You’re welcome. Thank you much for sharing your thoughts with me. I sincerely respect that these are your deep beliefs, I trust you’ve devoted no small amount of thought to it, and I’m honored you feel open to sharing them with me. Honestly! It’s a joy and privilege walk beside brothers and sisters in Christ like this. I’ll do my best to not abuse or forget it.
Roger, I am sure I am not the only one who must have misinterpreted your meaning in the above quote. All the earmarks of being a Christian cannot be contained in one sentence, but being ‘Prolife’ is certainly one of the most distinguishing. The relationship between Prolife and Anti-abortion is not a simple one. Even the definition of Abortion is not always clear-cut. Thus, I feel that your choice to bring it up in a discussion of what defines a ‘true Christian’ was ill advised.
Al Leo
2 Likes
JAL, I have appreciated this conversation between you and @Relates. My understanding of Lutheran/Calvinist theology is now on a little more solid ground, but it still leaves me somewhat confused as to its appeal to scientists in particular. You are happy because “no part of (my) salvation is in my hands”??? My life experience is the exact opposite. At the age of 40 I was the CEO of a small but profitable company in Chicago making products for the ice cream trade. On visiting my former home in California, I learned two things: 1) My former mentor, Prof. Hansch, had an NIH grant for using Computer-aided Drug Design attempting to find a cure for leukemia; and 2) my beloved nephew had contracted a form of leukemia that was slowly and painfully killing him.
I know of a few people who have heard a clear call from God to study for the ministry. Well, I heard a similar call: “Al ,don’t spend your days trying to make a better Popsicle while wringing your hands over your nephew’s plight. Use your education to do the research work to find the cure–if not in time for him, then for the thousands of good kids who will follow in his steps.” So I sold my house and business and moved to California to work as a post-doc. In the 48 yrs. since then I can believe that every hour of my working day is some kind of prayer in honor of my departed nephew. It is entirely possible that I deceive myself to believe that I have taken at least a small part in my own salvation, but I am NOT deceived in knowing it gave my life a purpose that has led to almost a half century of health and happiness.
It behooves me to become aware of the theology handed down by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc., but it still my own conscience that I must answer to. I believe each of us is unique in that respect, and each should search for his/her unique sense of Purpose. In a way it sounds lazy to state: “I’m so unworthy of salvation. There’s no use of me trying to please God on my own.” I can’t read that into what Jesus left us in Scripture. I saw Jesus hanging on the cross when I saw the folks with Doctors Without Borders losing their lives fighting the Ebola outbreak in Africa last year. Can’t you?
Al Leo
Thank you for your concern.
No doubt this is a difficult and delicate subject.
My point is that the abortion issue, however it is framed has been used to set Christian against Christian, which is certainly not the purpose of Christian morality. It has also used to make people feel morally responsible as long as abortion is legal in the US. Again Christian morality should not be used to make people feel guilty, esp. for actions of other people, but empower them to help one another in a positive manner.
Thanks @aleo !
Just read a little bit about the virus of the mind, memes, and the meme machine… really like the thought that “Blackmore notes that human brains began expanding in size at about the same time that we started using tools and suggests that once individuals began to imitate each other, selection pressure favored those who could make good choices on what to imitate, and could imitate intelligently”
I also would like to pitch something, just to run it up the flagpole see if anybody salutes it so to speak (quoting 12 angry men) 
I am just trying to be really simplistic just to get some basic thoughts out there about the topic. “In what way can evolution add meaning to religion? - and vice versa”
Taking the following implication of evolutionary origin into account; we are a part of a interdependent continuum of life. Then we can conclude that our reality is built upon the realities of lower life forms.
So taking into account that:
- There must be some component of our experience shared with that of a universal common ancestor.
- There must be some component of our experience shared with that of other humans.
- There must be some component of our experience only known by our unique biological organism.
Then matching that to Triune God Head:
Encountering God through 1) is related primarily with God the Father.
Encountering God through 2) is related primarily with Holy Spirit.
Encountering God through 3) is related primarily with Christ.
A) Consider the implication of evolution that the goal of life is to self-replicate, and survive.
B) Consider the goal of the Christian is to live for the glory of God, and to be made whole in Christ.
C) Consider the the creation cycle, perfection in the garden to knowledge of good and evil to continued depravity until Christ occurs and we are brought back into wholeness and eternal life through him and await his return and final judgement when all will be made perfect again.
Original sin and the fallen state of creation can be seen as A) being the sole goal. Through Encounters with God in 1,2,3, some interaction of us and God can make possible B). Ultimately the course of Gods creation and where evolution will lead is determined by and will mirror C).
Hopefully this will maybe make sense to someone. I am really really really trying to do the following => “In what way can evolution add meaning to religion? - and vice versa”
God’s peace be with you,
Hi James
I wonder if you have read any of Teilhard de Chardin’s work. As a Jesuit priest at the beginning of the 20th century, he began serious studies in the area of paleontology, became convinced of the reality of evolution, and gave a great deal of thought to this very thread: Can evolution add meaning to Christian religion? These are some of his works that I have found most enlightening:
The Phenomenon of Man
The Divine Milieu
Hymn of the Universe
Science and Christ
Christianity and Evolution
On Love and Happiness
Man’s Place in Nature
Letter’s From a Traveler
Heart of Matter
To be quite honest, I found his writings to be too “etherial” for me at times–just the way I found your latest post. But that might mean you and he have much in common, and that you might find him to be a kindred soul.
Have a merry & blessed Christmas
Al Leo
There certainly are “real, actual current research observations” in it. My disagreement is in the interpretation of these observations. And the arbitrariness of focusing on these observations while ignoring all the other data that points to a better interpretations.
Yes, I’m always amazed that so many evolution deniers can claim that it’s “different interpretations of the same evidence” when they clearly have never looked at any evidence themselves!
Out of curiosity, where are the contradictions between evolution’s impact on your view of humanity and your theological view of humanity? I think you explained some thoughts briefly later in the post but I’m interested.
I may be back-peddling on my own assertion but here goes: There is a tendency for Christians to see/paint themselves as so far distinct from the rest of creation that some Christians cringe when they hear they are creatures. If there is something theologically appealing from the scientific assertion of common descent with modification it is that it acknowledges the earthiness of humanity and what it means to be human. It acknowledges us as being “dust”. I think back to the discovery that humans (and all life) are made of the same chemicals (organic chemistry) as the rest of the universe, even the inanimate stuff. In a way, this is very “Old Testament” whereas the overly superior view of humanity (and living things) is, speaking too generally, Hellenistic. Hence, to discover ourselves as related to dust and chimp and fellow humans alike is, in a way, an acknowledgement that we are earthly creatures; something Christianity is certainly not opposed to.
As a tangent into the interdisciplinary: Theologians, as an example, have done a very good job of bringing historical fact and evidences (channeling Indiana Jones and a prof of mine from undergrad) into conversation with the Biblical narrative. I, myself, have done some archaeology. It’s an enriching experience to understand the context into which humanity and humanity’s faith in God (YHWH, Christ, Holy Spirit, the Father; the only God; can’t forget we’re Christocentric monotheists!) is set. Evolutionary biology, if it adds anything to Christianity, is I think along similar lines. Evolutionary biology is the foundation of theology nor could it possibly be the origin or norming norm of theological assertions. But it can add “color” and “depth” to the new worldliness Christians invariable are called to when they are called to faith, called to life, called to a right relationship with the Creator and His creation. Fin.
1 Like
Al!
There’s quite a lot to your two posts! I would respond to everything with as much detail as I could muster but responsibility bids me take on something smaller. And so I’ll be focusing on a single statement which I hope might contact everything in some way. You say of the passive righteousness of faith:
In a way it sounds lazy
I can understand why you say as much. “If there’s nothing we need to do to become children of God then what’s to stop us from sitting on a couch all day, eating chips, letting the world go to hell.” Likewise: “What about all those non-Christians who dedicate their lives to being of service to others? How could God ignore the efforts of a pagan but love a lazy Christian? This is potentially and likely very unfair.” (I hope my fictional dialogue at least hints at the “essence” [if there is such a thing] of your concern; I’d hate to build a straw-man or the misinterpret your concern)
If this ersatz dialogue resonates with you, it is a legitimate point! A point which could be divided into two (and God I pray I do a faithful job of parsing them out lol): (1) Justification and (2) the life of the justified.
(1) Justification. That our position in the eyes of God is not related to our acts is, worse than the definition of laziness, but the definition of grace. (Rom. 6:23) If our position in the eyes of God were at all related to our behavior and choices then we would spend the next 1500 years attempting to hammer out a system which makes sense to us, our views of the world, and we would end up getting nowhere. How is it reasonable that a tiny, you, a finite bundle of atoms in a human form, influence the “dispositions” infinite and almighty God who creates universes with a whisper (whatever the word “dispositions” even means when speaking of such a being)? How could you know for sure that you had done enough to “tip the balances in your favor”? And if you thought you could do such a thing as influence the almighty in your favor by doing good things, is that not the epitome of hubris, pride, and attempting to usurp the almightiness of the Almighty, to displace Christ and his work, and to place an impossible burden on the shoulders of humanity? Even if our sensibilities do not agree with God, God is adamant that saving us is his job and not ours. Our quibbles over laziness (in the sphere of salvation) are against God, not against the speculations of theologians or the opinions of humans. (Eph. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16; etc.) While there may be numerous people deemed honorable in the eyes of fellow men; we are not dealing with men (or women or any rendition of humanity), here, but with God. The only way we can know with certainty anything about him is what he tells us. And, in brief, what he has told us is what he did through Israel, in Christ, continues to do in his church, and will do at his second advent.
Being confident of our salvation, however, leads into (2) the life of faith/living by faith/faithful living. St. James confronts this issue head on. “Faith without works is dead.” (James 2:14-26) That does NOT mean salvation is based on works. To assert so is bad exegesis. What it DOES mean is that if one is gripped by God’s promises, if one is “filled” with the Spirit of God, if one has faith/trusts that God is, in fact, God, and not just any God but the God who creates ex nihilo, who justifies the ungodly, who came in human likeness to rescue humanity, and who loves his entire creation, then one “bears fruit” accordingly:
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit.
(Galatian 5:22-25)
Salvation by grace does not give the Christian a reason to be lazy (Rom 6:1-2) but, contrariwise, creates a new need and impetus for great deeds of compassion. Compassion and mercy not to “merit eternal life” or because God needs us to do good things. But works of love, charity, and compassion because, as Luther pointed out in contradistinction to the monastic and celibate tendencies of Rome, our neighbors need our good works. Channeling a particular Dr. Carter from my days gone by, “Babies need the diapers changed!” Being justified by God’s grace alone, for Christ’s sake alone, received in faith alone, Christians find themselves finally alive to and as a part of the real creation, as they are finally alive to their creator. While they certainly struggle with sin to the day they die (simul justus et peccator), they are nevertheless living out their salvation, being careful as they can to do what’s good, right, and salutary. (Phil. 2:12)
Thank you for reading this far, I know I’m long winded and I pray for our moderators haha. How does any of this sit with you?
Peace
1 Like
The subject matter is personhood, self(identity), attributes, and everything that we mean by the phrase “human nature” or what it means to be a human being. A description of humanity as organic material and creatureliness is very inadequate, and yet any version of evolution does not get us past these inadequate notions of human nature. Theologically, we seek to understand the attributes/nature of Christ as the Son of Man and Son of God, and thereby we grow into that self-identity. The notions of an organic material creature that may be described by a x% of the genome is not only inadequate but a contradiction for both religious and non-religious views. I am willing to discuss this in detail if you so wish, but these remarks I think answer your question.
The material facts are understood (without input from evolution): we are all carbon based, we all live and die, and we all inhabit this planet. None of this has been in dispute for centuries, so there is no point in seeking an argument for evolution from these sources. But to seek to show, or quantify, the nature of either chimp, or a human being, or any other creature, based on a description of a genome, can (and has) led people into error. For materialists, this means every species is somehow similar but to varying degrees - and they then develop a view that either eliminates human nature and human sense of self, that can to some, become a type of deceit from the force of natural selection. Others try to invent a history where humanity emerged from some type of creature, and when challenged, claim the validity of science. Again, a lengthy discussion is needed to examine this, but I give you a flavour of my objections to such outlooks.
I am uncertain as what you mean by your last comment - I do not look to any single branch of science regarding the science-faith discussion, but instead prefer to examine all of science, and in this way seek the insights that science provides us on the creation. Within this broad view, ToE appears to me as a primitive notion that lacks quantification and has a “plasticity” that at times defies scientific definition. I attribute this to the very complicated aspect of biology and am confident that a future view would be developed by biologists that would be more satisfying and compelling as a branch of science - however they have not reached this stage in their understanding.
1 Like
Thanks @aleo! Read up on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s work a little bit, definitely respect his motives and passion! Will definitely try to read more but it seems his theology does not have much success, just to give a rough review of it =>
"Teilhard makes sense of the universe by its evolutionary process. He interprets complexity as the axis of evolution of matter into a geosphere, a biosphere, into consciousness (in man) (Noosphere defn: sphere of thought), and then to supreme consciousness (the Omega Point.)… He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal-driven way… "
Teilhard seems very interesting, and I’m sure some of the thoughts are useful, but in general probably to novel and ethereal as you say, to be widely accepted in a Christian community. Which is really pretty damning because Christianity must be lived!
@JustAnotherLutheran Enjoyed reading your response to @aleo, I am Lutheran and was confirmed Lutheran as well, and currently attend a Missouri Synod Lutheran church. Luther is awesome, salvation by grace through faith is such an important doctrine to contemplate it is never a waste! (Ephesians 2:8)
I would comment on your post that =>
I think evolution and common origin has real theological connotations than many Evolutionary Creationists are evasive about, and they often cast the theological concerns as something that is acceptable to be undecided about. Mainly I’m referring to this one Biologos video where at the end he admits that he has “not worked out every jot and tittle of every implication of common descent” =>“What does it mean to be human?” Praveen Sethupathy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyPwFQ7Tus
But the fact is that no one has! Its pretty crazy that common descent and evolution has been around and widely accepted for so long without the theological implications fully explored??? What is Biologos even doing! 
I think @GJDS is well aware of this and thus is right to be suspicious of the scientific underpinnings of evolution, but for myself this is not an option as I am a computer scientist working in bioinformatics, so while for some people, common origin can be ignored, for others its not an option when you can see it happening before your eyes and the unavoidable proof floods your minds eye.
The existence of some universal common ancestor (UCA) implies that there is a component of our experience built upon what we share with the UCA, and a component superset of experience defined by what we share with Humans, and then outside of that is a set of things in our experience that are uniquely our own. Resultant from the interaction of our unique biological organism with reality and unreplicable.
So I hope it is not heretical to say… and I hope it does the work of eliciting the theological implications of evolution without being to novel and unapproachable… that the above statements can illuminate the Triune Godhead being as divine revelation occurring in all of these components of our experience. What do you think @JustAnotherLutheran???
2 Likes
I’ll preemptively say it’s good to see another LCMS’er on here, as I am one myself No other bunch of sinners I’d rather be in fellowship with lol. I only pray we can avoid any possible witch hunts… I look forward to responding to the rest of your comment later.
Thanks for your kind reply, I will greatly appreciate your thoughts on these issues… I am grateful for Biologos for fostering this discussion as well. 
To anyone really interested in this thread, I highly recommend reading the highly respected paleontologists, Ian Tattersall and Simon Conway Morris. Here are two short clips:
(1) Ian Tattersall in “Becoming Human”: “Truly a new kind of being was on earth”. And further: “Modern Homo sapiens is a totally unprecedented entity, not simply an improvedversion of its ancestors.” Then: “Burials with grave goods indicate a belief in an afterlife…Incontrovertible evidence for existence of religious experience
(2) Simon Conway Morris (widely quoted by BioLogos): "“(Darwin assumed) that humans must have had a process of gradual emergence. But the archeological record doesn’t really show that. We know that modern humans (i.e.Homo sapiens) only appear about 200,000 years ago. But they didn’t really do much for the first 100,000 years. Why not? They have the same brain size, but they seem rather stagnant. I’m deeply puzzled about the origins of the things that make us completely human, such as our ability to use language and engage in rational discourse, our ability to employ our imagination. I’m not persuaded those things can simply be extrapolated from Darwinian processes.
This fits into my concept of what it means to be human: The Homo sapiens genome is clearly a product of a Darwinian type of evolution that produced other life forms in the biosphere. Recently archeological evidence was found that supports a sudden change in behavior that has been called the Great Leap Forward and which ushered in what Teilhard called the Noosphere. Apparently the GLF did not require a change in DNA, but it obviously initiated a religious sense of an afterlife and most probably a sense of right and wrong–the desire to follow one’s conscience rather than blind instinct.
The GLF and the invention of language enabled these ‘modern humans’ to form more effective societies and in a relatively short time to dominate the earth. Unfortunately the ‘collective conscience’ of these early societies did not lead in the direction our Creator desired, and humankind needed to be redirected, to be saved. We Christians believe that He sent a human that met all the requirements of imago Deo who would lead us–not force us–in the desired direction to fulfill His purposes.
JAL I realize that all this is decidedly Unorthodox Christianity, and undoubtedly unpalatable to staunch Lutherans. It just makes better sense to me.
[quote=“JustAnotherLutheran, post:50, topic:22949”]
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
JAL, this quotation is at the heart of my Christian Faith which, I freely admit, is far from orthodox. I have been accused, at times, of being a “Cafeteria Catholic”, and I guess its true that I end up with a sort of ‘patchwork’ of beliefs. I’ve enjoyed the repartee with you because I sense that, even though I may not ever accept the totality of Lutheran dogma, there are segments that I should incorporate into my worldview.
The way that evolution adds meaning to my ‘patchwork Faith’ is that I believe that God created Homo sapiens through an evolutionary process that is based to a large degree on selfish instinct. There is some truth in Dawkins simplifying term, The Selfish Gene. While we do see in non-human animals some hints of the qualities of selflessness, of kindness, of compassion, of consideration, even these hints are, to a large extent, displayed only to kin. In Nature, societies that depend upon close cooperation end up with sexual reproduction strategies that insure close kin, such as in insect societies… In loose animal ‘societies’, such as buffalo and wildebeest herds, the concept of anything close to sacrifice is largely limited to mother and offspring. I make the assumption that these qualities are God-like and that He would like them displayed to a greater extent in at least one of his creatures. So, in a species of primate which had evolved a large brain, He ‘programmed’ the neural circuitry somehow (we don’t yet know how, and maybe never will) to accommodate abstract thought, language, and a conscience. That 'programmed primate was (is) us. He gave us a Gift–the potential to become a creature made in His Image–a gift which, unfortunately, when applied to build more effective, more ‘prosperous’, more powerful hierarchal societies, actually produced a 'collective conscience that was more selfish. This scenario is supported by Rousseau’s notion of The Nobel Savage–the Hunter Gatherer being spoiled by Civilization.
I feel comfortable interpreting the Old Testament as the story of God’s Chosen People trying to refocus the collective conscience of human society to reflect God’s true purpose. This culminated in Jesus coming to earth, not just as the potential of becoming God’s image, but the actual fact of being God’s Image. And we are called to cast off the selfishness that evolution endowed us with, to take up the cross and follow him, to "crucify the flesh with its passions and desires."
To sum up, this is my way of following Jesus Christ without the need of proposing an Original Sin that requires his Saving Action. That is, Jesus’ role as Savior is one of Leading us to the potential that God originally intended–not as saving us from the clutches of a fallen angel. This is the line of argument proposed by two Catholic priests, Pierre Teilhard and Mathew Fox. Both were banished by the Vatican for teaching heresy. So I cannot recommend it to the BioLogos community. Yet it adds meaning to my Faith.
Al Leo
1 Like
I think you will find that notions of UCA are also speculative and others provide various versions which are more in keeping with maintaining the notion of origins of life. If we step back and try to get a coherent view, we are left with dubious model(s) of an early earth (which lacks scientific insights for a life supporting planet), followed by highly speculative UCA notions, followed by things such as a “tree of life” (to provide a basis for common ancestries of categories of species) and finally to common ancestry of man. I see a pile of cards that are placed on an outrageously unscientific foundation - yet evolutionists will climb on the roof tops and yell, this theory is based on mountains of evidence.
I do not believe in any scientific theory that is predicated on such wild and unsupported speculation and wishful thinking. It is far better imo for us to say, wait until evolutionary biologists have something worth considering, and then we can to some hard thinking on the subject.
Meanwhile science and PoS provides a great deal of information that enables us to see that faith and science both are compatible with the Christian outlook.
Hi Al Leo,
Without going into details on your outlook, it needs to be said that for a GLF to be credible, it is necessary to provide a direct link between genotype and phenotype, and last time I looked, it is not possible to quantify such a link. Yet in view of the vast differences between human beings and other species (a sensible outlook that is backed by science, history, and common experience), those who advocate a commonality based on the genome must, to be scientific, show how small differences in the genome can lead to such vast differences. Their argument is “back the front” - they find similar sequences and they feel compelled to use these to support their outlook of commonality, while ignoring the obvious differences between species.
It follows therefore, if the theoretical basis for GLF and UNA is weak, outlooks based on these are tenuous and lack the scientific credibility needed for changes in our outlook.
Again, Al, you’ve made clear what your convictions are. You’ve made assertions to which, I do not doubt, you’ve spent plenty of time and sincerity contemplating and living. For that, I thank you. You are right to say that these assertions are heterodox inasmuch as the kerygma of Christ and his orthodox and catholic church is concerned. While there is certainly a place to see Christ as leader for the lives of the faithful, Christ’s mission was not to save people by showing them how live rightly. Christ’s mission was to save them so that they might live and, in having life, live rightly. (Jn. 10:10) The difference between those two sentences is the difference between Christianity and religion. (And I should add that Jesus does not save us only from the “clutches of a fallen angel” but from ourselves, and most importantly, Christ saves us from God. For without Christ we melt before God.) And rather than being stuck with patchworks, speculations, and best-guesses, Christ came so that we would know with certainty that we have life not in ourselves nor in our becoming like God, but in Christ. (Is. 50:10) Christ who showed us that the imago Dei is about our recognizing how unlike God/how human we are, how dependent we are in entirety on God, and how, having been justified by God’s gracious favor, we children of the dust serve and lead our fellow creation in giving thanks to our Creator. Hence Adam and Eve doing just the opposite of bearing God’s image and “falling upward” (borrowed from Gerhard Forde), believing the tempter, and desiring to be like God. I cannot pretend to see through suffering, sin, pain, and the cross to some higher meaning. Rather, I see these things as the end of myself and in being ended, the revealed God who creates ex nihilo - that is, by grace alone - is my only respite.
But I’m prattling on! If I may offer something hard for you to read (as you have made a suggestion yourself!), I recommend a book to you: On Being a Theologian of the Cross by Gerhard Forde. I entice you further to it by saying that it is short but nevertheless fascinating haha.
On that we definitely disagree! To me, your posts are NOT prattle. They have enlightened me a great deal about some points of Lutheran theology that have always puzzled me. Some of your phraseology needs ‘unpacking’ before I can be sure of its meaning, tho. For instance:
This makes sense to me if I interpret it as: “Christ introduces us to God the Father in a way that does not overwhelm our weak human mentality.” Is this OK or not?
As a child, I was taught that part of the Original Sin as related in Genesis 2,3 was that Adam and Eve’s desire to be like God was motivated by their desire to be as powerful as He, and since our God is a jealous God (Exodus 20:4-5) this would be sinful. As I matured and learned of the awesome extent of the Universe God created, and that such a God could never be jealous in the way we humans use the term, I concluded that Adam & Eve must have wanted to imitate God’s goodness. And that certainly is no Sin. What is your take on this?
I will order Forde’s book. Thanks for recommending it.
Al Leo