If you believe in God AND evolution, why do you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

Later, folks. It's been interesting and thank you.

 

[sayak83]

Not necessarily.

Ok. I believe in Brahman (monistic ultimate Self of Hinduism) because of direct experience through meditation. My worldview is also not contrary to anything science has discovered about the world so far, including evolution.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Sure he does. It just reflects on his character.

If @Regiomontanus wants to leave readers of this thread with the impression that he's the sort of person who would randomly lash out at strangers with baseless, unprompted insults, that's up to him.

I am not taking your bait. I hope you have a most blessed day.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

As I have read, not all scientists agree with Darwin's theory, but they may believe in evolution, just not as Darwin thought lifeforms may have come about.

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but it is my assumption that no biologist today consider Darwin's contribution the final word regarding the Theory of Evolution. ToE is no longer Darwin's theory as it has developed well beyond his work. That is why it makes no sense to refer to Darwin when referencing the ToE as currently understood and studied, IMO.

It is my assumption, perhaps misguided, that anyone who wished to learn about and evaluate the ToE would base their evaluation and assessments on our current understanding of the theory and that the overwhelming consensus is that Evolution quite adequatly explains how we came to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not taking your bait.

I just finished saying how you have no obligation to respond.

I hope you have a most blessed day.

This would have come across as more sincere if you hadn't opened with an insult.

 

[Trailblazer]

Perhaps God created evolution.

That is exactly what I believe happened. I believe God set the process of evolution in motion and then it unfolded on its own.

 

[firedragon]

Be brave--and support your belief in God with reason, if possible, please. That is if you believe in evolution as well as in God.

There have been many very religious people who believed in evolution for a long long time.

Anyway, why would evolution mean the non-existence of God? Is not that a false dichotomy?

 

[firedragon]

ToE is no longer Darwin's theory as it has developed well beyond his work.

Theory of evolution was never Darwin's theory. It existed way before Darwin. It's a propagated phenomena to just say evolution referring to Darwin's theory.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is not the question. The question is, if you believe in God AND evolution, why do you believe in God? Do you understand the question?

I accept evolution as a scientific fact, I don't have to 'believe' in evolution.

I believe in God because of Baha'u'llah. That's the foundation of my belief.
I never believed in God before I was a Baha'i because I had no reason to believe in God.
God was just a word to me.

 

[Tamino]

Sorry, I can't get to everything right away, I apologize. Thank you for letting me know. I'll look for it asap.

Thx, sorry, I thought you were caught up on responses

By the way, Tamino is a character in a Mozart opera. As a person loving music, the name rings a bell with me.

I know, that's how I learned about it as well

 

[metis]

I'm not an evolutionary biologist but it is my assumption that no biologist today consider Darwin's contribution the final word regarding the Theory of Evolution. ToE is no longer Darwin's theory as it has developed well beyond his work. That is why it makes no sense to refer to Darwin when referencing the ToE as currently understood and studied, IMO.

It is my assumption, perhaps misguided, that anyone who wished to learn about and evaluate the ToE would base their evaluation and assessments on our current understanding of the theory and that the overwhelming consensus is that Evolution quite adequatly explains how we came to be.

And Darwin wasn't the first person to believe there was and is an evolutionary process. For example, it is intrinsic to Buddhism.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Theory of evolution was never Darwin's theory. It existed way before Darwin. It's a propagated phenomena to just say evolution referring to Darwin's theory.

Correct in that the idea of transmutation or evolution of species did not originate with Darwin. However, Darwin had developed a thesis or theory that provided a valid mechanism to explain how change in species occurred in the form of natural selection (concurrently with Alfred Russel Wallace). I think it is valid to refer specifically to his thesis or theory, which essentially dominated evolutionary thinking until his theory began to be synthesized with our growing understanding of genetics in the 20th century.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

And Darwin wasn't the first person to believe there was and is an evolutionary process. For example, it is intrinsic to Buddhism.

Wow. That is news to me. Could you reference where I might find the Buddha's teachings on biological evolution? I'm intrigued.

 

[metis]

Wow. That is news to me. Could you reference where I might find the Buddha's teachings on biological evolution? I'm intrigued.

The Buddhist concept of "impermanence", whereas all things tend to change over time.

Impermanence (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The Buddhist concept of "impermanence", whereas all things tend to change over time.

Impermanence (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may see that as relating to ideas of transmuting or evolving species and thus a valid precursor to the Theory of Evolution, but I, personally, find it a stretch.

 

[firedragon]

Correct in that the idea of transmutation or evolution of species did not originate with Darwin. However, Darwin had developed a thesis or theory that provided a valid mechanism to explain how change in species occurred in the form of natural selection (concurrently with Alfred Russel Wallace). I think it is valid to refer specifically to his thesis or theory, which essentially dominated evolutionary thinking until his theory began to be synthesized with our growing understanding of genetics in the 20th century.

Okay. But it's absurd to equate the theory of evolution to Darwin. Darwins theory is Darwins. And the developments after him add. That's all good, and I agree with your post.

 

[firedragon]

Correct in that the idea of transmutation or evolution of species did not originate with Darwin. However, Darwin had developed a thesis or theory that provided a valid mechanism to explain how change in species occurred in the form of natural selection (concurrently with Alfred Russel Wallace). I think it is valid to refer specifically to his thesis or theory, which essentially dominated evolutionary thinking until his theory began to be synthesized with our growing understanding of genetics in the 20th century.

Okay. But it's absurd to equate the theory of evolution to Darwin. Darwins theory is Darwins. And the developments after him add. That's all good, and I agree with your post.

 

[metis]

You may see that as relating to ideas of transmuting or evolving species and thus a valid precursor to the Theory of Evolution, but I, personally, find it a stretch.

Change appears to happen for a reason, and this is what the basic ToE says.

In my intro to anthro course, I used the term "mosaic evolution", which goes like this: "a species involves multiple subspecies, each evolving in their own way, only some of which may evolve into new species."

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Change appears to happen for a reason, and this is what the basic ToE says.

But the ToE is very specifically about species and whether and how they may change over time.

Given what you have provided, my take on it would be that the scientific ToE does not conflict with, or is at least compatible with Buddhist philosophy. But in evaluating whether Buddhist philosophy speaks directly to biological evolution, I have yet to see any reference to a specific Buddhist theory of Speciation with accompanying explanitory mechanisms. As such, I would not include it in a history of evolutionary thought.

 

[Pawpatrol]

As a matter of fact, I think it's more than the 'no evidence' idea, now that you mention it that some have for backup as to why they don't believe in God. (or gods) I think it's the multitude of different religions and their gods and how people worship that is/can be confusing. Therefore, since it may be so confusing for some, they figure (like I did) that there is no God.

I think they're just arrogant and don't want to believe. Or alternatively, they haven't received the message yet.