Accepting Evolution alongside The Bible

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

lol...still I think it is interesting that there is a contradiction in the two genealogies. Which one is correct and what makes it more accurate than the other? For that matter why print two in the first place? But I think this is somewhat off topic anyway

I can't remember exactly what the answer to that one is, but i think it had to do from who's point of view it was written from. or something along those lines...

 

[lilithu]

'Why' is ambiguous. How and why are quite often interchangeable; how can also contain why. It really depends on what kind of why you're asking.

I prefer to use the statement: Science seeks explaination. Religion seeks reason/purpose.

All language is ambiguous. That is it's nature. How and why may be interchangeable in common usage but that is incorrect. They ask different things. "Why" assumes a reason/purpose, whereas "how" does not. We are in agreement here.

Neither is exclusive in this though...

Nothing ever is. Yet it is cognitively useful to make distinctions.

No. Technology assumes a can. Social morality has nothing to do with science's ability to explain. Asside from taking said explanation into account when judging the morality of a situation.

That is why I am making a distinction between science and technology. Yes, social morality has nothing to do with science's ability to explain. But as soon as we leave the realm of explanation to actually applying this knowledge - ie, technology - then morality does kick in, because then someone is trying to shape the world according to their desires.

I would go as far as to say they are interchangeable.

-Science seeks explanation, reason and purpose.

-Religion seeks explanation (I see a limitation here), reason and purpose.

Is there any fault with these two statements?

Yes, there is fault. The two are not interchangeable.

Science does not seek purpose because it does not assume it exists. Purpose implies intelligent design. Science does not even seek "reason" depending on what one means by "reason." Science seeks explanation without any assumption that there is any intent or meaning behind natural processes. It seeks simply to describe what is.

Religion, otoh, seeks explanation because it assumes meaning and purpose. Its first and foremost concerns are why are we here? What is the purpose of our existence? Therefore, its explanations will be inherently different than those of science.

That certainly doesn't mean that the two have to be at war with each other. In fact, since they are really dealing with different things, they are complimentary, not contradictory. It is when people start confusing the two - when they think that science says something about purpose and meaning or when they take the mythic language of religion and try to read it as a reductionist explanation of the world - that's when the two appear to come into conflict. But that is a mistake.

 

[Yerda]

Literal truth is that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Literal truth is that there are 31 days in July. As for spiritual meaning, I can't tell you specifically what it is because it is inherently subjective. I can't say that the Adam and Eve story means this... and you must accept it because it is the truth. What I can say is that the Adam and Eve story is an existential story - it's about choice and the consequences of choice, which is the heart of what it means to exist in this world. Every time we make a choice, we close off some possibilities and create new ones, we define/create ourselves. As to what A&E's choice actually was and what the consequences were, that is up to each person to wrestle with and that is why it is such a powerful story. I have had different answers to those questions for each stage of my life, and continue to reinterpret it. In that way, the story remains much more relevant to me than if it were a historical record about two people who lived 6,000(?) years ago.

Interesting answer and a fair point.

 

[FelixP]

Just as lilithu said, I think you have to totally separate religion and science.

Science is a systematical arrangement of our observations of the world. Apparently our world is organized in a way that we can put together similar observations to obtain theories. A theory can then be used to predict new phenomena (actually our observation of them). Scientific theories can be very powerful, in a way that they improve our quality of life. But scientific theories are in no way helping us to find truth. Actually Sir Karl Popper tells us that one of the most important properties of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable and theories are always changed and extended. But when scientific theories aren't truth how could they ever be used to contradict or prove religious dogmas?

Religion comes in where science stops. Many of the most important questions for us are not scientific questions. As Blaise Pascal put it: Somewhere the mind stops, and then the heart comes in. Religion goes for everything beyond our observation. E.g. if God's existence isn't measurable with any physical properties, then there is no way to prove or disprove God by scientific means. Then God becomes religion.

To apply these thoughts to evolution/creation: On the one hand evolution is a very fruitful and interesting scientific theory. It helps us to put the known phenomena into a system. And it also allows us to predict new things about lifeforms we haven't studied yet. On the other hand, in spite of the fact that it is a very valuable scientific theory it just does not compete with religion. There my favorite point comes in: If the world was created yesterday with everything like it is now (even our memories) we had no scientific way to prove or disprove that fact. That means that the date of the creation of the world becomes religion (= we can't establish it by scientific means). My idea is that God created the world a few thousand years ago. And then evolution is nothing but a story that God tells us about the sin in the world. The world was changed into a world based on "The Selfish Gene" (from Richard Dawkins). That's the way that I like to put together evolution and creation.

A little summary of my opinion: The valuable and interesting theory of evolution should be taught in schools. But then we should remember the limitations of science. That science and religion are two totally different concepts, not able to compete with each other.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Lilithu;

what a brilliant string of observations. Thanks.

Death: Genesis does not specify which kind of death was introduced. It all makes sense if you ascribe to it being a SPIRITUAL DEATH. Obviously, they were estranged from God immediately, but their physical death came much later. Of course this is my opinion and your mileage may vary.

 

[Yerda]

Lilithu;

what a brilliant string of observations. Thanks.

Death: Genesis does not specify which kind of death was introduced. It all makes sense if you ascribe to it being a SPIRITUAL DEATH. Obviously, they were estranged from God immediately, but their physical death came much later. Of course this is my opinion and your mileage may vary.

What is spiritual death?

 

[Scuba Pete]

The death of the spirit, or a separation from God.

When we are "born again" in baptism it is NOT a physical reawakening, but a spiritual one. Our spiritual death is far more signifigant than our physical death.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion, otoh, seeks explanation because it assumes meaning and purpose.

I see no reason why religious humanism/naturalism would necessarily make such an assumption. I certainly do not, at least not if one insist that "meaning and purpose" are inherent (rather than projected) attributes. I am perfectly willing to entertain purposeless mystery. Have you ever happened to read Ursula Goodenough's The Sacred Depths of Nature?

 

[Katzpur]

I guess if we can have a duplication of threads, it's okay to have a duplication of posts, too. I posted this recently in another thread on exactly the same subject. So if you've already read it, just click the back button on your browser.

This was a letter to the editor in the Salt Lake Tribune. I loved it because it perfectly expressed my point of view and did so in a much better way than I am able to:

"In response to much of the rhetoric we have seen lately concerning creation and evolution, I don't understand why it is so difficult for some people to believe that God is the greatest scientist in the universe but that he could not explain some of his high tech processes to people who thought a fig leaf was high tech. Even if he could show Adam the whole truth, how could Adam write that down in terms that the rest of the world would understand without a few thousand years of education?

How do you explain to your children how a gasoline engine works or where rain comes from? Is it possible that you answer this never-ending flow of curiosity with "note quite accurate answers" which are in terms your children will understand?

When God told Adam that he was created from the dust in one day, is it not possible that this answer was his "not totally accurate explanation" in terms that Adam could understand? How would you explain genetics and milleniums to a man who first and greatest creation was disposable underwear harvested from the same tree his food was harvested from?

God didn't just give us a body, he gave us a brain and with that a fair share of curiosity. He knew that knowledge is an eternal progression so he gave us the tools needed to eternally ask and learn the answers to all of life's questions. Line upon line and precept upon precept.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the creator of the laws of the universe must also by his nature live by the laws he has set for us. If not then he would not have commanded us to "Become as I am." If you doubt this then I challenge you to explain microscopic living organisms or genetic blueprints to your 5-year-old. No short cuts, though, just the science."

 

[Yerda]

The death of the spirit, or a separation from God.

This spirit can die without harming the physical body?

Our spiritual death is far more signifigant than our physical death.

When does it happen?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I hope this is not departing TOO FAR from the intended topic.

Spiritual death happens like it did with Adam and Eve: when you first sin.

It is nothing more or less than separation from God. Sin destroys our relationship with God. Not Jesus. Not our neighbor. Not anyone else but us. Jesus did not come to condemn, but to save; we already condemned ourselves.