• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

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.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
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.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
 
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.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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."
 
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

Active Member
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.
 
Top