Can't religion and evolution be merged as one?

[outhouse]

the two can be merged by interpetation in the context that

man came from dirt in the bible = genesis

man evolved form bacteria that came from dirt = ibiogenesis

 

[Tathagata]

Well, that's clearly false. Many Christians, mistaken or otherwise, support it.

Key word, "mistaken." A Christian cannot similtaneously claim to believe scripture and also believe evolution. Genesis directly contradicts evolution.


.

 

[Storm]

Key word, "mistaken." A Christian cannot similtaneously claim to believe scripture and also believe evolution. Genesis directly contradicts evolution.

Sure they can. They can believe Scripture speaks in poetry, not science. Failing that, they can believe that God dumbed things down for His audience.

What they can't do is support theistic evolution and Biblical idolatry at the same time, but seeing as the latter is a weak position at best, I don't see a problem.

 

[Tathagata]

the two can be merged by interpetation in the context that

man came from dirt in the bible = genesis

man evolved form bacteria that came from dirt = ibiogenesis

False. God directly created the animals and then the next day, directly created man from dirt. That's a whole lot different than the scientific notion that millions of years ago, the first self-replicating molecule emerged, gradually became complex multicellur organisms, then became animals, then into humans (which, btw, humans are animals, did God forget? Because he said humans are separate from animals. Evolution says otherwise).

The Bible does not at all imply that cells gradually became animals, and animals gradually became humans.

Not to mention, on our currently timeline, humans arived towards the end, whereas the Bible says that IN THE BEGiNNING, God made man. But scientifically, was man made in the beginning? No. Unless you believe that we still live in Genesis and that the rest of the Bible has yet to occur (which clearly it has, because Jesus was already here).


.

 

[outhouse]

False. God directly created the animals and then the next day, directly created man from dirt. That's a whole lot different than the scientific notion that millions of years ago, the first self-replicating molecule emerged, gradually became complex multicellur organisms, then became animals, then into humans (which, btw, humans are animals, did God forget? Because he said humans are separate from animals. Evolution says otherwise).

The Bible does not at all imply that cells gradually became animals, and animals gradually became humans.

Not to mention, on our currently timeline, humans arived towards the end, whereas the Bible says that IN THE BEGiNNING, God made man. But scientifically, was man made in the beginning? No. Unless you believe that we still live in Genesis and that the rest of the Bible has yet to occur (which clearly it has, because Jesus was already here).


.

I dont believe in evolution, I know evolution happened. Things are evolving all around us as they always will and always have.

my point was the bible got one small part right, they may have tripped on it and using the poetry theme and only in that context.

what was said earlier makes the most sense

Merge evolution & religion?
Hmmmm.....Yes! But there's some asymmetry.
Religion can incorporate evolution.
But evolution cannot incorporate religion because faith based matters are untestable.

 

[Tathagata]

I dont believe in evolution, I know evolution happened. Things are evolving all around us as they always will and always have.

When the heck did I ever challenge your belief in evolution?

my point was the bible got one small part right

And my point was that the Bible didn't get that one small part right. I just explained to you in depth why the Bible got that point wrong as well.


.

 

[outhouse]

When the heck did I ever challenge your belief in evolution?

nope you didnt I just stated my position so that you know I understand the bible

And my point was that the Bible didn't get that one small part right.

maybe you dont understand the bible, you cant take it literally. did I not say "in this context" ??

 

[Midnight Pete]

Can't religion and evolution be merged as one?

Religion is a much, much, much wider category than Creationism.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Excellent point. Science, at least currently and for the foreseeable future, cannot consider God.

That said, I'm firmly of the opinion that science sheds light while theology gropes in the dark. Any healthy theology must therefore adapt to science.

Abso-freakin-loutely.

I believe in the Strong Anthropic Principle, but it ain't science. I accept both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory - although the electric universe/iron sun hypotheses may have something to say in the future. Science (mainstream science) is intensly conservative, I understand and respect that.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Yes, (false) religion and evolution have fused together, and many professed Christians are avowed evolutionists. However, evolution and the truth are incompatible. The Bible is true when it says God created animals and plants according to their kinds, and that man is a unique direct creation by God. Evidence we can see supports this. Despite (loud) protestations to the contrary, evolution is an unproven theory that the evidence doesn't support. The Bible and evolution cannot be reconciled. If evolution is true, the Bible is false, and if the Bible is true, evolution is false.

This is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Evolution is not "an unproven theory that the evidence does not support." The only theory I know of that is "more valid" by the weight of evidence is quantum theory. Do we say, quantum fact? No. Do we say, quantum law? No. But without quantum theory, we wouldn't be having this conversation. A scientific theory is one that is based on the evidence, and is useful for making predictions. The confusion arises when people say, I have a theory! People don't have "theories," people have hypotheses. The scientific method can be stated thusly:

Observation-Hypothesis-Experimentation-Repeatability-Theory

Before a scientist can even publish, he or she must validate their hypothesis through experimentation. Before a valid hypothesis becomes theory, other scientists in other labs must be able to repeat those experiments under the stated conditions in their own labs. Only after all that is theory accepted by the scientific community - and even then, not all scientists accept all theories.

 

[RedOne77]

Key word, "mistaken." A Christian cannot similtaneously claim to believe scripture and also believe evolution. Genesis directly contradicts evolution.
.

That is just wrong. Many Christians have an allegorical/poetic understanding of Genesis rather than a literal understanding. If it was never the authors intent of Genesis to be authoritative on the physical origins of the universe and life (which many Christians, including clergy and scholars, believe), than there's no reason why a Christian cannot believe in scripture and accept evolution at the same time.

 

[McBell]

Key word, "mistaken." A Christian cannot similtaneously claim to believe scripture and also believe evolution.

Nice "No True Scotsman"

Genesis directly contradicts evolution.

YOUR INTERPRETATION of Genesis perhaps.

Now all you needs do is show that YOUR interpretation of Genesis is the one and only "true" interpretation.

 

[Caladan]

So people say either God made the universe, or the universe made the universe.

Well can't in fact there be a God, and yet the universe made the universe.
So in this instance, lets imagine that God made the big bang or whatever made the universe. Then from then on with Gods help we evolutionism into what we are now?

This is my personally opinion and I look forward to replies from fellow religious people.

I think that in the modern era that we live in people should realize that science and religion are different fields, and should remain that way, they have different purposes. it is bad news to take advanced modern science and project it on dogmas with centuries old baggage.

 

[Breathe]

I believe they can, Ireland. Without science, religion just becomes superstition.
I believe in God, and I accept evolution as fact.

I understand the creation myths of the world as just that--myths. People in the past did not know of evolution, but they still had questions, "How did we get here?". These myths are usually full of fables and stories to help people understand how to behave, and learn that actions have consequences and so on.


Only when accepts these stories as literal truths as opposed to stories and myths is there really a problem.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Nice "No True Scotsman"


YOUR INTERPRETATION of Genesis perhaps.

Now all you needs do is show that YOUR interpretation of Genesis is the one and only "true" interpretation.

I wonder if that guy even has an interpretation, or if he knows any Christians that aren't the Phalange...

Thing is, a lot of Christians are stuck on the idea that Adam was the first man. He wasn't. A lot of Christians are stuck on the idea that Adam was created in god's image. He wasn't. It's a difference between reading comprehension and having the minister's dogma pounded into one's skull. I got a hard skull, dogma tends to bounce.

 

[David M]

Yes, (false) religion and evolution have fused together, and many professed Christians are avowed evolutionists. However, evolution and the truth are incompatible. The Bible is true when it says God created animals and plants according to their kinds,

Theistic evolutionists have no problem with reading that as saying that God used evolution as the mechanism by which animal and plant species are created. "According to their kind" just means that individuals of a species do not give birth to wildly different species, which is exactly what ToE mandates.

and that man is a unique direct creation by God.

Which is also compatible with man evolving from earlier primates.

Evidence we can see supports this.

No it doesn't, reality says that mankind evolved.

Despite (loud) protestations to the contrary, evolution is an unproven theory that the evidence doesn't support. The Bible and evolution cannot be reconciled. If evolution is true, the Bible is false, and if the Bible is true, evolution is false.

Still unaware what science is I see, science is not about proof it is about explaining the evidence.

No, Evolution is true. That just makes your interpretation of the bible false.

 

[David M]

Key word, "mistaken." A Christian cannot similtaneously claim to believe scripture and also believe evolution. Genesis directly contradicts evolution.
.

Only when taken as a literal historic account, when taken as a story that the Abrahamic God is responsible for everything that exists nothing in Genesis contradicts evolution.

False. God directly created the animals and then the next day, directly created man from dirt. That's a whole lot different than the scientific notion that millions of years ago, the first self-replicating molecule emerged, gradually became complex multicellur organisms, then became animals, then into humans (which, btw, humans are animals, did God forget? Because he said humans are separate from animals. Evolution says otherwise).

False. All that genesis says is that God is the creator of all things. Just because you want to read it as a linear historic account does not make this a fact.

Its near 4 Billion years since the first self-replicating molecules arose. Genesis does not say the humans are not animals all it says is that humans are humans. Science also says that humans are humans, as well as being animals.

 

[Man of Faith]

I'll stick to what the Biblical narrative of creation, thanks for asking though.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Evolution is not "an unproven theory that the evidence does not support." The only theory I know of that is "more valid" by the weight of evidence is quantum theory. Do we say, quantum fact? No. Do we say, quantum law? No. But without quantum theory, we wouldn't be having this conversation. A scientific theory is one that is based on the evidence, and is useful for making predictions. The confusion arises when people say, I have a theory! People don't have "theories," people have hypotheses. The scientific method can be stated thusly:

Observation-Hypothesis-Experimentation-Repeatability-Theory

Before a scientist can even publish, he or she must validate their hypothesis through experimentation. Before a valid hypothesis becomes theory, other scientists in other labs must be able to repeat those experiments under the stated conditions in their own labs. Only after all that is theory accepted by the scientific community - and even then, not all scientists accept all theories.

The problem with rusra02 is that he's been shown this over and over and in detail.....

 

[ellenjanuary]

The problem with rusra02 is that he's been shown this over and over and in detail.....

One area where we science types and them religious types agree. Both of these groups each love their stuff so much, they keep on trying.