Christian Philosophies on Evolution

not be interpreted literally. He did not believe that people should truly expect that the universe was entirely made in seven days.

After Origen of Alexandria, there was Augustine of Hippo, who also believed that the creationist story should not be accepted as literal fact. He felt that some creatures were derived from the decomposition of early life forms. It was stated in his book On the Literal Meaning of Genesis that living things were not perfect but had the potential to be so. He also believed that life gradually transformed over time.

In later times, the Roman Empire fell and Islamic philosophers predominated in the 8th through 13th centuries. Al Jahiz said that stronger animals devoured weaker animals in a struggle for existence and that God disposed some creatures in favor of others. He also wrote about the food chain in living things.

CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHIES ON EVOLUTION

The time of the Middle Ages was when much of Ancient Greek teachings were lost to Westerners. These had, however, been preserved in the Islamic cultures and were translated into Latin by the twelfth century. There were Christian thinkers, such as Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas, who looked at Aristotle s and Plato s work about the goodness of God, believing in the perfection of all things and in the great chain of being, which looked at the organization of all living things, inanimate objects, and spiritual beings.

According to the great chain of being, there was an order of things, ranging from lowest to highest. Hell existed at the bottom of the chain and God was listed at the top. Mankind was in the middle, while worms were thought to be the lowest form of animal life. No species could transform into another or change places in the linkages that made up the great chain of being. The Book of Genesis was revered and it was believed that the hierarchy involved in the great chain of being was unchangeable.

Thomas Aquinas was a Christian theologian who also believed that the Book of Genesis shouldn t be interpreted literally because it conflicted with the way that natural philosophers had learned already about how nature works. He said that God basically set up nature to run on its own natural processes, believing there was no conflict between theology and the development of the universe through natural mechanisms. He did not believe Empedocles, who said that there was no purpose in how things have evolved. He believed that nature was a form of divine art.