Do you believe in evolution

[Ubjon]

he actually believes in evolution...just not in its current model. I dont agree with a lot of what he says when it comes to the bible, for instance he doest believe that Adam was the only human created as the bible indicates. But im still interested in how he manages to beleive both evolution and in God the Creator.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A religious person could believe that God invented evolution and then left it to its own devices knowing that it would ultimately produce the human species but they would probably lean towards Deism rather than Theism.

Theists believe in a God that takes an active role in evolution but evidence doesn't support that. The Theist also wants humans to be a special creation but again the evidence doesn't support that either.

 

[Breathe]

Theists believe in a God that takes an active role in evolution but evidence doesn't support that. The Theist also wants humans to be a special creation but again the evidence doesn't support that either.

Some definitely do, but not all.

 

[Ubjon]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A religious person could believe that God invented evolution and then left it to its own devices knowing that it would ultimately produce the human species but they would probably lean towards Deism rather than Theism.

Theists believe in a God that takes an active role in evolution but evidence doesn't support that. The Theist also wants humans to be a special creation but again the evidence doesn't support that either.

I know

Most the religious people I've met don't have any problem with evolution and their religion because they aren't literalist and realise that scripture isn't the final word on the issue.

I've only met a handful of Christians who refuse to accept evolution and they were all fundamentalist types who believe the Bible is an accurate account of history. Such people generally aren't worth the time trying to help, espcially since one of them was a work collegue and I didn't want the hassle of fending off religious intolerance/discimination accusations.

 

[Pegg]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A religious person could believe that God invented evolution and then left it to its own devices knowing that it would ultimately produce the human species but they would probably lean towards Deism rather than Theism.

Theists believe in a God that takes an active role in evolution but evidence doesn't support that. The Theist also wants humans to be a special creation but again the evidence doesn't support that either.

if evolution is purely 'change over time of a specific species' then sure, i dont see a problem with that model

but i really dont think that the bibles explanation that 'individual kinds were created' is complementary to the current evolution model...they really are opposed...thats kind of what got me interested in what Schroeder had to say because he believes they are not mutually exclusive either.

 

[Ubjon]

if evolution is purely 'change over time of a specific species' then sure, i dont see a problem with that model

but i really dont think that the bibles explanation that 'individual kinds were created' is complementary to the current evolution model...they really are opposed...thats kind of what got me interested in what Schroeder had to say because he believes they are not mutually exclusive either.

The Bible was written at a time of profound ignorance so we shouldn't be suprised that it often comes into conflict with science. The best thing to do is to discard the the Biblical explanation in favour of the scientifically derived explanations. Very few Christians that I've met have been Bible literalists and follow it to the word because they recognise that some parts are no longer relevent to modern times so why can't they do the same in regards to claims about life?

Kinds are just an archaic classification system from a time when creation was seen as a plausable explanation.

 

[Breathe]

I know

Most the religious people I've met don't have any problem with evolution and their religion because they aren't literalist and realise that scripture isn't the final word on the issue.

I've only met a handful of Christians who refuse to accept evolution and they were all fundamentalist types who believe the Bible is an accurate account of history. Such people generally aren't worth the time trying to help, espcially since one of them was a work collegue and I didn't want the hassle of fending off religious intolerance/discimination accusations.

I was actually thinking of theists who accept evolution. Not all theists believe God takes an active role in evolution, or that humans are a special case, evolution wise.

 

[Pegg]

The Bible was written at a time of profound ignorance so we shouldn't be suprised that it often comes into conflict with science. The best thing to do is to discard the the Biblical explanation in favour of the scientifically derived explanations. Very few Christians that I've met have been Bible literalists and follow it to the word because they recognise that some parts are no longer relevent to modern times so why can't they do the same in regards to claims about life?

Kinds are just an archaic classification system from a time when creation was seen as a plausable explanation.

well the bible did have the universe with a 'beginning' long before scientists did...they were still teaching an 'eternal' earth in the 60's while the bible had the accurate view all along.

Scientists have been wrong on many things too you realise... im not going to throw the bible out just because science have come up with some alternates

 

[Commoner]

well the bible did have the universe with a 'beginning' long before scientists did...they were still teaching an 'eternal' earth in the 60's while the bible had the accurate view all along.

Scientists have been wrong on many things too you realise... im not going to throw the bible out just because science have come up with some alternates

Oh my god...

...are you for real?

 

[Ubjon]

well the bible did have the universe with a 'beginning' long before scientists did...they were still teaching an 'eternal' earth in the 60's while the bible had the accurate view all along.

Scientists have been wrong on many things too you realise... im not going to throw the bible out just because science have come up with some alternates

Of course scientists have been wrong, that is how science progresses. Hypotheses are tested to destruction and those which survive are retained while those which don't are discarded. This is a strength of science rather than a weakness. That some people find such uncertaintly disconcerting and find comfort in the fixed beliefs of religion or politics is irrelevent.

The Bible creation story is not unique. Most primitive cultures have a creation story with a begining and neither they nor the Bible creation story are something to write home about.

Bible.com

First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst...

Are you seriously saying that this qualifies as a serious attempt to explain the origins of the universe? Its pathetic, it explains nothing. Just the nonsense ramblings of the ignorant person who in the absence of a good explanation put forward a superstitious one. Its a creation myth, nothing more.

 

[Pegg]

Are you seriously saying that this qualifies as a serious attempt to explain the origins of the universe? Its pathetic, it explains nothing. Just the nonsense ramblings of the ignorant person who in the absence of a good explanation put forward a superstitious one. Its a creation myth, nothing more.

for a simple 'primitive' people, this explanation worked just fine

For us today, its a start. Of course we have more of an opportunity to go much deeper then the ancient hebrews could...they didnt have the instruments we have so of course they could not delve much deeper.

If you are stating that a universe with a beginning is 'superstitious' in some way, then i strongly disagree with you.

 

[fantome profane]

well the bible did have the universe with a 'beginning' long before scientists did...they were still teaching an 'eternal' earth in the 60's while the bible had the accurate view all along.

Scientists have been wrong on many things too you realise... im not going to throw the bible out just because science have come up with some alternates

Yes it is true that the stories of the ancient Hebrews told of a beginning to the universe, as did the stories of the ancient Babylonians and the ancient Mesopotamians. I am sure that without too much effort I could come up with about a dozen myths that tell of a beginning to the world. This in and of itself is not enough for me to take these myths as literal histories. And obviously you don’t take all these myths as literally histories either. So even you don’t consider this argument convincing.

 

[outhouse]

every single culture before this modern era had a creation myth.

theres nothing special or divine with the hebrew myth.

it was only in the right place at the right time when man started writing on something besides rock or clay

 

[Dan4reason]

well the bible did have the universe with a 'beginning' long before scientists did...they were still teaching an 'eternal' earth in the 60's while the bible had the accurate view all along.

Scientists have been wrong on many things too you realise... im not going to throw the bible out just because science have come up with some alternates

Mythology has been wrong too. The question is which one is more likely to be wrong. Science or mythology? Which one is more self-correcting?

 

[Ubjon]

for a simple 'primitive' people, this explanation worked just fine

For us today, its a start. Of course we have more of an opportunity to go much deeper then the ancient hebrews could...they didnt have the instruments we have so of course they could not delve much deeper.

If you are stating that a universe with a beginning is 'superstitious' in some way, then i strongly disagree with you.

So what you're saying is that present day creationists are primitives given that they are content with that explanation? Finally something we agree on!

I'm not going to give anyone credit for begining a story with *gasp* a begining. I give people even less credit when they have effectively guessed an answer correctly without contributing to the research which led up to the development of a working scientific theory. Christianity isn't alone in making such rediculous claims, the Muslims love claiming that something was already written in the Koran before it was an established scientific fact.

I didn't say that a begining was superstitous, I said all the associated nonsense i.e. Genesis was superstitious.

 

[kylixguru]

every single culture before this modern era had a creation myth.

theres nothing special or divine with the hebrew myth.

it was only in the right place at the right time when man started writing on something besides rock or clay

Just like we need our DNA, so too any societal body needs its DNA. That's what all of these creation accounts are about. It explains the unique coming to be of that particular kind of society. Thus, if you don't have a uniform account of creation, you don't have a functional societal body. Some cells pay more attention to the societal DNA than others. Ultimately, when the cells start to hold its DNA in derision because they don't understand it or because they are appalled by it, that is when the health of the societal body starts to decline and cancers start to spring up and eventually it becomes terminal. When the host organism of the cells dies, it's not hard to guess what fate shall soon overtake the cells.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Just like we need our DNA, so too any societal body needs its DNA. That's what all of these creation accounts are about. It explains the unique coming to be of that particular kind of society. Thus, if you don't have a uniform account of creation, you don't have a functional societal body. Some cells pay more attention to the societal DNA than others. Ultimately, when the cells start to hold its DNA in derision because they don't understand it or because they are appalled by it, that is when the health of the societal body starts to decline and cancers start to spring up and eventually it becomes terminal. When the host organism of the cells dies, it's not hard to guess what fate shall soon overtake the cells.

This is a ridiculous metaphor showing your ignorance of both biology and sociology.

 

[blackout]

If you believe in evolution put yes, if not put no, if you don't know put exactly that.

And if you don't mind write your reason why or why not or why it's hard to tell on a comment to this.

I evolve deliberately and daily.

I hardly know what there is to believe in.

 

[PolyHedral]

Just like we need our DNA, so too any societal body needs its DNA. That's what all of these creation accounts are about. It explains the unique coming to be of that particular kind of society. Thus, if you don't have a uniform account of creation, you don't have a functional societal body. Some cells pay more attention to the societal DNA than others. Ultimately, when the cells start to hold its DNA in derision because they don't understand it or because they are appalled by it, that is when the health of the societal body starts to decline and cancers start to spring up and eventually it becomes terminal. When the host organism of the cells dies, it's not hard to guess what fate shall soon overtake the cells.

A society's DNA is not its mythology. A society's DNA is a set of memes that it shares, which can easily originate from outsiders. However, memes can easily become parasitic; They spread themselves, at no benefit, or even at cost to the organism believing them. It is these that should be eliminated entirely, in all possible guises. By contrast, some memes are incredibly helpful knowledge, and should be spread as much as possible.

The majority of most religions are parasitic memes. Removing them will almost certainly bring benefits. Creation myths come in this category as well, since they provide entirely empty answers to questions we didn't have an answer to at the time. This is fine as long as we don't have an answer, but when we do have an answer to replace them, they should be discarded.

 

[kylixguru]

A society's DNA is not its mythology. A society's DNA is a set of memes that it shares, which can easily originate from outsiders. However, memes can easily become parasitic; They spread themselves, at no benefit, or even at cost to the organism believing them. It is these that should be eliminated entirely, in all possible guises. By contrast, some memes are incredibly helpful knowledge, and should be spread as much as possible.

The majority of most religions are parasitic memes. Removing them will almost certainly bring benefits. Creation myths come in this category as well, since they provide entirely empty answers to questions we didn't have an answer to at the time. This is fine as long as we don't have an answer, but when we do have an answer to replace them, they should be discarded.

I think you presuppose a lot of things that could have you laying an ax at the base of the wrong trees.

Would you like to be the person who has the task of deciding which trees to cut down and which ones to foster? Should we even manage our forests that way anyway? Should the lumber jacks get to decide which trees are taken and which are left? Should the ranchers get to decide? How about the tree-huggers? How about the farmers? Are they wheat farmers or sugar farmers? Are they sugar beet farmers or maple syrup farmers?

My point is, what one views as parasitic and useless another views as their source of income and employ and has a vested interest in their preservation.

Who should decide to start laying waste to things and upon what basis and criteria and who can be an impartial (grim) judge (reaper)?

What about the pride of evolutionary theory called 'survival of the fittest' by means of 'natural selection'?

How about nobody lays waste to any trees unless they own the trees and have the explicit right to manage their plot as they see fit?

You manage your trees and I'll manage mine...

If I have a plot of sugar maples and you have a plot of spruce then if your spruce trees cast seeds in my plot of maples I'll pluck out your spruces. If I have maples cast seeds in your plot of spruces then you pluck them out as you please.

So, then, the question becomes, whose plot of trees are we? What are the boundaries of our plots and the domain upon which we may cast our seeds of influence? Who is the landlord of our plot of ground now and in what way will he communicate as to what trees belong and which should have an ax laid to their base?

This entire dilema is worked out in the realm of religion.
It is the politics of the landlords of the planet.

You talking like you are going to eliminate religion sounds to me the same as an acorn in a plot of oak trees postulating about the destruction of his landlord. If you had success your plot will simply be picked up by another landlord who may not even want oak trees at all and come in and just wipe you off and put in something else to his liking.

Man seems to think he is the absolute pinnacle of intelligence and organization and that no higher unseen powers operate above him. This is the pipe dream that causes a lot of unnecessary strife.

They key to having things work is if you want to be an oak then see to it you germinate yourself on a plot with a landlord favorable to oaks. And so on.

And, by all means, when the landlords are speaking their will via holy writ, handle it with great care because they do speak and their words are certain, whether you understand them or not, they shall come to pass.

 

[kylixguru]

This is a ridiculous metaphor showing your ignorance of both biology and sociology.

How about you expound your views here?
Others may not be so learned as you to see the gaping holes that you see.

As for me, of course it isn't a perfect metaphor, but it roughly fits enough to make a simple point. A simple point that will stand after you go to all sorts of lengths to smear it. But, I would really like to see you smear it anyway. So, please, don't hesitate.