Why can not religious beliefs and theory of evolution go hand in hand?

[loverofhumanity]

For thousands of years man relied on God as a source of information, but noōne could agree on what that information was, leading to endless wars and human misery. Why rely on divine information if it's no clearer than mud?
It was only when we abandoned this reliance on God and religion that mankind developed the technologies and insights that you've been using throughout this thread to distinguish us from animals.
The information in genes changes all the time. The embryo is not a replica of either of its parents.
The whole function of sex is to add yet another mechanism for shuffling the genes and adding variation to the mix -- particularly important in slow reproducing &/or long lived organisms if they're to be able to adapt to environmental changes successfully.

Biology explains and demonstrates the mechanisms whereby organisms and genetic blueprints change over time. There is no God, planning or magic needed. Ordinary chemistry and mechanics can explain it, which you'd know if you understood elementary biology.
And, again, I'd remind you, divine creation explains nothing, it just asserts an agent.

To me it’s very clear than man did not create himself. The complexity of formulating a human is beyond natural selection or man to accomplish. Man is just not that intelligent.

 

[metis]

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are incredibly complex—so complex that claims they have evolved are absurd.

They could have become more complex as time went on, much like the omicron virus is more complex that the original alpha variant.

Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.]

Behe is a terrible source based on his past performances and his endorsement and spreading of disinformation. Here: Michael Behe - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Court Cases" that involves his lack of both science basic logic during the Dover Case]

 

[loverofhumanity]

But the 'other side' is intellectually and probatively bereft. It proffers no real evidence. Its untestable, unfalsifiable, unproductive, and inconsistent -- its advocates disagree wildly with each other.

I see the signs of God, a higher intelligence in everything. Existence, the universe, stars planets are just there. We are mere onlookers gazing and trying to understand it all and discovering that in every atom there is scientific truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Please, Please, Please! Take a basic biology course. We know where these instructions came from. We know the mechanisms by which they grow, and change.
True, we don't know the whole of biology, but these "evidences" are no longer mysteries. Ignorance of cause or mechanism is NOT evidence of God or magic. We were ignorant of almost everything we now know today -- and were just as eager to attribute them to magical, divine manipulation.

With each new discovery, we've retreated from these religious "explanations" for a long time. God claims continually retreat to ever more abstract issues. Creationism is just religion's latest stand.

Its all scientific. That’s what I’m driving at. We can explain to a degree how something evolves. What we cannot explain is why. There is purpose and meaning everywhere that points to the Divine. Because there is intelligence everywhere. We are surrounded by it. It would indeed superstitious to hold to the argument that the laws of nature and physics just put themselves there.

 

[Valjean]

By scientist I meant All Knowing. That God possesses perfect knowledge. Science deals with the physical or material world not religious truth. The greatest proof of God we have in this world are the Manifestations of God.

All-knowing is omniscient. Then I hear scientist I think of an active investigator.

Natural selection has no intelligence or will and cannot choose to be a tree or a human unless it was destined to be so. All the instructions are coded into what a cell or gene will end up becoming. I’m saying that cells and genes cannot program blueprints or mapping into themselves. This mapping its clear to me was already there placed by a Higher Intelligence we call the Creator or God.

But the blueprint/mapping evolves too. It's the altered DNA that causes the changes in form. Your DNA is different from that of your parents or your siblings, for example.

 

[Valjean]

Without genetic ‘instructions’ nothing can evolve. At conception the genetic coding is already encoded to evolve into a human. It goes through many changes physically then is born as a human and continues to manifest ‘potentials’ until it reaches maturity.

But what does this have to do with either God or evolution?

God is an intelligent Being I believe Who generated the codes and scientific formulas for cells and genes to evolve into minerals, vegetables animals and humans as well as physics to complement existence.

OK.... Evidence? There are unplanned, unguided, natural explanations for all these things, so a God would be extraneous

So for example the sun has to be the right distance from our planet for all life to exist. The sun just fluked that? And there had to be sustenance and water on earth for man to survive. Another fluke? I just can’t accept anything other it was by design but you feel free to differ, I respect that.

No. Post hoc argument. You've put the cart before the horse. The world wasn't designed to fit our type of life. Our type evolved to fit the existing conditions. If other conditions existed, other sorts of life might have developed.

Remember the cartoon of a puddle in small depression, saying to itself: "How wonderous! This depression was clearly designed just for me. Every bulge and indentation fits me exactly! God clearly has me in mind."

 

[Valjean]

I see the signs of God, a higher intelligence in everything. Existence, the universe, stars planets are just there. We are mere onlookers gazing and trying to understand it all and discovering that in every atom there is scientific truth.

Your impressions and interpretations are evidence only for you. Someone else might see them as signs of something entirely different.
Preaching isn't evidence.

Its all scientific. That’s what I’m driving at.

The ToE is scientific. Religious doctrine is not, even when it agrees with scientific beliefs.
"Scientific" means subject to scientific research methodology. Revealed, religious doctrine is not.

We can explain to a degree how something evolves. What we cannot explain is why. There is purpose and meaning everywhere that points to the Divine. Because there is intelligence everywhere. We are surrounded by it. It would indeed superstitious to hold to the argument that the laws of nature and physics just put themselves there.

Exactly. Science investigates how. Religion declares why. Religion deals with meaning, purpose and values -- doxology. Science deals with mechanism. These are non-overlapping magesteria. Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

Again, you're preaching unsupported, personal beliefs.

Its all scientific. That’s what I’m driving at. We can explain to a degree how something evolves. What we cannot explain is why. There is purpose and meaning everywhere that points to the Divine. Because there is intelligence everywhere. We are surrounded by it. It would indeed superstitious to hold to the argument that the laws of nature and physics just put themselves there.

 

[Valjean]

Natural selection has no intelligence or will and cannot choose to be a tree or a human unless it was destined to be so.

No. This is a false dilemma, and an organism doesn't choose its form. You just pulled this "destiny" out of your hat.

Tese are not the onlyAll the instructions are coded into what a cell or gene will end up becoming. I’m saying that cells and genes cannot program blueprints or mapping into themselves. This mapping its clear to me was already there placed by a Higher Intelligence we call the Creator or God.

It is clear only to you, and you have no supporting evidence for this conclusion, particularly when the real explanation is well known.
We know how the genetic mapping/blueprinting occurs and evolves to adapt to new situations.
You should have learned this in High School.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But what does this have to do with either God or evolution?
OK.... Evidence? There are unplanned, unguided, natural explanations for all these things, so a God would be extraneous No. Post hoc argument. You've put the cart before the horse. The world wasn't designed to fit our type of life. Our type evolved to fit the existing conditions. If other conditions existed, other sorts of life might have developed.

Remember the cartoon of a puddle in small depression, saying to itself: "How wonderous! This depression was clearly designed just for me. Every bulge and indentation fits me exactly! God clearly has me in mind."

You’re still relying on a lot of chance and disregarding that evolution is scientific. That is, it’s an intelligent process. A gene or cell cannot evolve into a human unless specific instructions were encoded into its dna. The cell itself has no Will or intelligence to program it’s own evolution. Look around your home. Everything in it had to be expertly crafted and designed. You’re tv, fidge, oven were made by an intelligent being - man in this case. It’s impossible that life just naturally chose its own direction, that the sun just happens to be the right distance from earth to sustain life.

Nature does not design it just follows a set of coded instructions.

 

[metis]

Nature does not design it just follows a set of coded instructions.

But like various forms of dna and rna, they can mutate. Nor should we ever assume that their complexity was always as such because they do change over time in terms of their genotype and phenotype.

Either way, this approach simply does not posit nor negate Divine creation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your impressions and interpretations are evidence only for you. Someone else might see them as signs of something entirely different.
Preaching isn't evidence.
The ToE is scientific. Religious doctrine is not, even when it agrees with scientific beliefs.
"Scientific" means subject to scientific research methodology. Revealed, religious doctrine is not. Exactly. Science investigates how. Religion declares why. Religion deals with meaning, purpose and values -- doxology. Science deals with mechanism. These are non-overlapping magesteria. Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

Again, you're preaching unsupported, personal beliefs.

That is arguable. If my Source of information is an All knowing Entity then it’s fact not preaching because we humans don’t know everything. There are concepts and knowledge which an adult may be aware of which the child cannot understand so disputes with it because his cognitive abilities have not yet reached maturity. So what does the adult do in this case? The adult is not wrong but at this stage of its development the child is incapable of grasping certain truths.

This is how it is with spiritual realities. Some have understood clearly about God and His creation, but to those who haven’t yet matured spiritually these concepts appear silly or irrational but that’s because of the lack of development of spiritual susceptibilities.

I went through the stage where I disputed everything until I became acutely aware of God. But I can’t convince another person of the existence of God because it depends on one’s own spiritual development. Those who are not yet spiritually progressed enough will just dispute endlessly.

But that’s fine. I’ll just have to accept that in your eyes I’m unscientific, irrational and illogical because you cannot yet rise to that consciousness where you realise that God exists and is a creator. It seems nonsensical to you so that’s your journey.

And I very much respect that because I was once in that space.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But like various forms of dna and rna, they can mutate. Nor should we ever assume that their complexity was always as such because they do change over time in terms of their genotype and phenotype.

Either way, this approach simply does not posit nor negate Divine creation.

That’s even another proof of the oneness of God that no two creations are identical. Amongst billions of people no two are identical. So in the dna human diversity was made to reflect diversity that there is only one of a kind of each kind.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No. This is a false dilemma, and an organism doesn't choose its form. You just pulled this "destiny" out of your hat.It is clear only to you, and you have no supporting evidence for this conclusion, particularly when the real explanation is well known.
We know how the genetic mapping/blueprinting occurs and evolves to adapt to new situations.
You should have learned this in High School.

No element can choose anything unless directed, instructed, encoded to combine in a specific formula to result in an apple tree or a human. It evolves as willed by the creator.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You’re still relying on a lot of chance and disregarding that evolution is scientific. That is, it’s an intelligent process. A gene or cell cannot evolve into a human unless specific instructions were encoded into its dna. The cell itself has no Will or intelligence to program it’s own evolution. Look around your home. Everything in it had to be expertly crafted and designed. You’re tv, fidge, oven were made by an intelligent being - man in this case. It’s impossible that life just naturally chose its own direction, that the sun just happens to be the right distance from earth to sustain life.

Nature does not design it just follows a set of coded instructions.

You are continually using the word evolve incorrectly. The development of a fetus is not the same thing as evolution.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You are continually using the word evolve incorrectly. The development of a fetus is not the same thing as evolution.

This may explain a bit better. I believe this is true and not just because of blindly accepting it because it is my religion but because it makes perfect sense. By evolve I meant assume different forms as in the womb.


But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination.

 

[Valjean]

You’re still relying on a lot of chance and disregarding that evolution is scientific. That is, it’s an intelligent process. A gene or cell cannot evolve into a human unless specific instructions were encoded into its dna. The cell itself has no Will or intelligence to program it’s own evolution.

And none is needed. The process is automatic and unguided. The mechanisms for this are well established. Learn them.
A genetic configuration -- whether human or protozoan, is an unguided product of natural selection &al.

Look around your home. Everything in it had to be expertly crafted and designed. You’re tv, fidge, oven were made by an intelligent being - man in this case. It’s impossible that life just naturally chose its own direction, that the sun just happens to be the right distance from earth to sustain life.

This argument is so tedious, and has been so thoroughly debunked, so many times, that I'm always annoyed at its resurgence. But, apparently, it's still active in the religious community.
Life did not choose anything. Water runs downhill. It doesn't choose to do so. Natural selection, from genetic to morphologic levels, is automatic and unguided.

Nature does not design it just follows a set of coded instructions.

The coded instructions evolved just like the forms they code for. They didn't just pop into existence by divine fiat.

 

[Valjean]

That is arguable. If my Source of information is an All knowing Entity then it’s fact not preaching because we humans don’t know everything.

That is not what defines a fact. You have no empirical evidence of this Entity, and your conclusions regarding his actions are speculation.
You are preaching unsupported religious doctrine.

There are concepts and knowledge which an adult may be aware of which the child cannot understand so disputes with it because his cognitive abilities have not yet reached maturity. So what does the adult do in this case? The adult is not wrong but at this stage of its development the child is incapable of grasping certain truths.

This is how it is with spiritual realities. Some have understood clearly about God and His creation, but to those who haven’t yet matured spiritually these concepts appear silly or irrational but that’s because of the lack of development of spiritual susceptibilities.

Those who are most educated, most logical and most intelligent are most likely to reject this divine magic.

I went through the stage where I disputed everything until I became acutely aware of God. But I can’t convince another person of the existence of God because it depends on one’s own spiritual development. Those who are not yet spiritually progressed enough will just dispute endlessly.

But that’s fine. I’ll just have to accept that in your eyes I’m unscientific, irrational and illogical because you cannot yet rise to that consciousness where you realise that God exists and is a creator. It seems nonsensical to you so that’s your journey.

And I very much respect that because I was once in that space.

Your realisation = delusion. It's not the product of either perception or critical analysis of facts.

 

[Valjean]

No element can choose anything unless directed, instructed, encoded to combine in a specific formula to result in an apple tree or a human. It evolves as willed by the creator.

So salt dissolving in water is its choice, or was it consciously directed to dissolve?
The laws and constants of physics or mathematics need no meddling or direction to function.

loverofhumanity said: ↑
This may explain a bit better. I believe this is true and not just because of blindly accepting it because it is my religion but because it makes perfect sense. By evolve I meant assume different forms as in the womb.

"Perfect sense" is bunk! Everybody's world-view, values and religion make perfect sense -- to them.
Even the wackiest beliefs are often internally consistent.[/quote]

 

[Valjean]

This may explain a bit better. I believe this is true and not just because of blindly accepting it because it is my religion but because it makes perfect sense. By evolve I meant assume different forms as in the womb.

"Perfect sense" is bunk! Everybody's world-view, values and religion make perfect sense -- to them.
Even the wackiest beliefs are often internally consistent.

 

[Valjean]

No element can choose anything unless directed, instructed, encoded to combine in a specific formula to result in an apple tree or a human. It evolves as willed by the creator.

There is no evidence of this. Everything appears to function automatically and without direction or planning.