Why evolution and Christianity cannot logically mesh

By Christianity I mean traditonal Christianity, not the New Age stuff, which can mesh with most anything.Here's traditional Christianity in a nutshell: The Fall followed by the Passion.In the thread entitled "Is Evolution a Radical Idea," I outlined it in brief, as follows:The Fall is an explanation of human suffering. Not only did man fall but nature fell too into what we see today. Before the Fall there were no diseases, birth defects, etc. So the Fall is necessary to justify God's ways to man.Man came late in the evolutionary process. For billions of years before that, life forms battled each other on a killing field in the pre-Fall world. This was so because life was set up in such way that the only way creatures could survive was by feeding off other life forms. What manner of God would produce such a system? A cruel God, not the God of Christianity. One might counter that our morality is subjective, so our moral judgment against God is no evidence of cruelty. But if our moral judgments are subjective, then the concept of sin is meaningless. Hence, evolution and Christianity (of the traditional sort) do not mix.I will add a note on "subjective morals." Subjectivity is not to be confused with circumstantiality. People seem to think in order for a rule to be objective, it must be simple, stateable in 25 words or less. There is no reason why it should be simple. It might be very complex but nonetheless objective. Subjective morality means that different people could arrive at different conclusions about a moral incident, and they would both be "right"--or neither would be wrong. Circumstantiality is not the same thing. This means that one considers a moral incident on a case-by-case basis due to complexity, but nonetheless there is a quite definite answer. In other words, the Ten Commandments could have a lot of fine print attached and still be objective.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

I will grant you Gnosticism, and I see the point you are making. There's a large group of Christians out there, however, who do believe (offically, at least) in both the Fall and evolution--Roman Catholics, so it's not like I am eliminating all groups.However, I see your point, so perhaps I can make the following comments to make the topic more viable: The problem with the New Age version of Christianity that I have come across is that it makes no attempt at all to explain the most pressing problem that any religion needs to address: the problem of innocent suffering. Any religion worth its salt, I would think, needs to address this issue.1. One group of Christians has the Fall as its explanation. They can address the logical problem I described in the OP.
2. What do those Christians who do not accept the doctrine of the Fall have as an answer to the problem of the suffering of innocents?
(I've asked this question before, and never got much of an answer, but it's been awhile, so I think it would be worth exploring again).

It could have certainly been better thought out.

God's slaying of people took place post-Fall. I was referring to the state of affairs pre-Fall. I didn't mean it like that. "New Age" just means no belief in the Fall. But this entails the notion of the Fall, correct? Iano, it's not the animals who are cruel. If an animal can feel physical pain, then that animal qualifies as a being, not just a "collection of chemical compounds." This is a problem as regards the concept of sin. More about this later.

I see your point, Paulk, about the extremity of the claim, but I'm just wondering if there are any "other scenarios" around--one that addresses and tries to solve, however problematically, the issue of innocents suffering. But perhaps that's not what you mean by "other scenarios"?

The problem I have with this is I don't see how one can have a partially accurate or a little bit accurate morality.In order for the concept of "sin" to make sense, there must be an objective morality and we must know what it is.I don't see how one's moral system can be skewed but not altogether wrong. Any skewing would make it wrong. Let's say our objective moral rule was, "Thou shalt not murder." And let's say we have a man who has a skewed version of this rule. What would it be?
Maybe it would be that he thinks thou shalt not murder except for those you don't like, and then it's okay. So this man, thinking that his moral vision is accurate, goes around murdering those he doesn't like, and he thinks that what he is doing is quite correct. His conscience does not bother him in the least because according to his skewed version, he is a proper moral person. In such a case, he would not have sufficient moral knowledge to be said to have sinned: he was doing what he thought in the bottom of his heart to be right.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

It's not exactly the same. The reason is that I was talking about animal pain on that other one and was told by the authorities (there's a big sign) that it was off-topic. Since I wanted to talk about animal pain, I strted this new thread. Hope you don't mind.

I criticized Jar for what I consider bogus interpretations of scripture.I'm explaining evolutionism not attacking it.What "philosophies" am I attacking? Yes.

The only sense I can make of this is that you think either (a) physical pain does not constitute suffering or (b) animals feel no physical pain. They certainly act like they do.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

It's not irrelevant to the idea of sin. Sin requires an objective morality and it also requires our knowledge of that morality. There has to be an objective morality, and we have to know what it is. Then, if we violate that morality, we have sinned.If morals are subjective, then what I think is wrong might very well be different from what you think is wrong, and neither of us can be said to be either correct or incorrect. It's just a matter of personal preference, like tastes in food. So if I dislike green beans, and you eat them and like them, I can say you sinned. That's what it amounts to.

Yes, it would be like a plea of insanity. However, if our conscience bothers us, that would be a sign that we do at bottom have knowledge of the true morality. If so, our knowledge is objective, and we are culpable. Also, we can form moral judgments about the actions of others that are valid.