First time posting a thread, so go easy on me✌️

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And about Dawkins I don’t take him seriously . Even tho he know what he is talking about, but I avoid him since he has a agenda

Yes, he does (have an agenda). So do you and I. I think what you mean is that your agendas conflict. His is to promote biology and critical thought. Yours is to promote your religion and belief by faith.

Saw some of his speeches and interviews and for me he can’t be trusted.

So it's a character issue and not just a difference of opinion?

Or maybe you didn't mean can't be trusted. Maybe you meant he shouldn't be believed. Dawkins is a law-abiding intellectual who promotes science and reason. Of course you can trust him.

he has some grudge against creationism. He is freely to do what he wants but for me he is biased.

Yes, he is biased, but it's a rational bias (based in reason). You're also biased, but your biases are not rational. They're faith-based.

Dawkins is biased in favor of critical thought and empiricism over faith as a path to truth, and he is justified by the fruits of each. The former generates useful ideas that can be used to anticipate outcomes, whereas the latter has produced no useful ideas. Creationism is a good example. Unlike with evolutionary theory, even if it were true, that knowledge couldn't be put to any use.

Dawkins' "grudges" no doubt include other faith-based systems of thought. He probably has the same problem with alchemy and astrology. And with flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and vaccine deniers.

micro evolution are minor changes in short time and this we can observe
macro evolution are bigger changes in longer time., this cannot be observed

Something that takes a few years to occur can be observed in a single lifetime. Something that occurs over millions or billions of years takes that long to observe but would also be observable.

It's interesting that you brought observability into this. Other creationists have argued that if we haven't observed new families or orders of living things evolving, they don't. It's the same specious argument we see against abiogenesis - nobody's ever seen life arise de novo from nonlife, so it's impossible.

But consider this: Pluto has never been observed to complete an orbit around the sun. We haven't known it was there long enough. It was discovered in 1930 (94 years ago), and one orbit of the sun takes 248 years. Shall we call what we've seen micro-orbiting and point out that macro-orbiting has never been witnessed? There doesn't seem to be much value in doing that unless our purpose is to bring into question whether Pluto has ever completed an orbit of the sun.

If you refer evolution as a whole including the single cell and common ancestors theorie then I would say that these 2 contradict with the abrahamic religions for sure. Obviously not saying that there are no abrahamic believers that accept this but this goes against their scriptures.

Agreed. Plenty of Christians say that they accept the theory of evolution, but do they if they also believe that man was made in God's image? That contradicts the theory.

 

[firedragon]

Is it logical to accept the idea of natural selection and deny the idea that a kind changed to another kind?

It's not just natural selection. It was "gradual random mutation".

 

[stvdv]

I am a Muslim and I like to hear your thought about evolution

I believe in evolution
I believe God created evolution

I believe God is beyond definition, hence beyond intellectual human understanding, hence evolution, creation of evolution, is also too complex for a human mind to fully understand

 

[Spice]

Plenty of Christians say that they accept the theory of evolution, but do they if they also believe that man was made in God's image? That contradicts the theory.

If the "image" is believed to be physical or even attributes as found in personality, yes, it contradicts the theory of evolution. But not if the "image" of God is in humankind as unconscious spirit, a particular frequency of energy, perhaps, something just as undefinable as God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the "image" is believed to be physical or even attributes as found in personality, yes, it contradicts the theory of evolution. But not if the "image" of God is in humankind as unconscious spirit, a particular frequency of energy, perhaps, something just as undefinable as God.

The scientific theory doesn't allow for man to be created by a deity in the image of that deity or in any other way if by created we mean intelligently and intentionally fashioned. According to the science, evolution is undirected.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Yes, he does (have an agenda). So do you and I. I think what you mean is that your agendas conflict. His is to promote biology and critical thought. Yours is to promote your religion and belief by faith.

Sure I agree we all have agendas, not denying thayt

So it's a character issue and not just a difference of opinion?

Or maybe you didn't mean can't be trusted. Maybe you meant he shouldn't be believed. Dawkins is a law-abiding intellectual who promotes science and reason. Of course you can trust him.

yes it is him as a character. When a person says he is a scientist and tells that god doesn’ exsist because evolution has all the answers. Then obviously he isn’t trusted because he has certain beliefs that could influence him. He is not neutral

Yes, he is biased, but it's a rational bias (based in reason). You're also biased, but your biases are not rational. They're faith-based.

Dawkins is biased in favor of critical thought and empiricism over faith as a path to truth, and he is justified by the fruits of each. The former generates useful ideas that can be used to anticipate outcomes, whereas the latter has produced no useful ideas. Creationism is a good example. Unlike with evolutionary theory, even if it were true, that knowledge couldn't be put to any use.

yeah that where we disagree. Him stating that it’s possible that god doesn’t exsist and that aliens created the single cell is not based on rational reasoning.

Something that takes a few years to occur can be observed in a single lifetime. Something that occurs over millions or billions of years takes that long to observe but would also be observable.

It's interesting that you brought observability into this. Other creationists have argued that if we haven't observed new families or orders of living things evolving, they don't. It's the same specious argument we see against abiogenesis - nobody's ever seen life arise de novo from nonlife, so it's impossible.

Yeah I don’t know about that. From what I gather and not saying I know everything about it. But how can someone observe something that takes millions years to happen. Let alone the single cell, I think there are to much assumptions to arrive at this. But obviously you can convince me otherwise

It's interesting that you brought observability into this. Other creationists have argued that if we haven't observed new families or orders of living things evolving, they don't. It's the same specious argument we see against abiogenesis - nobody's ever seen life arise de novo from nonlife, so it's impossible.

Just because we don’t see something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, I agree. The burden of proof is on the one that claims that something happened

Agreed. Plenty of Christians say that they accept the theory of evolution, but do they if they also believe that man was made in God's image? That contradicts the theor

sure and that is subjective, some people believe in contradiction.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When a person says he is a scientist and tells that god doesn’ exsist because evolution has all the answers. Then obviously he isn’t trusted because he has certain beliefs that could influence him. He is not neutral

Dawkins hasn't made that assertion, and even if he had, it wouldn't define him as untrustworthy.

And of course his beliefs influence him. That's true for everybody. You seem to think that being neutral (did you mean impartial or open-minded?) means having no beliefs. If so, I disagree.

Him stating that it’s possible that god doesn’t exsist and that aliens created the single cell is not based on rational reasoning.

It's definitely possible that no gods exist. If you mean that aliens created the first cell on earth, that unlikely but not impossible. If you mean that they created the first cells in the universe, that's impossible.

how can someone observe something that takes millions years to happen.

No single human being could do that, but generations of people could if there were enough generations. Humanity might observe something too prolonged for a human to observe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for you taking time to answer my questions, i appreciate it.

No problem

You seem honest and sincere in your questions. It is my pleasure in such a case to try and help answer your question as best as possible.

And about Dawkins I don’t take him seriously . Even tho he know what he is talking about, but I avoid him since he has a agenda Saw some of his speeches and interviews and for me he can’t be trusted.

The dude is a world renown professor of evolutionary biology. Why wouldn't you take him seriously on matters of evolutionary biology?
Anyhow, there's no shortage of books out there on the topic. The only reason I recommended The Greatest Show on Earth is because you specifically asked for one that is easy to read and which doesn't assume any technical knowledge of the reader. And that book is a perfect fit when it comes to such criteria.

Another writer you can look into is Ken Miller. He's a devout catholic and evolutionary biologist and author as well. But I'm not sure if his books match those criteria.

Correct me if I am wrong,
micro evolution are minor changes in short time and this we can observe
macro evolution are bigger changes in longer time., this cannot be observed

Sort of. But not necessarily. The problem with these terms is that there is no clearly defined line which separates micro from macro. It's very contextual.
It's also important to note that in evolution theory, there actually is no real distinction between both. Not really anyway. Generally "macro" refers to accumulation of enough changes so that it ends up in speciation events.
But there is only the process of evolution.

Again, the best way I could describe it is by that analogy of "walking".
The process of "walking" is moving forward by accumulating steps.
Taking a few steps covers a "micro distance".
Taking many steps covers a "macro distance".
But what makes a "macro" distance? 1 kilometer? 100? 1000?
There is no clear definition. There is only the contextual contrast to whatever is being talked about.

But it's just walking. There is no distinction in the process.

Sure I agree to some extent, tho it also depends on which theists we are talking about. If you refer evolution as a whole including the single cell and common ancestors theorie then I would say that these 2 contradict with the abrahamic religions for sure.

Again, the vast majority of Abrahamic theists don't agree with that. They consider creation stories to be allegory / metaphor.
Also, I'ld like to point out that common ancestry of species isn't a "theory". It's a genetic fact.
The theory deals with the mechanism of how evolution occurs.
The fact of common ancestry is one of the many facts that the theory explains.

Obviously not saying that there are no abrahamic believers that accept this but this goes against their scriptures.

Only if you take those scriptures as literal truth. Most people don't.

yeah like I said here above, he has some grudge against creationism.

And rightfully so.
Just like a geographer would have a grudge against flat earthers.
Just like an embryologist would have a grudge against stork theorists.

The facts are the facts.

He is freely to do what he wants but for me he is biased.

Sure. Biased to evidence and facts and critical thinking. This is not a problem.
Ken Miller, devout catholic, has a grudge against creationists as well.
Pretty much all evolutionary biologists do. Some are just more vocal about it then others.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Again, the vast majority of Abrahamic theists don't agree with that. They consider creation stories to be allegory / metaphor.

But are myths allegories? If you were a librarian or owned a bookstore, you'd file them separately because they're distinct literary forms just as a limerick is not a haiku.

Consider the allegory Gulliver's Travels, a political allegory in which the writer Swift substitutes fictional characters and events for nonfictional people and events from history knowing what the fictions stand in for. Fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap.

We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known as is the case with myths. The mythmakers are also writing stories, but they aren't symbolizing. They're speculating if they think that their stories are correct or writing fables if they don't.

This is a fine point, and people will go on calling biblical myths allegory in good faith and be understood to be saying that they don't consider the account historical, but they can also call them myths and be more accurate.

I think that the reason that the word allegory is preferred is because myth also means error or misunderstanding, as in "Don't believe that. It's just an urban myth." But when used to describe a literary form, the word is neutral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But are myths allegories? If you were a librarian or owned a bookstore, you'd file them separately because they're distinct literary forms just as a limerick is not a haiku.

Consider the allegory Gulliver's Travels, a political allegory in which the writer Swift substitutes fictional characters and events for nonfictional people and events from history knowing what the fictions stand in for. Fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap.

We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known as is the case with myths. The mythmakers are also writing stories, but they aren't symbolizing. They're speculating if they think that their stories are correct or writing fables if they don't.

This is a fine point, and people will go on calling biblical myths allegory in good faith and be understood to be saying that they don't consider the account historical, but they can also call them myths and be more accurate.

I think that the reason that the word allegory is preferred is because myth also means error or misunderstanding, as in "Don't believe that. It's just an urban myth." But when used to describe a literary form, the word is neutral.

Probably, yes.
And I agree off course.

I for one don't think the authors didn't actually believe those stories.
And I think modern theists calling it "allegory" (or whatever else to distinct it from "literal") are merely engaging in mental gymnastics so that they can continue to "believe" in their religion while not having to ignore or reject the facts of reality. As a sort of psychological defense mechanism.

In every other area of their lives, they'ld probably dismiss the beliefs and call them "disproven". But religious people tend to clinge to their religion and they'll bend through many hoops to try and find excuses to continue to believe no matter what.

I think it's stupid, sure. But I'm fine with it. I certainly prefer that over thinking that mere beliefs trump facts from reality.
Because as I always say: when your beliefs don't match reality, it's not reality that is incorrect...