[Panich52]

4. Unfortunately, it's the willfully ignorant radical RWers

& so-called Christians who end up on school boards and other elected offices so they can push their anti-science, bigoted dogma.

[edhopper]

5. of course many Christians accept evolution.

but i wonder what percent of those that reject evolution are Christians?

Different sets and subsets.

[trotsky]

7. Not necessarily.

#1 - Evolution doesn't need anyone to "believe" in it.

#2 - The theory of evolution starts from the first self-replicating molecule on the planet. Has nothing to say about where that molecule came from, nor does it matter. However, it does say that the molecule was the only thing needed to yield the variety of life we see on the planet today, from viruses and bacteria to insects and walruses and us. That means that at no point was a god needed to "steer" or "guide" evolution, nor was one needed to step in and give humans what is often referred to as a "soul."

It's #2 that means most Christians don't actually accept the theory of evolution completely. They modify it to fit their religious beliefs.