Evolution

[Bono]

I don't believe the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, but I don't believe in evolution either. The Big Bang is much more sane, though I don't know much about it.

Try Old Earth Creationism:
Reasons to Believe

[ilikeverin]

I believe in the whole evolution guided by God deal.

I'm not alone

[12th Doctor]

I have yet to chime in on this thread, so I will simply say that I agree with the Theory of Evolution and Intellegent Design. 

[angus]

A little news item from Friday's hardcopy Columbus Commercial Dispatch I found interesting:

Alternate evolution theories mandated in Pennsylvania curriculum
DOVER, PA - When talk at the high school here turns to the origins of life, biiology teachers have to make time for both Charles Darwin as well as his detractors. 
Last month, this rural central Pennsylvania community became the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power. 
...
...
the article goes on to say the state ACLU chapter is "reviewing the matter" and says that the school board members who support the change say students should learn to challenge scientific theories.

Just though some might be interested.  The article was written by Martha Raffaele of the AP, and has probably made it around to many newspapers over the weekend.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will. 

It is quite obvious to any novice student of the bible that the writers of the bible, and those quoted within the bible (e.g. Jesus Christ) , interpreted Gen 1-5 as a literal historical account....as I have proven many times on this forum:  Any "Christians" thinking they know more than Jesus are in contradiction with their own faith.

---

And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter...

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

[12th Doctor]

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will. 

It is quite obvious to any novice student of the bible that the writers of the bible, and those quoted within the bible (e.g. Jesus Christ) , interpreted Gen 1-5 as a literal historical account....as I have proven many times on this forum:  Any "Christians" thinking they know more than Jesus are in contradiction with their own faith.

---

And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter...

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

Jmf,

I thought you were leaving.  Good to see you back.  I guess I can't run the table on faith argueements any more.  Drat. 

[Bono]

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will. 

It is quite obvious to any novice student of the bible that the writers of the bible, and those quoted within the bible (e.g. Jesus Christ) , interpreted Gen 1-5 as a literal historical account....as I have proven many times on this forum:  Any "Christians" thinking they know more than Jesus are in contradiction with their own faith.

[angus]

There needn't ever be any friction between religion and science.  (yeah, yeah, I know all about Galileo)  But seriously, the first five chapters of the book of genesis, as most priests and rabbis I've talked to will attest, is metaphorical.  Mythology, if you will. 

It is quite obvious to any novice student of the bible that the writers of the bible, and those quoted within the bible (e.g. Jesus Christ) , interpreted Gen 1-5 as a literal historical account....as I have proven many times on this forum:  Any "Christians" thinking they know more than Jesus are in contradiction with their own faith.

---

And many priests have no qualms with the Big Bang origin of the universe, quantization of time and energy and matter...

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

Good to have you back.  Yes, you have shown, using a King James authorized language version that those quoted believed that.  And since I don't speak or read Greek or Hebrew, I'll cede.  I have had conversations with scholars who do read those languages well enough, though, and I can say for certain that the literalist interpretation isn't universally accepted among Christians, or Jews.  I really can't match wits with you on this subject, and I'd get a headache trying, but I'm delighted that you haven't left the forum.  I've tried very hard not to offend anyone's religious beliefs while still encouraging a hard separation of church and state, and that separation should extend to the classroom.

On the point of contradictory mathematical models, of course there are many.  That's not unusual.  Before the 20th century, physicists used one equation to explain blackbody radiation at low frequencies, and another to explain it at high frequencies (see Ultraviolet Catastrophe, for example), which called for a better explanation, which we now have.  Certainly, no man has cosmology or the origins of the universe figured out, but if a mathematical model explains at least some observation, then it is useful. 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I believe in evolution, but evolution doesn't exclude existence of hand of God.

Yea!  What a fun topic.  I think I shall choose this as my entry point.

I think the key to the evolution vs. creation problem is to separate *facts* from *conclusions.*  The "facts" of natural history do not present a challenge to the existence of God or to religion.  It is perfectly possible that the earth formed from coalessing nebular dust 4 billion years ago, that single-celled life appeared a bit later, higher life descended from that, and that we are decended from lower animals, AND there be a creator God.  These are facts, which may or may not be true, and the facts of nature cannot speak to any truths which are above and beyond nature.  The existence or non-existence of God, or of Shiva, or of the Great Spirit, cannot be discerned from the facts observable through nature alone.

However...

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Many of those who object to the Theory of Evolution being taught in public schools do so because they believe that it is favoring the belief system of Orthodox Naturalism, not because it goes against any one faith's dogma or religious text.  I am one of them.  What we should teach in school is fact, not conclusion.  We can teach that from the best available information, the earth appears to be 4 billion years old, and we appear to have been descended from the Austalophithecines.  But whether naturalistic forces alone drive these processes is not a matter for the public, state funded classroom.  It is the domain of the philosophers and priests.

[angus]

except that is not the "end of all religion." 

religions evolve too, don't they? 

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

except that is not the "end of all religion." 

religions evolve too, don't they? 

If all of natural and human existence, and the existence of oneself and one's own mind, can be explained via natural processes, there is no need for religion at all.  Religion is dead.  It's just a bunch of nice stories to tell around the campfire.

[angus]

interesting point of view.  to use mathematical notation, the limit of religion, as knowledge approaches infinity, is zero.

the thing is, there will never be infinite knowledge.  so, even if your explanation holds, you needn't worry about religion dying.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

interesting point of view.  to use mathematical notation, the limit of religion, as knowledge approaches infinity, is zero.

I don't know.   Suppose Christianity is true, and you invented some way of visiting or viewing the past in perfect detail, and observed Jesus' healings, death, and resurrection.  Wouldn't that new knowledge expand the limit of religion?  Or, alternatively, would the claims of Christianity in this case no longer constitute religion, in your mind, but plain fact?

[angus]

I don't know beef, I hate being in between these intolerant leftist types that want to trample on the constitution and stamp out religion, as we know it, on one hand; and those who want to bring it into the schools, on the other.  To the first group I'd ask Why not just admit that most Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindu, etc., that we know are nice humane humble folks?  And to the second I'd suggest opening up the mind to the possiblity that your god doesn't want you to forego objective reasoning.  Jmfcst and you and supersoulty are three of the most reasonable posters I know, completely disproving the notion that the religious can't be reasonable.  But I'd ask for further tolerance from folks as intelligent and as reasonable as you are.  If I could go back in time and witness the resurrection of Christ, then, yes, I'd call it an observable.  A fact.  Certainly I have no argument with you.  But, I'd then go on and look for a physical explanation thereof. 

I can only speak for myself, but in no way do I think science precludes, or replaces, religion.  As I stated before, one deals with fact, the other with truth.  I have not used the word "truth" in conjunction with science, only the words "fact" and "explanation of fact" and "testing of explanations"

[Gabu]

To me, religion is essentially an attempt to answer questions that currently are unanswerable.  If you knew everything, there wouldn't be anything that would need answering, so religion would be nonexistant.

Of course, then comes the philosophical debate over whether it's possible to know everything, to which I have no real answer.

[angus]

To me, religion is essentially an attempt to answer questions that currently are unanswerable.  If you knew everything, there wouldn't be anything that would need answering, so religion would be nonexistant.

Of course, then comes the philosophical debate over whether it's possible to know everything, to which I have no real answer.

there was an article in the journal of the american mathematical association, back in about 1991, where a group from...I forget, Cornell maybe?...showed that it was not.  But then many assumptions were made, of course.  It's really a *philosophical* debate.  Agnostics say no.  Gnostics say yes.  There's no right answer.  And it doesn't really matter, anyway.  I say even the omniscient can have religion, if they want.

[Gabu]

Plus, set theory says that there are an infinite number of infinities, all larger than the last, which may have some relation to this subject (or maybe not).  And you get questions like, "If you know everything, how do you know there isn't more?"  Et cetera.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, you have shown, using a King James authorized language version that those quoted believed that.  And since I don't speak or read Greek or Hebrew, I'll cede.

The premise of your statement is incorrect.  Jesus and writers of the bible are portrayed in EVERY translation (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, KJV, NIV, NAB, etc, etc, etc...) as taking the OT historical account as literal.

---

I have had conversations with scholars who do read those languages well enough, though, and I can say for certain that the literalist interpretation isn't universally accepted among Christians, or Jews.

Again, your premise changes the topic, since I wasn't arguing there is uniform agreement in accepting the literal account of the OT....Rather I simply stated it is without argument that the bible portrays Jesus as accepting it as literal; therefore...my logical conclusion is....it is a contradiction for a "Christian" to claim to know more than Christ.

Whether or not the "scholars" with whom you've had discussions have pondered their contradiction is another matter all together.

---

On the point of contradictory mathematical models, of course there are many.  That's not unusual.  Before the 20th century, physicists used one equation to explain blackbody radiation at low frequencies, and another to explain it at high frequencies (see Ultraviolet Catastrophe, for example), which called for a better explanation, which we now have.  Certainly, no man has cosmology or the origins of the universe figured out, but if a mathematical model explains at least some observation, then it is useful.  

Check back with me when science has disproved the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, which the bible just so happens to be in complete agreement with:

1st Law of Thermodynamics: “God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1)

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: “creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay” (Rom 8:20-21)

---

Good to have you back.  

Experiencing some down time and simply couldn't resist.

[??????????]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

[John Dibble]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

Being agnostic, I don't rule out the possibility that evolution is the plan of some higher being/will/whatever. Of course, as an agnostic I can only view evolution from a scientific perspective - proof would have to be given one way or another to have me have an absolute view on it, otherwise I can only see the factual aspects of it. I won't claim that God/whatever had a hand in evolution(or whatever the system really is) simply because I can't prove it, but I can't deny the possibility exists, because I can't disprove it either.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

Depends on what you mean by "evolution."  If you simply mean a natural history in which more complex life has descended from simpler life, culminating in human beings, then yes, this can co-exist with God.  But if you mean the theory eminating from the philosophy of naturalism, stating that all life including humanity is the result of blind and natural processes, then no, this cannot co-exist with God.  At least no God who has any role whatsoever in our creation.

[ilikeverin]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

Nothing, which is why I believe this

[Inverted Things]

The Theory of Evolution draws a conclusion that our presense here is the result solely of natural processes.  It concludes that there is no need or purpose for introducing anything supernatural to explain why this corner of the universe suddenly came to be populated with intelligent beings with dreams and desires, who create art and music and war and literature and think of things that will never be.  It is the end of all religion.  The ultimate conclusion of the Theory of Evolution is that we are here only as a result of some blind cosmic accident, and there is no higher purpose to our existence.  That conculsion in and of itself constitutes a belief system - that of that of Orthodox Naturalism.

Actually, the idea that we are here solely because of natural purposes is an assumption of the theory of evolution, not the conclusion.

The fundamental problem some people have with science is that there is no place for God in it. Science is based on repeatable experiments yielding predictable results. If God was consistently stepping into our lives science would not exist.

[Inverted Things]

I have a question for non-believers and believers alike. Why could God and evolution NOT coexist?

It is entirely possible that God exists.

For me, believing in God is like believing in a Model T Ford at the very bottom of the Marianas Trench. There may be one. There may not be one. Ultimately, it has no effect on my life outside the effect that I let it have.

We cannot tell weather or not there is a God. Zero gods makes as much sense as one god. One god makes as much sense as two gods. Two gods make as much sense as three gods. And so on.

I'm saying that, at the present time, the knowledge of how many gods there are just isn't 'out there' anywhere.

[Inverted Things]

The theories of cosomology are in contradiction with the quantum theory AND the laws of thermodynamics....now, I am no priest or scientist, but I have profound problems contradictions.

Explain please.