Can't religion and evolution be merged as one?

[rusra02]

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

Repeating the same unsubstantiated but vehemently voiced theories does not make them any more true. Evolution is pseudo-science's big lie, and the adherents defend it any way they can. For example, the claim that all the magnificently designed living things came to be thus because their environment demanded it. That is roughly equivalent to saying the Internet sprang into existence and evolved without intelligent design (poofed) because the environmental and social conditions demanded it. And yes, the internet is not living. I know that's the argument. If something is living, that's different from non-living intelligently designed products, according to evolution's expedient theory. The Bible presents the truth simply, eloquently, and with undeniable logic.
"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) That statement cannot be successfully refuted. The false friends of the Bible who claim to believe it while denying the creation account, Adam and Eve, and other Bible history, belie any claim that they make for support of the scriptures. And yes, that includes many clergy who often take the lead in misrepresenting the Bible account of creation as taking place in 7 literal days.

 

[Thief]

There is one Creator.

Science uncovers how He did it.

(just in case no one said so...yet)

(and if someone already did...thank you)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Repeating the same unsubstantiated but vehemently voiced theories does not make them any more true. Evolution is pseudo-science's big lie, and the adherents defend it any way they can. For example, the claim that all the magnificently designed living things came to be thus because their environment demanded it. That is roughly equivalent to saying the Internet sprang into existence and evolved without intelligent design (poofed) because the environmental and social conditions demanded it. And yes, the internet is not living. I know that's the argument. If something is living, that's different from non-living intelligently designed products, according to evolution's expedient theory. The Bible presents the truth simply, eloquently, and with undeniable logic.

I took the liberty of highlighting the most common flaw in the creationists argument regarding the science of evolution. Evolution does in no way address the initial formation of life everywhere. It only address origins of life that had originated on earth. Possibly transmitted by an asteroid consisting of several already existing gene pools. To debate the latter, refer to abiogenesis. As a side note of interest, Charles Darwin had made suggestions concerning abiogenesis among his peers yet was not referring to the processes of evolution.

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) That statement cannot be successfully refuted.

Yes it can. Easily, due to the obvious fact that no responsibility is being exclaimed elsewhere in the universe other than human claims.
If the origin and source remains human, than all such and related claims will remain exclusively a human invention by the sheer truth that the universe is utterly silent on the notion of deistic creation of which there is nothing you, your pastor, your church can ever do about this hard fact. The universe will not respond to you in affirmation.

The false friends of the Bible who claim to believe it while denying the creation account, Adam and Eve, and other Bible history, belie any claim that they make for support of the scriptures. And yes, that includes many clergy who often take the lead in misrepresenting the Bible account of creation as taking place in 7 literal days.

At least some Christian clergy facing a number of facts do understand that they cannot beat real proven truths, and have adjusted therewith.

 

[rusra02]

I

Yes it can. Easily, due to the obvious fact that no responsibility is being exclaimed elsewhere in the universe other than human claims.
If the origin and source remains human, than all such and related claims will remain exclusively a human invention by the sheer truth that the universe is utterly silent on the notion of deistic creation of which there is nothing you, your pastor, your church can ever do about this hard fact. The universe will not respond to you in affirmation.

At least some Christian clergy facing a number of facts do understand that they cannot beat real proven truths, and have adjusted therewith.

Of course the universe shouts in affirmation it was created. "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth, And one night after another night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech, and there are no words; No voice on their part is being heard. (Psalms 19:1-3) Only those who choose to shut their eyes and ears cannot see and hear the overwhelming evidence for an intelligent Creator.
And if professed advocates for God and the Bible do not believe what they teach, they should not profess to be advocates.
Finally, casting the beginning of life as outside the purview of evolutionary theory is like trying to build a huge edifice without a foundation. "We don't know how life got started, but we know it evolved once it got started."
Many scientists disagree with evolutionary theory and follow the evidence. They are swimming against the current. Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”
Quote from g9/06 p. 17 Is Evolution a Fact?

​

​

 

[Krok]

Of course the universe shouts in affirmation it was created.

No, it doesn’t. It shouts the exact opposite.

"The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth, And one night after another night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech, and there are no words; No voice on their part is being heard. (Psalms 19:1-3)

Why don’t you also quote from the Quoran?

Only those who choose to shut their eyes and ears cannot see and hear the overwhelming evidence for an intelligent Creator.

Now it is “Intelligent Creator”. I guess it is some kind of cross between “creation science” like the YEC’s (6000 year old earth) and Intelligent Design (like in “Irreducible Complexity&#8221. News for you. Both have been described as pseudoscience by the overwhelming majority of scientists and the courts.The scientists do it because the creationists don’t follow the scientific method at all. The courts because creationists do religion, not science.

And if professed advocates for God and the Bible do not believe what they teach, they should not profess to be advocates.

You mean, the people who don’t take the Bible literally are not True Christians TM?

Finally, casting the beginning of life as outside the purview of evolutionary theory is like trying to build a huge edifice without a foundation. "We don't know how life got started, but we know it evolved once it got started."

Last time I checked the Theory of Evolution stated: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 . Nothing about the origins of life as non-life has no gene pools or generations. Another definition from Oxford Concise Science Dictionary : "evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years." Nothing to do with how life started. So no, the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life at all. If you think that it does, you need an education in science and also be taught some basic comprehension skills.

Many scientists disagree with evolutionary theory and follow the evidence. They are swimming against the current.

As reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23. That’s 0.15% of qualified scientists. Hardly “many”. In the rest of the developed world (Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.) and developing countries like China, India, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico, etc., the percentage of creationists are even less. So, no. Percentage wise the number of scientists who don’t support evolutionary theory are negligible. Not “many” in any case.

Sociologist Rodney Stark.....

What would a Sociologist know about a biological theory. He is only marginally more qualified in biology than the cleaner is. Rather ask a biologist about evolution.

.... is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”Quote from g9/06 p. 17 Is Evolution a Fact?

A Sociologist wouldn’t know. Ask the scientists studying evolution. Ask Biologists, Paleontologists and Earth Scientists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

Correct.
My "religion" realizes that objective scientific evidence trumps subjective faith every time.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What would a Sociologist know about a biological theory. He is only marginally more qualified in biology than the cleaner is. Rather ask a biologist about evolution. A Sociologist wouldn’t know. Ask the scientists studying evolution. Ask Biologists, Paleontologists and Earth Scientists.

Indeed. If Rusra thinks the fact that a Professor of Religious Sociology being quoted in Scientific America lends any credence to his observations on Evolutionary Biology, he is sorely mistaken.

 

[PennyKay]

Yes you're quite right.

Tristesse - Theories are meant to be what you think... so therefore no theory can be respectable nor unrespectable. Unless of course they are proven theories which are then not called theories.

Actually, thats nots quite right, a theory is something that has at least some evidence to support it, otherwise it is a hypothesis, heres a link to explain;

define:theory - Google Search

 

[bobhikes]

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.

Why is it important that they merge? Evolution stands up very well on its own. Religion has been around long before and still after evolution.

Evolution is science
Religion is faith

The only ones who care are the evangelists of each. The average person is fine with the seperation.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Do you know what the scientific term "evolution" means? It doesn't look like it. *hint* It has nothing to do with the universe or the Big Bang.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course the universe shouts in affirmation it was created. "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling. One day after another day causes speech to bubble forth, And one night after another night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech, and there are no words; No voice on their part is being heard. (Psalms 19:1-3) Only those who choose to shut their eyes and ears cannot see and hear the overwhelming evidence for an intelligent Creator.

Mind you, all of this still remains as human sources here.

And if professed advocates for God and the Bible do not believe what they teach, they should not profess to be advocates.

Finally, casting the beginning of life as outside the purview of evolutionary theory is like trying to build a huge edifice without a foundation. "We don't know how life got started, but we know it evolved once it got started."
Many scientists disagree with evolutionary theory and follow the evidence. They are swimming against the current.

Sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities “the religious people keep their mouths shut,” while “irreligious people discriminate.” According to Stark, “there’s a reward system to being irreligious in the upper echelons [of the scientific community].”
Quote from g9/06 p. 17 Is Evolution a Fact?

The rest of this seems to be already well addressed by other posters better than I ever could. Basically I would be singing with the choir so to speak.

I would however like to know however just what this reward system that Rodney Stark is quoted as saying is all about. I know accuracy is rewarded in way of recognition so I'm taking this as sour grapes on Starks part. Also note that he is well credentialed as a sociologist of religion of which his most notable endeavors can be found here:Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science
Not that his credentials relates or pertains to the theory of evolution or its study and research anyway. In fact there is nothing found whatsoever that he actually participated in any kind of study and research involving evolution on any academic level, rather, he just critiqued the theory based on the social challenges it puts on affected religions.

Pertaining to the alleged quote from Stark in Scientific American. Where??? There is no such quote to be found anywhere in any official source of Scientific American.
Please provide the issue #, title, and date so that I can look this quote up and see it for myself. Otherwise for the time being, I'm going to have to regard this as a lie.

 

[sniper762]

YES evolution and religion can BOTH be true.

i have arived at the assumption through my theoretical belief and knowledge of both.

what i would like to hear is how others make this connection.

note the bible implies (according to most theologians) that adam, the first man was created by god 6000 years ago. evolution implies that man has existed much longer.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Since Religion can encompass any number of beliefs, I think the real question here is can a literalistic interpretation of Creation according to the Abrahamic faiths be reconciled with the empirical evidence for biological evolution?

 

[Thief]

Let me try this again...from 5/09/09...
"Man From Dust"...I quote myself...

"Day Six...everything that walks...including Man.

Day Seven...all is created...God rests...no more will be created.

Chapter Two.
God takes a man and places him into ideal living conditions.
His life is greatly extended, as the conditions allow it to be so.
Nothing will harm him. He is sheltered.

This isolated living is terminal.
Without a mate, the man is doomed to a solitary life.
A deep sleep is administered.
A rib is removed.
The rib is increased to full stature as a woman.

This is the basic structure of Scripture...Chapter One, and the intro of Chapter Two."

I've addressed this notion many times and it is now scattered throughout Forum.
And it helps to point out...Day Six would be evolution.
No names ...no law....no restrictions...
go forth be fruitful...dominate all things....Man as a species.

And Chapter Two is actually not a story of creation.
It is manipulation...there's a difference.

 

[rusra02]

Mind you, all of this still remains as human sources here.



The rest of this seems to be already well addressed by other posters better than I ever could. Basically I would be singing with the choir so to speak.

I would however like to know however just what this reward system that Rodney Stark is quoted as saying is all about. I know accuracy is rewarded in way of recognition so I'm taking this as sour grapes on Starks part. Also note that he is well credentialed as a sociologist of religion of which his most notable endeavors can be found here:Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science
Not that his credentials relates or pertains to the theory of evolution or its study and research anyway. In fact there is nothing found whatsoever that he actually participated in any kind of study and research involving evolution on any academic level, rather, he just critiqued the theory based on the social challenges it puts on affected religions.

Pertaining to the alleged quote from Stark in Scientific American. Where??? There is no such quote to be found anywhere in any official source of Scientific American.
Please provide the issue #, title, and date so that I can look this quote up and see it for myself. Otherwise for the time being, I'm going to have to regard this as a lie.

Watch Ben Steins excellent documentary: Expelled.

 

[Father Heathen]

Watch Ben Steins excellent documentary: Expelled.

Don't, actually.

Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks

But anyway, it's sad that this has to be constantly repeated, but evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that evolution conflicts with is literal interpretations of ancient creation myths, which is something that's obviously not required to be religious. Unless you're a fundamentalist, of course, but they don't have a monopoly on belief.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Many scientists = rusra in a cloud of Creationists.

I don't get it. I mean, I'm never wrong - right now. Tomorrow, I'll go learn something. The next day, I'll never be wrong. Isn't that "spiritual maturity?" Isn't that, dare I say, evolution?

 

[ellenjanuary]

YES evolution and religion can BOTH be true.

i have arived at the assumption through my theoretical belief and knowledge of both.

what i would like to hear is how others make this connection.

note the bible implies (according to most theologians) that adam, the first man was created by god 6000 years ago. evolution implies that man has existed much longer.

Go back to the beginning. Adam ain't the first man. If anything, Adam is the first prophet.

Without evolution, that book is just a book. With evolution; that book might have something to say.

 

[Autodidact]

Watch Ben Steins excellent documentary: Expelled.

One of the most dishonest pieces of trash ever made.

 

[McBell]

Watch Ben Steins excellent documentary: Expelled.

Supporting dishonesty with more dishonesty does not help your position any.