Background reading: the debunking of Dixon White’s “Conflict Thesis” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

So, the bulk of history shows Western Christianity to have been at least neutral towards, or indeed supportive of, science as a rule.

Coming to interpretation of scripture, there is a very long-standing tradition, dating back to Origen, one of the Fathers of the Church who lived around 200AD, to interpret Genesis as an allegory, i.e. as a piece of literature conveying a meaning, rather than a documentary account to be taken literally. Origen and Jewish scholars of his time in Alexandria, where he lived, had read their Homer and were familiar with the tradition of epic narratives. They realised one obviously can’t take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally, as they give conflicting accounts of the story of creation. This allegorical view was one of several that was held in the church from that time onward.

Paradoxically, it was the rise of science, after the Protestant Reformation, that replaced the medieval sense of “mysteries” with the conviction that humanity could now have certainties, leading to a demand that the entire bible should be read as a science textbook, to be taken literally word for word, rather than a mixture of history, myth and literature employing literary devices such as allegory to make its point.

As science advanced in the c.19th it became increasingly obvious that a literal reading was untenable. Those Christian denominations that had a long tradition of biblical interpretation by theologians were able to accommodate this, but some of the newer, literalist branches could not - or not without increasingly tortuous attempts to square the circle.

So today we find that the more mainstream denominations , including Catholics, Episcopalians and the Church of England, most Methodists and Presbyterians, don’t struggle with the science of the age of the Earth or evolution. At least, not in terms of their official theology. What the individual person in the pew may think can vary, of course, depending on how much thought they have put into the matter.

@Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 here you are. Read this and then we can discuss the concerns you may have.

@exchemisti understand how they think a little better now. Earlier today I watch a video that was 2hrs long that basically combined science and the first two chapter of Genesis to explain how the earth was formed scientifically and it seemed to kind of relate to what I just read up above. His YouTube channel is called TheLionFarm (it's some Christian lore behind the name) and his mission is to show how modern science and the Bible work together. Do you think it's a good idea to watch said content?

6 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemisti understand how they think a little better now. Earlier today I watch a video that was 2hrs long that basically combined science and the first two chapter of Genesis to explain how the earth was formed scientifically and it seemed to kind of relate to what I just read up above. His YouTube channel is called TheLionFarm (it's some Christian lore behind the name) and his mission is to show how modern science and the Bible work together. Do you think it's a good idea to watch said content?

I don’t know the channel: can you provide a link, perhaps? Then I might be able to comment. (When I look up Lion Farm on YouTube all I get is some stuff about American farmers.)

Meanwhile I have something for you. There is a Christian website called Biologos that specialises in showing how the scientific explanation for living things and the bible can be perfectly compatible. I don’t know that I personally endorse everything they say, but they seem to be thoughtful and heading in the right direction. https://biologos.org/common-questions/did-death-occur-before-the-fall

You will see that, as in my explanation of the history in the opening post, the great thing is not to get hung up on trying to take every word of Genesis literally. God can speak to Man through scripture in a variety of ways, by metaphor, parable and story telling as well as by a literal documentary account.

Edited June 12Jun 12 by exchemist

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

Background reading: the debunking of Dixon White’s “Conflict Thesis” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

So, the bulk of history shows Western Christianity to have been at least neutral towards, or indeed supportive of, science as a rule.

Coming to interpretation of scripture, there is a very long-standing tradition, dating back to Origen, one of the Fathers of the Church who lived around 200AD, to interpret Genesis as an allegory, i.e. as a piece of literature conveying a meaning, rather than a documentary account to be taken literally. Origen and Jewish scholars of his time in Alexandria, where he lived, had read their Homer and were familiar with the tradition of epic narratives. They realised one obviously can’t take both Genesis 1 and 2 literally, as they give conflicting accounts of the story of creation. This allegorical view was one of several that was held in the church from that time onward.

Paradoxically, it was the rise of science, after the Protestant Reformation, that replaced the medieval sense of “mysteries” with the conviction that humanity could now have certainties, leading to a demand that the entire bible should be read as a science textbook, to be taken literally word for word, rather than a mixture of history, myth and literature employing literary devices such as allegory to make its point.

As science advanced in the c.19th it became increasingly obvious that a literal reading was untenable. Those Christian denominations that had a long tradition of biblical interpretation by theologians were able to accommodate this, but some of the newer, literalist branches could not - or not without increasingly tortuous attempts to square the circle.

So today we find that the more mainstream denominations , including Catholics, Episcopalians and the Church of England, most Methodists and Presbyterians, don’t struggle with the science of the age of the Earth or evolution. At least, not in terms of their official theology. What the individual person in the pew may think can vary, of course, depending on how much thought they have put into the matter.

Indeed, this is the paradox Nietzche struggled with...

11 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

@exchemisti understand how they think a little better now. Earlier today I watch a video that was 2hrs long that basically combined science and the first two chapter of Genesis to explain how the earth was formed scientifically and it seemed to kind of relate to what I just read up above. His YouTube channel is called TheLionFarm (it's some Christian lore behind the name) and his mission is to show how modern science and the Bible work together. Do you think it's a good idea to watch said content?

I don't know what you're struggling with...

If we kill God, then we're going to need an ubermensch...

And any idiot can apply... 😉

On 6/11/2025 at 7:44 PM, exchemist said:

So today we find that the more mainstream denominations , including Catholics, Episcopalians and the Church of England, most Methodists and Presbyterians, don’t struggle with the science of the age of the Earth or evolution.

Can you give a citation, please?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

Can you give a citation, please?

It is what I was told about the subject by my paternal grandfather, who was a Methodist minister and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University. See also Charles Coulson , Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at Oxford, who was a Methodist lay preacher and who coined the the expression “God of the Gaps”, to debunk the arguments of one type of creationist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The Catholic position on this is well known, see for example this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II

For Episcopalians see this: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/evolution/

Here is something indicating views in the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian): https://www.lifeandwork.org/features/features/view/464-srt-faith-and-evolution

There is also this more general summary, covering a wider range of denominations:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

Edited June 12Jun 12 by exchemist

19 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It is what I was told about the subject by my paternal grandfather, who was a Methodist minister and Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Glasgow University. See also Charles Coulson , Professor of Theoretical Chemistry at Oxford, who was a Methodist lay preacher and who coined the the expression “God of the Gaps”, to debunk the arguments of one type of creationist.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The Catholic position on this is well known, see for example this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II

For Episcopalians see this: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/evolution/

There is also this more general summary, covering a wider range of denominations:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups

Heh, as for me, I'm very suspicious to the words "religious groups".

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

The Catholic position on this is well known, see for example this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II

And this article begins with "The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church."

And then:

"In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul."

What about age of Earth? Does the Church accept scientific point of view?

4 minutes ago, m_m said:

"In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul."

Why is this a problem? So far as I am aware, science makes no claim that a soul exists. It’s firmly in the realm of religion. Can you cite a mainstream biology textbook that discusses the soul?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why is this a problem? So far as I am aware, science makes no claim that a soul exists. It’s firmly in the realm of religion. Can you cite a mainstream biology textbook that discusses the soul?

Yes, this is what I am talking about. So no, the Church is not on the side of science and materialistic point of view.

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

Heh, as for me, I'm very suspicious to the words "religious groups".

And this article begins with "The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church."

And then:

"In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul."

What about age of Earth? Does the Church accept scientific point of view?

See @swansont ’s post re soul. Re age of the Earth, read on in the articles. I think you find it is covered, certainly for the Catholic church and probably for most if not all the others. Basically, once you have accepted a reading of Genesis that allows for evolution, there is no logic in making difficulties over the age of the Earth either.

Edited June 12Jun 12 by exchemist

I'm sorry, but what about origin of man and soul?

5 minutes ago, m_m said:

I'm sorry, but what about origin of man and soul?

Read the links I provided.

Just now, m_m said:

I'm sorry, but what about origin of man and soul?

It seems the news of the union of science and christianity hasn't reached everyone yet.

Can you not accept there must be some differences otherwise they would be exactly the same?

Just now, exchemist said:

Read the links I provided.

Yes, I've read an article on Wikipedia. I just don't understand why you want the Church to accept a scientific point of view. Why doesn't science accept religious position?

I see that the Inquisition remains alive, but sides have changed.

Just now, m_m said:

Yes, I've read an article on Wikipedia. I just don't understand why you want the Church to accept a scientific point of view. Why doesn't science accept religious position?

I see that the Inquisition remains alive, but sides have changed.

Whut? I am just pointing out the facts of the matter. I have no idea why you mention the Inquisition, of all irrelevant things.

Look, I made this thread to try to help @Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 , who seems to be at a difficult stage in reconciling her wish to learn science with her religious upbringing. I’m really not that interested in silly remarks from you about the Inquisition. Can you please either express yourself more coherently, or stop derailing the thread?

Edited June 12Jun 12 by exchemist

Just now, exchemist said:

Whut?

Why doesn't science accept the existence of soul?

Do I make myself clear?

Just now, m_m said:

Do I make myself clear?

No, you didn't answer my question.

Just now, studiot said:

Can you not accept there must be some differences otherwise they would be exactly the same?

3 hours ago, m_m said:

Heh, as for me, I'm very suspicious to the words "religious groups".

And this article begins with "The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church."

And then:

"In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul."

What about age of Earth? Does the Church accept scientific point of view?

The church added up all genealogies and came up with approximately 6000 years since creation.

@TheLionFarm @exchemist for you

3 hours ago, m_m said:

Why doesn't science accept the existence of soul?

The soul is a metaphysical postulate, therefore science takes no stand on the matter. What can't be physically observed or measured is not accessible to the methods of science. That doesn't mean it can't be accessed in other ways, like meditation or a revelatory experience or some other sort of intuitive flash. But it's not going to be something proved or disproved - at least it seems unlikely that, say, one day a neurological procedure will be able to remove a small object that resembles a chickpea and is in fact a soul. (Though that notion is the basis for a funny movie with Paul Giamatti, "Cold Souls")

5 hours ago, m_m said:

Why doesn't science accept the existence of soul?

You mean like really amazing collard greens and peach cobbler and sweet tea and similar fixins, or were you instead talking about deep intensely emotional and transformative music that manages to carry you away from your day and elevate you from your troubles?

Either way, I'm fairly certain science accepts both, TBH.

8 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

The church added up all genealogies and came up with approximately 6000 years since creation.

@TheLionFarm @exchemist for you

Hmm, looks a bit low quality with mechanised voiceover. I did not see anything here addressing the interpretation of Genesis. Is there one on this topic and if so can you provide a link to it?

The 6000yr thing is known as Bishop Ussher’s chronology. Ussher was a c.17th Irish Anglican (Protestant) bishop, who worked out a dating scheme from taking various Old Testament ages literally - the very thing I am advising you is a useless approach. Ussher’s chronology was never universally accepted, though it was certainly influential for a century or so. It was very much a pre-scientific idea, though scholarly in its own terms.

The challenge to it from science came from geology in the c.18th and 19th, following the work of people like Hutton, who realised the Earth had to be far older:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hutton and Buckland, who was a clergyman(Dean of Westminster) and reached a similar conclusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland

Edited June 13Jun 13 by exchemist

14 hours ago, m_m said:

Yes, this is what I am talking about. So no, the Church is not on the side of science and materialistic point of view.

But the issue is compatibility. Religion has free reign over spiritual matters, but interpretation of physical/materialistic ones are constrained by science and empirical evidence.

13 hours ago, m_m said:

Why doesn't science accept religious position?

Because science relies on empirical evidence and objective data.

15 hours ago, m_m said:

Heh, as for me, I'm very suspicious to the words "religious groups".

Who taught you to be?

Someone who didn't understand religion or someone who didn't understand science?

11 hours ago, Sarae.the.wannabe.chemist2 said:

The church added up all genealogies and came up with approximately 6000 years since creation.

This is what seems to be confusing you, what I'm sure you meant to say is "someone, who goes to church and is really bad at maths got it wrong; meanwhile someone who goes to church and is really good at maths can show you why".

Beside my local church couldn't possibly house the world's population... 😉

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is what seems to be confusing you, what I'm sure you meant to say is "someone, who goes to church and is really bad at maths got it wrong; meanwhile someone who goes to church and is really good at maths can show you why".

Where is the evidence that it’s a math error? The implication here is that you’d get ~4.5 billion years if you did the math correctly. Somehow I don’t think that’s the issue.