How do You Reconcile Evolution with Your Religion?

[Sunstone]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

Please note: If you do not feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion because you believe that one, the other, or both are wrong, that's fine, but this is simply not the thread for discussing whether or not those two things are wrong. So please, start your own thread if you wish to discuss what's wrong with either the fact or theory of evolution.

 

[Sees]

Ones like mine it goes well together. Most of us believe Gods themselves continue to evolve. All things, beings, environments...everything, continues to change and evolve. "Creation" is an on-going, natural, interactive process - not a past event.

 

[LuisDantas]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

It is just proper to acknowledge scientific knowledge as valid in the absence of a reason to deny it.

The Theory of Evolution does not even have religious implications, although it might perhaps challenge some dogmas that are not really missed. I am not aware of any such in Buddhism, though.

 

[Laika]

At the moment I'm ok with accepting the status quo and have not deeply looked into it....

....BUT....

....Marxists have historically treated science as an ideology, because they were influenced by Fredrich Engels views on applying the principles of Marxist philosophy (dialectical materialism) to natural science. very crudely, "genetics" was percieved to represent some aspect of "class ideology" in conflict with Marxism by promoting theories of innate inequalities amongst humans as biologically determined rather than a product of socio-economic class. There are also some potentially theological implications to genetics if you treat the combination of genetic material and traits as "accidental" rather than a product of a larger process of the evolution of matter from simple to more complex forms (i.e. what or who "created" it that way?).

So the exact deatils on the mechanism by which "evolution" took place do conflict with Marxist ideology.Overall, they favoured Lemarckianism (the inheritiability of aquired traits) over Mandellian genetics (inheritence by "genetic" or biologically innate traits). Mandellian Genetics was also used as part of Nazi Ideology and Eugencis so it was considered "fascist" science in the USSR under Stalin. They gave offical support to Lysenkoism but it was a disaster as ideological reasons took precedence over nuaunce and evidence and set back Soviet biologists many decades. There were attempts to incorporate genetics into soviet science but they didn't get much approval for all of the reasons specified above, so its not completely impossible to reconcile scientific evidence and marxist ideology on this.

The one big plus though is that the "primordial soup" theory of the origins of life or abiogenisis (origin of life from inorganic matter) was theorised by a Soviet Scientist (Alexander Oparin) in the 1920s. that is on ideologically safer territory about the dialectical laws of motion and a "qualitative leap" from chemistry and biology in the evolution of the organisation of matter.

If your confused, don't worry; that's the dialectics rotting your brain into Communist Party approved mush.

 

[Maponos]

It fits quite well with my faith, actually. the Celtic base of my faith doesn't have a creation myth (due to most Celtic myths not being written down), but the ones we do have describe us being descended from the god of the underworld (Arawn or Donn, Dispater, or which name he has in Celtic mythology) and that we came from somewhere else. I believe some myths even detail the flood myth that's observable in nearly every mythology.

 

[Quintessence]

Ones like mine it goes well together. Most of us believe Gods themselves continue to evolve. All things, beings, environments...everything, continues to change and evolve. "Creation" is an on-going, natural, interactive process - not a past event.

Pretty much this. There's nothing in need of reconciling, as there's no conflict to begin with. The Spirit of Evolution itself is one of the gods!

 

[Mindmaster]

My religion values science and intellectualism so it is irrelevant. Anyway, evolution is best-fit proof and I currently think it is best-fitting too much. I am not against the idea, but it is just really an idea at this point. So, I think it is a good model to learn more but I am not exactly sold on the way the diagram has been drawn?

 

[George-ananda]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

I feel a need to reconcile all facts with my religion. Evolution fits comfortably with my view as a method of creating more successful and advanced physical plane lifeforms. I believe abiogenesis and evolution are guided by nature spirits above the physical plane and that all this did not happen through random events only as the materialist would believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

There's just nothing in my religion that contradicts evolution. Sure, we have our stories, but they're not history. My religion isn't dependent on specific events spoken of in old Lore being literal historical fact.

Did the Gods I worship even exist in paleolithic times, let alone before humans? Well, Sun and Earth certainly did, but what about Woden, or Freya? Eh, I dunno. Doesn't really matter.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

Please note: If you do not feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion because you believe that one, the other, or both are wrong, that's fine, but this is simply not the thread for discussing whether or not those two things are wrong. So please, start your own thread if you wish to discuss what's wrong with either the fact or theory of evolution.

No not need to adjust , even time can not make the impossible possible , my only gripe with my own belief was wow nature is cruel but now that is cleared.
We share very similar DNA with the banana also
Is to many mutations required from start to now considering earth suffered some big hits over its long life .
Is something in evolution is nature but humans are not animals despite our darker sides .
Must reclassify as such if that's the way it is .

 

[Akivah]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

There's nothing to reconcile. Evolution fits like a glove with Torah.

 

[Domenic]

I'm not saying Evolution is false...I'm not even saying it is a bad theory. I do have just one question: If the theory of Evolution is true, where are the millions of bones within the first stage, and today? There should be so many bones we would be standing hip deep, or neck deep in them? Why have they not found one? Many giant human-likes have been found where the skull has a long crown. it is different from a human skull. The human skull has a seam down the center, and these others it goes across the skull from left to right. Most of these strange ones have two rows of teeth and six fingers on each hand. I won't go into the Bible part of these strange giants, but I find it strange all the tribes of the earth have legend about them?

 

[james bond]

I started with Evolution, but it's now Creationism vs Evolution for me. It boiled down to which is more likely to have occurred.

 

[Revoltingest]

I started with Evolution, but it's now Creationism vs Evolution for me. It boiled down to which is more likely to have occurred.

Could we say your belief was shaken, but not stirred?

 

[james bond]

Could we say your belief was shaken, but not stirred?

LOL .

 

[metis]

A general rule of thumb in Judaism is that if a particular interpretation defies reason, go with reason and look for alternative interpretations. The creation accounts, taken as literal history and science, doesn't stand to reason. Allegorically, it can.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not saying Evolution is false...I'm not even saying it is a bad theory. I do have just one question: If the theory of Evolution is true, where are the millions of bones within the first stage, and today? There should be so many bones we would be standing hip deep, or neck deep in them? Why have they not found one?

Fossils.

All parts of a living organism are biodegradable. In other words, the reason why we're not wading around in fossilized material from billions of years of evolution is simply because the vast majority of it gets eaten.

Fossilization can only occur under VERY particular circumstances. Hence, they're incredibly rare and tend to get found in specific regions. Those regions were perfect at one time for species in that time to get fossilized.

As for the earliest forms of life, well, I can't say for certain, but I'd bet that plate techtonics has sent most of that material back into the mantle.

Many giant human-likes have been found where the skull has a long crown. it is different from a human skull. The human skull has a seam down the center, and these others it goes across the skull from left to right. Most of these strange ones have two rows of teeth and six fingers on each hand. I won't go into the Bible part of these strange giants, but I find it strange all the tribes of the earth have legend about them?

You'll have to go into more detail about what bones, specifically, you're referring to, and where they were found.

 

[johnhanks]

I'm not saying Evolution is false...I'm not even saying it is a bad theory. I do have just one question: If the theory of Evolution is true, where are the millions of bones within the first stage, and today?

What do you mean by "the first stage"? Earliest organisms? Bones appear in vertebrates, which have been around for barely 10% of the history of life, or if you prefer less than 50% of the history of multicellular animal life; the vast majority of the animals that have lived have been invertebrates.

There should be so many bones we would be standing hip deep, or neck deep in them? Why have they not found one?

I must have misunderstood you. It looks like you're asking why no fossilised bones have been found at all. That can't really be your question, can it?

Many giant human-likes have been found where the skull has a long crown. it is different from a human skull. The human skull has a seam down the center, and these others it goes across the skull from left to right. Most of these strange ones have two rows of teeth and six fingers on each hand. I won't go into the Bible part of these strange giants, but I find it strange all the tribes of the earth have legend about them?

Citations, please - not only for the skulls, but for the idea that "all the tribes of the earth" have legends about them.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Assuming you feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion, how do you do so?

Please note: If you do not feel a need to reconcile the fact and theory of evolution with your religion because you believe that one, the other, or both are wrong, that's fine, but this is simply not the thread for discussing whether or not those two things are wrong. So please, start your own thread if you wish to discuss what's wrong with either the fact or theory of evolution.

I do not believe that the Biblical world and the natural world coincide yet I believe both. This seems like a conundrum but it only increases my faith. I've found that faith in God has enriched my life in ways that cannot be found elsewhere.

 

[viole]

I do not believe that the Biblical world and the natural world coincide yet I believe both. This seems like a conundrum but it only increases my faith. I've found that faith in God has enriched my life in ways that cannot be found elsewhere.

If X enriches lives, that does not entail that X is true. Actually, if it does enrich lives, without additional independent evidence of being true, then it is likely not true.

Ciao

- viole