Evolution disproves the entire Bible?

Have you ever met a creationist? You know, the people who think god created everything, just the way it is today. Who think the earth is around 6000 years old, and that dinosaurs and man lived side by side before the dino’s went to a better place. (Maybe there was no room in the Ark?)

They claim that evolution is “just a theory”, and that creationism should (at least) be equally thaught in schools. But have you ever wondered why they are so afraid of evolution? “My grandmother wasn’t an ape” aside, this cuts a lot deeper.

If evolution is true, there is no possible way the story ofAdam and Eve is true. Two people was not created one day, but the spieces human evolved over millennia. This leads me to the Bible’s story of the “original sin”. If Adam and Eve is a myth, Eve didn’t get tricked by a snake, she didn’t eat the forbidden fruit, and there is no original sin.
“Well, it’s an allegory!” You’ve probably heard some christians say this. “The story of Adam and Eve, and the whole biblibal creation is just a way the authors of the Bible described how the world was made.” OK, but if it is an allegory, my statement stands – there was no “original sin”.

Let’s take a closer look at the next part of christianity – Jesus. The carpenter who was crucified “for our sins” (including the original sin!). What other sins did he die for? The seven deadly sins was invented by the early christian church.

The modern concept of the seven deadly sins is linked to the works of the 4th century monk Evagrius Ponticus, and the sins are usually given as wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Well and good, but according to the Bible, all these sins came into the world because of the fall in the Garden of Eden. (A place that never existed either if you believe in evolution.)

I’m not saying that people doesn’t commit wrath, greed, etc, but according to evolution they are nor connected to Adam and Eve, because there was no Adam and Eve. Thus Jesus dying on the cross wasn’t “for our sins”, because there was no original sin the other sins came from.

Also, if Jesus was God, or part of him, then he knew what would happen after his crucifixion, right? Being all knowing, he would have known he would be crucified. Knowing how you will die, that you will be ressurected, and that you’ll inevitably end up in heaven again kind of takes away from the story a bit. So doesn’t knowing you’re coming back from the dead and going to heaven anyway kind of negate the whole dying for our sins bit?

I guess you can take the story of Jesus and the crucifixion as an allegory as well, but that really messes up christianity, doesn’t it?


Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 responses to “Evolution disproves the entire Bible?”

  1. SoundEagle says :

    Hi Kristian,

    It is very unfortunate that too often even those who claim to believe in and adopt the scientific method still cherrypick the data and refuse to examine contrary evidences. They fail to understand and address many valid points, perspectives, domains and dimensions, and hence it is impossible for them to evaluate and change their standpoints, approaches and behaviours. You might have heard of this quote:

    For those who do believe, no proof is necessary.
    For those who don’t, no proof is possible.

    All in all, it is important for, and also courageous and admirable of, us to confront these sensitive and polarising issues amidst social prejudice, ignorance and bigotry, to have lived an examined life, and to be inquisitive and open-minded, such that “On this blog: All forms of commentary are welcomed and published.” Perhaps some of us could take comfort in the fact that in recent years, the Catholic Church has had to accept evolution, though on a theistic basis.

    For one of the most recent takes on atheism, visit http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com.

    As for the pitfalls and fallacies of the design argument, visit the following:

    It will be nearly or altogether impossible to claim or prove that (the theory of) evolution is wrong or invalid, for it has been estimated that if evolution (both macro and micro) were wrong then more than 99% of all scientific disciplines would be wrong too due to the high degree of cross-collaborations and confluences of data. That is not (just) my claim; and it is from some scientists who have made the interconnections and stocktaking of disciplines and knowledges. When creationists try to debunk certain parts and/or the whole of the findings of evolutionists or evolutionary scientists, they have cited certain problems with some scientific claims and/or techniques which rely on or are founded on mathematics, measurements, instruments, various disciplines and so on in very interconnected ways, and have been reliably used for a long time. For example, many instruments rely on the veracity and reliability of quantum mechanics, electronics and electrical engineering, which in turn rely on other disciplines such as physics, mechanical engineering, optics and so on . . . . It is a very highly interconnected web.

    By “cross-collaborations” (whether by design or by accident, whether independently or co-dependently, and whether concurrently or not), I meant the cumulative results, benefits and synergies from the convergence of evidence from diverse disciplines and researchers who may or may not be collaborating and/or aware of each other’s findings and activities in the first place; and I also meant that research(ers) on/in evolution and evolutionary sciences have relied and benefited, both directly and indirectly, fertilizations, findings, paradigms and techniques from diverse disciplines. Let me quote Michael Shermer from his essay entitled “A skeptic’s journey for truth in science” as further examples:

    To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of Earth through a convergence of evidence from geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists piece together the history of a civilization from pollen grains, kitchen middens, potshards, tools, works of art, written sources and other site-specific artifacts. Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming from the environmental sciences, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciology, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, among other disciplines. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: