Are there any Christian denominations that endorse and support evolution?

Just wondering.

I prefer to avoid a church that denies the existence of this scientific phenomenon.

At least their schools do...


Most mainline Protestants are clear that 'how we got here' is science, and not their specialty.

The Fundies, Evangies, Pentacosties and other Anabaptists believe in Creationism exclusively.

and I seem to vaguely remember some papal dictate (or something) which states that evolution does not directly contradict the bible.

But I could easily be wrong.

The nun explained it simplistically for our young minds: a day doesn't have to mean 24 hours.

And, they didn't even do the "day is longer than 24 hours to God" thing. They simply told us what the idea was. No editorials. Just the facts.

I graduated from grade school in the late 60's.
GAC

As I recall, the thinking was we believed God created the world but there was some dispute as to how. This literal interpretation of Genesis is a fairly recent development in Christendom.

Most of the Christians I've known in my life (of the sane variety) have been fine with the idea of evolution and the Big Bang. Neither of those models precludes the possibility that a Creator set the process in motion initially.

they wouldn't. He's a very medieval sort of thinker.

Yes, the Catholic Church recognizes evolution, thanks to Pope John Paul II:

(Pope John Paul) won the respect of many scientists in 1993, when in April 1993 he formally acquitted Galileo, 360 years after his indictment, of heretical support for Copernicus’s heliocentrism. The pontiff began his statement with the hope that “we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.” Evolution, he said, is “an essential subject which deeply interests the Church.” He recognized that science and Scripture sometimes have “apparent contradictions,” but said that when this is the case, a “solution” must be found because “truth cannot contradict truth.” The Pope pointed to the Church’s coming to terms with Galileo’s discoveries concerning the nature of the solar system as an example of how science might inspire the Church to seek a new and “correct interpretation of the inspired word.”

When the pope came to the subject of the scientific merits of evolution, it soon became clear how much things had changed in the nearly since the Vatican last addressed the issue. John Paul said:

Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Interesting read.

Houston, we have a problem...

Said that a lot of the writings used symbolism (ya think!).

Not all churches teach radical fundamentalism.

That is a Protestant belief. Catholics read the bible as a story of God's intervention in human history and see the spiritual teachings as inspired by the Holy Spirit, but the Church is stated to be in the Apostolic Tradition, meaning they follow the bible as well as the traditions of the early christian churches.

when we would nitpick everything, the priest explained that God's time is not the same as ours - a thousand years to us is a blink to God, being the alpha and the omega and all that.

Its just the fundamentalists, Evangelicals and Pentecostals that are stupid.

If they don't take the bible literally word-for-word it's safe to assume they aren't anti-evolution/science.

It's not just Genesis but all this magic crap that Jesus supposedly performed.

They're either anti-science, or they think that's a bunch of bunk. Where does it stop? :shrug:

don't take the bible literally word-for-word, so your argument would be with literalists such as the pentacostals, fundies, etc. What you choose to believe/not believe is perfectly fine by me. ;)

Always seemed like a pretty lame escape hatch to me.

Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'm gonna tell the cop, "I wasn't taking the law literally word-for-word..." :D

of "allegory", don't you?

The problem with allegories as moral lessons is they have no teeth.

If science has disproven a literal hell, what's to stop me from sinning? :shrug:

That's certainly not what I get from it. If you wish to demonize the bible to suit your own beliefs, once again...that is your business.

I'm not trying to demonize anything, just trying to understand belief.

What is there in the Bible that compels one to do good, that hasn't been disproven by science?

Genesis could not be an allegory for evolution because pre-literate nomadic shepherds didn't know or understand that the moon merely reflected the sun's light. (Never mind the fact that this not discovered until millenia later.)

dg

Are you saying that Abraham and Moses intended Genesis to be an allegory for evolution?

It does not literally describe the creation, but rather describes it in terms of human understanding and, yes, imagination.

The truth in Genesis (and many other similar stories) is to be found in the fact that humans ascribe the creation of the earth, life, the universe to some force greater than themselves, some single force greater than any form of life on the earth.

Many religious people have a sense of the existence of God within themselves and outside of themselves as well as a moral sense about the value of life and justice that is inspired by the Bible. I would say that such people have an awareness of the spiritual life that is beyond the material life, the life of this world.

A belief that the Bible is literally the "Word of God" is not necessary to people who have a sense of the spiritual life. Believing or thinking that you believe that the Bible is literally the "Word of God" does not mean that you do not have a sense of that deeper spiritual life, but it does not guarantee it either. And you can have a sense of that deeper spiritual life without believing that the Bible is the "Word of God."

That is my view. I am a Unitarian-Universalist.

But that is my personal view. Other Unitarian-Universalists may have a very different view.

and its interesting how many of them have similarities. :) The Hopi creation story actually tracks the different eras, so it makes you wonder how they came about that. Did the kachinas tell them or did they develop the story over centuries & base it on their observation of their surroundings?

And of course, creation stories are a whole lot nicer than saying "Hell if I know" when some kid asks the inevitable "Who made the Earth?" :)

I think everyone finds the spiritual path that feels right for them. For me, it's Christianity. Others feel drawn to other religions or no religion at all. That's fine with me, so long as they respect my beliefs & not call me stupid or idiotic or moronic or that my faith is based in myths or fairy tales.

dg

Why would he be so vague?

Or do you think it's more likely that it's just written by men to control other men and women?

They were men of their time and as such the literal ideas were constrained by their knowledge, but the spiritual teachings such as Loving your neighbor as yourself, words without deeds are nothing, etc... are universal.

It is not an escape hatch it is just an understanding that takes into account changes within humanity.

Do you feel that if one were to take those universal principles and apply them to their life, but without believing in divine inspiration - that they're any less valid?

Every path is valid if it leads to growth and to acting in a way that is caring, compassionate, and takes others into consideration. Everyone is free to make their own decisions about their life and their spiritual or non spiritual journey through life. I have no judgment against people who claim there is no god. There is no scientific proof that a deity exists, that is why it is called faith and not evidence.

Most of the New Testament is a collection of stories regarding the teachings of Jesus: love the poor, care for those less fortunate, love your neighbor, etc., and only a mentions a couple or three miracles performed by Jesus (Jesus, FWIW, did NOT perform His own resurrection).

In fact, MOST of the Bible is an historical record of genealogical heritage, allegories constructed to show God's involvement in human history and, well, just plain history.

I, for one, both believe in God and believe in evolution. It can be done and is done by millions the world over, including more than 60 percent (2005 Rice University poll) of natural scientists.

The creation story was never presented as anything more than a fable - a morality play. I never, ever felt pressure to believe the fantastic stories of the bible (Noah's flood, as an example) were to be taken as literal historical events.

Same for me in the RCC, and absolutely the same today in the Episcopal church.

We're actually quite capable of understanding and valuing allegory. Imagine that!

The ELCA has not adopted an official position on creation or evolution, but there is general agreement on interpreting the Bible within its historical contexts and applying critical methods of research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America

I remember a Sunday School teacher stumbling a bit while trying to explain the concept of "allegory" to a group of 4th graders after I asked whether evolution conflicted with the stories in the book of Genesis.

but I've found, growing up catholic, that most of them are fairly intelligent people, who can think for themselves, now not all of them theirs a bad apple in every bunch of alot of them.

I was raised ELCA so my education was a combo of creationism and evolution: God created the universe and allowed evolution to bring about all of Earth's diversity.

sad.

Believe it or not there are progressives.

Unitarians, for example, accept science.

The Fundies are just very noisy and effective at ramming their intolerance. If a few Chasidic in New York had their way I fear you'd think the same of Jews. Mr. Hamm is a very loud and well funded minority.

Oh and among Catholics, try Jesuits, very well read and in fact they run a world class observatory these days.

As far as I know, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopals are not anti-evolution. Baptists, they can go either way. Pentecostals, other fundies, well we all know the score there.

BTW, on Sunday the kids and I went to a Pride festival in Jacksonville and it was very telling just which churches chose to participate. We're looking for a place which is urban and diverse and I was pleasantly surprised that there were just a tad more than half a dozen with tables (in this First-Baptist owned city, the fundies are everywhere!). It was great to speak with several of their GLBT members and get their take on religion in the south, too.

You have a great network going there, keep up the good work!

was a larger group of churches than you expected. :D

Unfortunately for the network, it's just too time-consuming for me to manage these days. Luckily a lot of the links still work and it seems like people are still stopping by there. Hopefully it's still of some use to a few of them. :hi:

with Christianity in particular being held in contempt, and yet you are asking this question. At this moment in your life are you now feeling some particularly personal need for religion or about having a question as to which church to avoid?

Just wondering.

United Church of Christ (UCC) embraces evolution.

Only the fundies don't.

science books, so yes, Catholics believe in evolution

that the Swedenborgian Church supports evolution.

www.swedenborg.org

for a church near you.

For me, they are the most inclusive and logical of the various branches of Christianity.


Edited to correct link.

Because I'm always surprised to see this this asked.

Have you only been exposed to a particular strain of Christianity? Of the fundamental, pentacostal, non-denominational stripe perhaps?

Because most of Christianity hasn't got a beef with science. That would be the R. Catholic church, the Orthodox churches and the mainstream/mainline Protestant churches.

Those who don't "believe" in evolution are the outliers. They may make a lot of noise, and they certainly make for a good story. But they're really not at all representative of Christianity as a whole.

theory. Interestingly they say that the Bible is the word of God, but contains many allegorical and metaphorical descriptions. In other words, the world isn't 6,000 years old and science has a very strong place in society.

I see it's time for another round of "Let's bash Christians because we're bored"

:eyes:

dg

HELP HELP I'm being Opressed!!! Geezus fucking christ. Yeah, poor opressed Christians in this country. Treated so horribly the majority! :sarcasm:

including the Episcopal Church, the UCC, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the Lutherans all support evolution. You can check out their official web sites for the particulars. These churches all have their wingnut elements, but for the most part they're quite modern. Only problem is, they don't get nearly as much attendance as the fundagelicals do.

Also, reform and reconstructionist Judaism support evolution. :hi:

The idea was that evolution went as scientists suggest. When "man" first evolved, God "breathed" reason into him. In this way, they can have their cake and eat it too . . . which, if you think about it, is a lot more enlightened than some other religions.

UCC, DOC and many others believe, support evolution. The problem is the MSM rarely covers mainstream churches and most mainstream churches don't have psycho lunatics in front of a cameras.

And that only thru Him can one gain eternal salvation. They wouldn't be Christian if they didn't believe that.

I attended when I was young. There was a certain doctrine of service and humility that was taught following the teachings of mostly the New Testament, but they never really pushed the whole "salvation" thing. I never felt pressured to confess my sins or any of that sort of thing. It's more of a Baptist trait. Baptists are the conservatives; Methodists are the liberals. At least in my experience.

I was a little surprised to hear the minister say to my soon to be daughter-in-law that she must accept her new husband as being head of the household and to be his helper.

I NEVER heard anything like that. Sad.

By the way, I don't attend church any more. I've accepted the good parts and thrown away the rest. I think I would call myself a moral agnostic at this point.

and have always thought them to be more on the more liberal side and as I said, I was quite surprised when I heard the minister say that during the wedding ceremony. But I guess it varies church by church and pretty much depends on the individual minister.

see eg http://www.seekinggod.org.uk/Main/preacher/method4.htm

There was never any question about the reality of evolution. It was accepted.

and teach it too in their private schools.

that the stuff in the communion cup is still wine and not really blood. Accepting science only when it doesn't conflict with faith and unalterable doctrine doesn't count.

Christ). Probably Church of Christ.

Of course, all those churches have some creationist members, and churches that endorse creationism will have some members that don't.

Many accept the reality of evolution, but don't really accept its full implication. Changes happen randomly which by definition has no direction behind it. Those random changes are selected naturally by environmental conditions. That means the vast bulk of changes end up either killing off the life form or doing nothing. Only the tiny minority of changes by chance agree with the environment and improve the odds of reproducing.

The point is, evolution by natural selection is a complete explanation. Not only is divine direction unnecessary, but it would actually prevent evolution from working as observed. Taken at face value, evolution rules out any divine interference witht he development of life. I doubt any Christian denominations accept that.

Take Hugh Ross and his crowd over at "Reasons to Believe" for example:

http://www.reasons.org/welcome-back-my-friends-show-never-ends-part-3

These guys aren't exactly "young earth" Creationists who think the Earth is only 10,000 years old (they acknowledge science to the extent that the Earth is old, and wasn't forged in 6 literal days) but they still invoke the supernatural "God of the gaps" to try to poke holes in evolutionary theory by pointing to lack of evidence in the fossil record (so far)... and constantly try to re-interpret scripture to mesh with the latest discoveries that science has revealed.

They can't accept the full implications of evolution being true.