Evolution and God

First of all, I'd like to refer anyone reading these arguments to the first few comments below, re clarification of the topic. I would again like to thank my opponent for this, and note that the topic has now been agreed to as the compatibility between belief in "evolution" (which I will take to mean all theories, such as natural selection, commonly lumped together under the heading of the "evolutionary model" in lay discussions), and a belief in God. Can you, in fact, legitimately hold both beliefs? Please note that, again per my opponent's clarification, this is not about the credibility of either the evolutionary or creationist models, only whether one can believe in both "evolution" and God. With that clarification, I would have to say that the answer in readily apparent, and is clearly "yes." Not only is it possible to hold both beliefs simultaneously, there are very, very many examples of people (including some extremely highly-thought-of theologians and church leaders) who do so. The majority of the world's Christians, in fact, belong to denominations whose leadership has either explicitly stated that no conflict exists here, or who have chosen not to make statements specifically regarding the question of evolutionary theory but have issued statements regarding the compatibility of scientific thought and their theology which would permit this. The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has taken a very clear stand on the question. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter..." (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). The Catechism of the Catholic Church also speaks very plainly on the position of the Church on religion vs. scientific inquiry: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). Further, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). Many of the major Protestant denominations have similar positions. The Archbishop of the Church of England (the Anglican Church), Rev. Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Guardian (a British newspaper): "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop told The Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' ... My worry is that creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." The Anglican Church's counterpart in the U.S., the Episcopal Church, takes a similar stand, and explains the apparent discrepancy between a literal reading of Genesis and modern scientific thought as follows(from www.eposcopalchurch.org): "Theologians throughout the history of the Church have explained these concepts this way: God inspired the ancient writers to describe the world in concepts and language they and their audiences could understand, not in our concepts and language. The ancient world-picture—a "three-storied" creation of the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the waters under the earth (Ex. 20:4)—though meaningful in its own time, was replaced by succeeding models and most recently by our modern portrait of a vast universe with billions of galaxies. The Bible's theological declarations about God and creation remain true because they are not dependent upon the ancient world-picture in which they appear." From a Lutheran pastor: "Historically, Lutherans never got into the whole evolution-creationism debate. We avoided it, just didn't enter into it at all. As a result, some of our members have more conservative views, some more liberal, but little in the way of an official church stance. Anecdotally, I would say that most Evangelical Lutherans (what we are at Our Saviour's) believe in evolution (if you can say that evolution is something you believe in, and not something you accept as fact or deny). Definitely most Lutheran pastors and church leaders accept evolution." (Rev. Lars, Hammar,a Lutheran pastor in Arizona, in an article on evolution & theology posted on his church's site: http://www.lutherantucson.com...) And from the minutes of the 1969 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.: "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory." So it seems amply clear that, in the opinions of those representing the majority of the world's Christians, there is no conflict between belief in the evolutionary model and a belief in God, or even specifically Christianity, per se. I would have to agree that there clearly IS a conflict between belief in the evolutionary model and a strict, literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. But there seems little reason to accept the proposition that such an interpretation is absolutely required in order to hold a belief in God or the Christian faith; clearly many Christian religions have successfully reconciled this question to their own satisfaction. Even if we were to grant that at some point, what eventually was gathered into the Book of Genesis WAS truly the inerrant, literal word of God, there is still no reason that one would have to accept that Book as we have it today as being complete, literal, and inerrant. The Book of Genesis did not even exist in written form until, per tradition, it was authored by Moses, which even per a strict reading of the Mosaic texts did not occur until hundreds of years after the time of the events it describes. Prior to that point, it would have existed only as a collection of oral traditions passed down by the ancient Hebrews. Even after the supposed writing by Moses, numerous errors in transcription, interpretation, and translation would likely have crept in. (There is ample evidence that the books of the Bible are NOT somehow divinely protected from such things; witness the infamous "Adulterer's Bible" of 1631, which unfortunately ommitted the word "not" from the Seventh Commandment!) Of course, today few if any serious theologians accept the notion that Genesis was authored entirely by Moses or any other single writer; it is instead viewed as a collection of Hebrew oral tradition from numerous ancient sources. As such, while the book is certainly still viewed with great respect by mainstream Christian and Jewish believers, it is hardly seen as something to be accepted as inerrant in a literal reading by the vast majority. In this response, I have attempted to show how the question of holding these two beliefs is answered by the majority of Christian faiths themselves. In the next, I will deal more directly with the specific points my opponent has raised regarding the logical relationship between the two - points which unfortunately appear to be based on a poor understanding of the evolutionary model on his part.