The evolutionary theory vs. religion...

“are men ape or angels”

Neither.

I think it would be easy enough to believe that God made the Big Bang and caused life to spontaneously erupt in the ooze and evolve into the natural world we see today.

Given all the physical evidence, that’s a lot easier than taking the bible literally.

@eLenaLicious so what if God made the first single self-replicating molecule?
I believe in God, not in a particular religion. I’m making up my own as I go.

By “Darwinism” I assume you mean Natural Selection, right?

@75movies umm yeah I guess so. Or the revolutionary theory in general

@eLenaLicious Do you mean evolutionary theory?

Science and religion co-exist perfectly fine for me. Who are we to say what God’s time line looks like? Our version of time is based from one sun and one planet. God has infinite space/time to have his/her basis.

I’ve found very few things are black or white. Most are gray. In the case of God, perhaps a nice polka-dot rainbow with chickens. How would we know? We’re just humans.

It sounds cooler as revolutionary though.

@EmpressPixie oh yes, my mistake

One can believe in evolution and God. It may seem strange to some, but there are alot of evolutionist that do.

science speaks to what is material in the universe. (eg. is there gravity? are there atoms? what laws bind them and make them tick? is there a god? is there a heaven?)

religion speaks to how one ought to live their lives based on those scientific beliefs about reality.

example 1: [if there is a god who deserves my worship] science [then I ought to go to church.] religion
example 2: [if gravity is real and people can die from long drops and if i really value my friend’s existence] science [then i ought not push him over this ledge.] religion

science is what you believe is real.
religion is what you believe it all means.

@ninjacolin wow thanks. That pretty much sums it up for me. Great Answer!

oh you’re welcome! :) smug grin

One is natural science (how things change over time) the other is philosophical (why are we here). Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science.

^ science is what religion is based on.
without your beliefs about what is real, you wouldn’t have beliefs about what to do within what you consider to be real.

@75movies oh okay thanks. Damn, I never thought of it like that. I know they are different though. Well, thank you all for your answers.
Feel free to add on.

@ninjacolin thanks again. You guys were really helpful. Much appreciated ^^

Evolution (i.e. how species develop and change over time) and abiogenesis (i.e. how life first developed) are two entirely different things that creationists try to conflate. One can still believe that god kick-started the whole process, and set up evolution as a process to allow new creatures to develop over time (assuming you want to go down that path).

So if i didn’t believe that unicorns jump out of my butt i wouldn’t know what do with them when they do jump out of my butt.

^ exactly.

and keep in mind, there is such a thing as “bad science”.. if someone happens to believe bad science their religious beliefs will reflect that bad science.

and who’s to say what science is good or bad?
guess what? only you can! so please do so carefully.

Read about this guy:

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

You have to think about the issue in a different way.

It is possible to be a person of faith and yet not take the Bible literally.

For instance, some people believe that the entirety of Creation was done in 168 hours; that God was on the say 24-hour days that we have now.

Besides, Evolution only really answers how Man got to be here as we are today; it doesn’t answer such things as where the Universe originated. Nothing creates itself, so it is entirely possible to believe in Evolution without conflicting with the belief that God created Man.

I guess I’m not going to be prepared for the butt unicorns then.

Circular reasoning isn’t reasoned.

Science and religion only co-exist when religious people ignore all the parts of their scripture and tradition that contradict science.

So, “non-literal” Christians ignore all of Genesis 1, which says God created the sun after the earth, and that the sky is a solid dome that holds up an above-sky ocean. They ignore all of Genesis 2–3, which is contradicts evolution. They ignore the Flood story, the Tower of Babel story, all the stories that the people who wrote the BIble likely believed, but we know now are not true. So the religion gets watered down to the point where there’s no real reason to even keep the Bible around anymore, and the God you believe in is basically a vague, abstract deity like the Force from Star Wars.

What’s really dishonest about this is that, instead of a Christian just saying “Genesis 1 is bullshit,” they’ll say “Genesis 1 is a metaphor.” I can’t stand Christians who claim that the Bible means something other than what it says… solely because they know what it says is bullshit and don’t want to admit it.

If you don’t understand what your dad believes, why not ask him to explain it?

Myself, I also believe in God and evolution. Evolution doesn’t begin to tell us where life came from, just how it developed. I believe life came from God. I believe that God is the creator of life on earth and also the creator of the systems by which that life develops and our other “natural laws.”

@Qingu Why do you think a non-literal reading of the Bible is “ignoring” the Bible? Why do you think talk about biblical metaphors is bullshit? Why do you think it’s appropriate to read the Bible as though it’s a history text (because that is what you’re suggesting)? Just because someone has a different opinion about something that you do doesn’t mean they’re being dishonest. Frankly, that’s an extremely self-centred thing to say! Science and religion can easily coexist: they’re both about exploring the Creation and so long as we remain humble we won’t encounter any problems that can’t be overcome.

@nicobanks wrote “Why do you [Qingu] think it’s appropriate to read the Bible as though it’s a history text”

I think Qingu was saying that people selectively believe only parts of the Bible. And Qingu feels you should be all-in or all-out. Either the Bible is a true book to be followed. Or it’s entirely fiction. People should choose one or the other and not be wishy-washy and say, “It’s all good”.

I hope I made sense there and, Qingu, I hope I was interpreting you correctly.

I like this website created by scientists, it has a lot of information on evolution and Belief in God co-existing there are videos Q&A and articles, they also have interviews with atheists and theologians and scientists. The founder is the present chief of the NIH (Francis and Collins) and masterminded the collective research collaborative about the human Genome . http://www.biologos.org The site also explains the contrast between social darwinism and Darwin as a science asnd the theory of evolution

@jaytkay I don’t see that in what Qingu wrote about metaphorical and “non-literal” interpretations of the Bible. Unless you treat the Bible like a history text, there’s ample room for formal/rhetorical expression. It’s a piece of literature for chrissakes! Just because someone believes in so-called “non-literal” expression in the Bible doesn’t mean they’re ignoring the Bible or treating it selectively.

Just because someone believes in so-called “non-literal” expression in the Bible doesn’t mean they’re ignoring the Bible or treating it selectively. I believe there is both literal and non literal interpretations just like there is in everyday conversation, Belief is not about a set of rules, it is a relationship and a gift. The focus for me is on sharing acceptance and insight and treating others as I would like to be treated and doing my best to understand and include others rather than exclude them

Its really quite simple: religion is false, misleading and archaic.

Evolution and Christianity are completely incompatible. The Bible states clearly in Genesis that death was introduced by the sin of Adam and Eve. If you try to accept both, how did Adam and Eve evolve if not by the death of weaker species?

There are differing theologies that treat Adam and Eve as figurative, but I treat these with suspicion since there is no reason I know of from the Bible alone to suppose that they were anything but literal people.

To me, in the year 0 they didn’t have libraries full of books so they put it all in one book and they called it “THE book”. It’s a collection of the beliefs and laws of that time.

Nowadays everything has been updated: from the laws, psychology and philosophy to the clothing and means of communication. Somehow poeple like the pope haven’t noticed this yet?!

I got into an argument with a Christan a while back on another website board he claimed he was a christian scientist , I dont understand how that is possible either it seems like you would have to choose one side or the other either your are a believer in a higher power or you believe in a evolved species , I personally dont believe in either I have my own faith but it just seems to contradictory to me that one could be religious and scientific at the same time

There is no need to separate science from religion.

Science complements belief and adds to inspiration religion is not nessarily compatible with belief or science

I have not read the above so someone might have said this already. It seems to me you can believe in a God who is the Creator of the Universe and He provided all of the ground work for life to begin. So God created man through evolution. I think the recent Popes have said that evolution is the process to which the physical being was created and the soul is still given by God, or something like that.

God created man…..

Evolution is the method he chose to do it.

@StupidGirl “To me, in the year 0 they didn’t have libraries full of books so they put it all in one book and they called it “THE book”.”

What did they put in The Book if they didn’t have anything? Or are you saying that in the year 0 they had everything but books?

I will always firmly believe in the theory of evolution.

@DrBill Which god is this?

@FireMadeFlesh The God of course. The one who made you. The one who is getting a little ticked off with the tone of this conversation. Please don’t force him to flood the place again, i’m a really bad swimmer.

@75movies Ah yes, my apologies to Enlil. Lets just hope Enki warns us again this time.

@FireMadeFlesh

There is only one God

@DrBill Are you saying that you don’t believe in the others, or that all gods are different expressions of the one being? It is not enough to say there is only one God, because the Christian God claims he is the only one, Allah thinks he is the only one, and Zeus says he is so much stronger than all the gods that he could pull all of them and Mount Olympus into the sky. So you say there is only one God, but which one is the only one?

@FireMadeFlesh The Christian God and Allah are the same God.

@JLeslie I disagree. They certainly started out as the same god, but since then they have evolved quite different natures. The Christian God is said to be partially in the body of Jesus Christ, while Allah regards Jesus as a great mortal prophet. Allah also has a much stronger focus on predestination, saying he will allow believers to enter paradise, while the Christian God puts the choice of whether or not to enter heaven down to the individual.

@FireMadeFlesh we have probably argued this on other threads. I respect your right to disagree, but you are arguing that the Gods are different, I argue the people who worship this God interpret his word differently and acknowledge different events in history.

“I respect your right to disagree, but…” lmao!

@JLeslie I understand if you do not want to discuss this, all I want is for @DrBill to explain himself a little more. To me his answer is totally false, so before discussing it further I would like to know where he is coming from better.

@FireMadeFlesh I did not mean to discourage discussion, I don’t mind discussing it at all, I just did not want to hijack the thread. Sorry if I came across harshly.

@JLeslie No offence taken. Sometimes I need to know when to let things slide….... See you on the next thread!

@FireMadeFlesh No no, glad you said something. I would hate to think you got the impression I was trying to shush you.

@nicobanks, sorry this is late. Here is what I think about the Bible.

Like any ancient text, we can’t be 100% sure what any given line in it actually means. There is always some interpretation involved.

However: this doesn’t mean you can just make shit up when you interpret the Bible.

Let’s take Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says the sky is a solid dome (Hebrew “raqiya,” meaning “that which is hammered out). Yahweh creates this dome to hold up an ocean above the sky.

Now, thanks to science, we know this is simply incorrect.

It’s also not a metaphor. There is nothing in the text to suggest it’s meant to be a metaphor. Nothing in the cultural context either. The ancient hebrews, like everyone else living around them at the time, actually believed this to be the shape of the world. And it actually makes sense if you’re a pre-scientific desert nomad (of course there’s an ocean above the sky—it’s blue like large bodies of water, and rain falls from it.)

Now. When you say that we can take this passage “non-literally,” I am wondering why the hell you think that. Because the only reason I can see for taking this passage metaphorically is if you are a Christian who doesn’t want to admit that this passage is incorrect, so you need to make up some sense in which you can say it is “true.”

Imagine if we did this for the works of Aristotle. Aristotle believed that there were five elements—fire, earth, water, air, and aether. This is incorrect. But what if modern “Aristotelians” insisted that actually, the five elements are “metaphors” for, I don’t know, phase states of matter? You would rightly call bullshit on them.

I have no problem if your’e a Christian and you’re willing to admit that huge swaths of the Bible (like huge swaths of Aristotle’s philosophy) are incorrect. Just don’t spout bullshit about how they’re “metaphors” when you clearly mean they’re just wrong.

@JLeslie, the problem with believing that God “used evolution” to create man is that you then have to throw out pretty much all of Genesis 1–3. It means Adam and Eve did not exist and the story is an ancient mythological legend (which it is, and has precedents in Babylonian mythology).

It also means a crucial doctrine of Christianity—that of “original sin” which is “imputed” onto future generations by Adam’s disobedience—cannot be true in a meaningful sense. And if there is no such thing as imputed original sin, it means we don’t need Jesus’ salvation.

So yeah, I guess you can believe in evolution and call yourself a “Christian,” provided you’re willing to dismiss whole swaths of your religious scripture and tradition as mythology. And if that’s the case, why not just go all the way?

@Qingu What about this? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ Other Popes before him have agreed.

So, I am not very familiar with the bible. About Adam and Eve, can’t they be the first homosapiens and still have been brought about by evolution? Or, did they just magically appear? I’m asking, not aruguing, I don’t know. Even with the virgin birth God need a woman to bring the baby Jesus to life. Personally, I hate the idea of original sin. Anyone who can look at a newborn and think there is sin there is not someone I can understand.

@Qingu I see a black/white thinking in what you wrote, a singular approach to “truth,” that just doesn’t mesh with my experience of the world.

Gen 1:6–8 (what you wrote about the sky) is scientifically incorrect, yes. And I agree with you that it’s not a metaphor,

Just to back up a second, people always use the word “metaphor” in these conversations but that’s not the right word. (I know you’re using it because you’re specifically talking about what people say, but I want to be more specific.) A metaphor is a specific thing, and really what people mean I think (what I mean anyway) is figurative language. A metaphor is one figure out of, I don’t know, dozens, hundreds, an entire category of expression.

but it has a certain relative truth. The sky really was impenetrable to these people, and they believed it was created by God, so it really was hammered out; and water did come from the sky, there really is a body of water up there. This isn’t the truth of our experience of this world, but isn’t it true of their experience of it? Like you said, they actually believed this to be the way the world was. Whether literal or figurative, in a passage like this, it’s irrelevant; I understand it relatively. But just plain incorrect? I don’t see it that way.

I’m not Christian and I don’t have anything invested in “admitting” whether the bible or any given passage in the bible is correct or incorrect, but the question doesn’t do much for me, what do you mean by it exactly? I do believe in God and I do love the Bible, not because anyone told me to (no one ever did) and not because I think it makes God happy or makes me good (I don’t think it does), but because it captivates my attention and I find truth through my engagement with it. I think it’s a valuable document.

I know most people who love the Bible adamantly don’t consider it from the often-anthropological/literary angle that I do but that doesn’t mean they aren’t engaging with it on sometimes figurative and even relative terms. Reducing all this to “metaphor” is sloppy but that’s not the same as “spouting bullshit.”

I don’t know much about Aristotle, and even less about Aristotelians (i.e. current critical trends), so I couldn’t and wouldn’t call bullshit on anything they had to say.

@JLeslie it’s important to the story that man was created in an act of “special creation,” specifically in “God’s image.” in Genesis 2, Yahweh forms the man (Adam) out of clay, before he makes all the other animals. (Hilariously, this contradicts Genesis 1… the Bible contains two different creation stories).

If humans evolved gradually from other primates, there is no such special creation, no clear deliniation between beasts and sinful, knowledgeable humans.

@nicobanks, I don’t really get the phrase “relative truth.” People thought it was true back then, but now we know they are wrong. Similarly, with Aristotle, people thought there were five fundamental elements. Now we know they’re wrong. Obviously, all knowledge is “relative” based on what we know and can perceive at the time. But you seem to be implying that we cannot call any ancient believe “wrong” because at some point in time people thought it was right.

@Qingu Curious why God needed Mary for a son if he can create beings from clay?

@JLeslie because virgin birth was a popular idea in the mystery religions of Roman times and the Christians needed a similar story.

@Qingu Ah. Seems like a bunch of bullshit.

@FireMadeFlesh

One God, Many names

one god, many names, many versions of the story, each one gets it a little more wrong than the next.. leaving me to be the only one who’s right about any of it. :D

@DrBill Thanks for that. Still, I only know of one religious teaching that even hinted at modern scientific ideas before they were accepted by the scientific community. That is Zoroastrianism, which has legends somewhat similar to the Big Bang. I find it interesting that the Catholic Church did not come up with evolution, but completely changed their tune to agree with it over a hundred years after the major shift in scientific thinking.

@Qingu “You seem to be implying that we cannot call any ancient belief ‘wrong’ because at some point in time people thought it was right.” It’s more like I’m uncertain about what such a statement actually means. It sounds void of content to me, like eating a marshmallow, especially when we’re talking about religion/scripture. What value does saying “that biblical verse is wrong” have? What does that statement achieve? I think it’s much more valuable to try to understand how it is right, i.e. what it means, what it meant to the people who created it, what it meant to the people who passed it on, what it means in context of the bible entire, what it means to us now, and what that says about humanity at large and our relationship with the divine. The question of something being right or wrong, correct or incorrect, is a scientific question. Genesis 1 is not a scientific document. Yes, it does have cosmology in it, it is about a people trying to understand the world they live in, but it is not scientific. If we want to go back and look at the beginnings of science, maybe then we can say “that thesis is wrong” because we are considering a scientific thesis from a scientific point of view. But if you use that kind of methodology to approach the bible, you are wasting your time… you are doing exactly nothing, moving your mouth but making no sounds. That is my opinion, and whether other people share it exactly or not I think there are many variations on this theme, meaning, ultimately, you’re wrong to say that people are “making shit up” and “spouting bullshit when they really mean the bible is incorrect.” That’s what you mean: don’t confuse your thoughts and opinions with the thoughts and opinions of others.

@nicobanks, I don’t think the Bible or any other ancient text gets special treatment or is immune from being called “wrong.”

No documents prior to, oh, the 17th century can really be called “scientific.” Nevertheless, we can, and should, say that Aristotle was “wrong” about his views on the nature of the elements (and on his views on the place of women in society). We can say that Homer was “wrong” that there is this river called Oceanus encircling the flat earth. We can say Ptolemy was wrong that the sun revolves around the earth.

If you had said that we can still study and appreciate old myths that are wrong, I would agree. I’m all about Babylonian mythology (of which the Bible is arguably a subset). But I don’t agree for a second that anything that’s not a “scientific document” cannot be said to be wrong. That’s just special pleading.

@Qingu It’s not about asking for immunity or special pleading. It’s about approaching different things from different angles. Using the right tool for the job.

I’m using the same “tools” of interpretation I use to interpret any other historical or mythology text.

I don’t really see how the tools used would indicate that the content of the text was not actually incorrect. Unless the tools revealed the text was meant to be understood in a fictional context, like the Chinese monkey king story. (All evidence indicates the Hebrews, like everyone else at the time, really did believe the stuff they wrote about the shape of the earth and its history).

@Qingu It’s at that point in the conversation where to respond to your last post I’d only be repeating myself or elaborating on things previously said. I think our positions are irreconcilable, which is fine and natural; I just hope you realize that when people have a different viewpoint on the bible than you, or on anything really, they aren’t bullshitting or making excuses: they may actually have a different viewpoint, they may actually mean what they say! (No matter how wrong you think they are.)

@75movies They put everything they knew in it. After all for what I’ve been told there was only two in town who even knew how to write?