• 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!

Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

Troublemane

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
jcmasters said:
I've come to the conclusion that evolution does not follow the scientific method in that one can only assume or infer an event that cannot have been observed.
The idea that, somehow, we evolved from amino acids in a soup billions of years ago is so laughably improbable I wonder why anyone takes it seriously. (In fact, I kick myself for previously believing such.)

But that brings us to the Genesis creation account.
Bear in mind that Moses is the author of Genesis, and Jesus himself attested to the veracity of the old testament, Genesis included. Moses got his information from God directly on the top of Mt. Sinai, so if what he wrote was doubtful or incorrect, 40 days and 40 nights was plenty of time to raise his hand to ask for clarification.
So, the logical conclusion would be that either the Genesis account of creation is true, or God is frankly a bold faced liar.
Click to expand...

Lol, yes if you believe that God told Moses literally that is what happened, the only problem with this is the fact that the genesis myth was taken directly from the babylonian account, and most of the stories from genesis are from other folklore passed down long before moses. also the gensis story was not given to moses on mt sinai, that's just what people who werent there say happened, its not in the bible but is part of folk lore also.

belief that the bible or any other religious authority has jurisdiction over science may be the really laughable thing. not attacking you personally, i hope to make that clear.

The fact is that anyone can just use the bible as proof for anything they want to believe in without any factual back-up, and this is just a dodge for intellectual honesty. evolution is a fact, backed up with dna/the human genome project, etc. we dont have the particulars yet, but science is continually progressing and will some day find the mechanism of evolution/adaption. which may indeed be an event to be scared of, but thats another topic....

evolution isnt just mutation or genetic drift, its also sexual selection and natural selection. its such a huge field, so complicated its foolhardy to try and make a comparison between "creationism" (which is totally not science) and evolutionary theory (which gets derided for being called a theory--but thats what makes science great: a theory is just a neutral statement that helps explain the facts, you just modify your theory as more facts come in). creationism starts and begins with one assertion "the bible is factually true" and all facts are perverted to fit this assumption.

Anyone can of course believe what they want to believe, but the earth was once thought flat (science proved it isnt), the earth once was believed to be the center of the solar system (its not), the universe was thought to only be this solar system and some few stars in the sky (its not, there are billions of galaxies)....and so the march of science in the face of erroneous beliefs continues.
 
Troublemane

Troublemane

Well-Known Member
...oh! as to the question originally posted...YES i believe in both God and evolution, but my view is that God is one with all existence, so God is not separate from the cosmos dispassionately controlling things like a symphony or puppeteer. I see the divine being as being the process of continual creation itself. I mean what does a creator do after the creating is done? ---its never done! creation has to continue, or the cosmos would simply start to die.
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Evolution is not compatible with a belief in god, as Dawkins explained in the "God Delusion". But, then, a lot of things are not compatible with a belief in a god.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
logician said:
Evolution is not compatible with a belief in god, as Dawkins explained in the "God Delusion". But, then, a lot of things are not compatible with a belief in a god.
Click to expand...
Richard Dawkins represents one possible metaphysical interpretation of the natural sciences. It is perfectly valid interpretation and one that I personally happen to agree with. But it is not the only possible metaphysical interpretation.
 
kiwimac

kiwimac

Brother Napalm of God's Love
I disagree WRT Evolution and theistic belief being incompatible. A recent article I wrote seems germane here:

As a Christian living today there are a number of voices who claim to be speaking for all of us, they assail science and insist that we must literally accept every word in the Bible as true. In doing so they fail both themselves and others for much in the Bible is parable or metaphor.

When we, as Christians, insist that parable must be accepted as literally true we put a stumbling block of, well, biblical proportions in the way of earnest seekers.It is for such seekers that I write this article.

Should you happen to visit the Answers in Genesis site you will find, among other things the following comment,"... We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened..."

But are they right?Modern science shows that the earth is billions of years in age, it comes to this conclusion in a number of ways and I recommend the following site for information even a non-scientist can understand, The Age of the Earth .

Is there then a meeting place between science and the Book of Genesis? Yes, there is and it comes from the understanding that Genesis is not a science text-book, that it was written in order to understand, not HOW the world came to be but WHY. Genesis 1 & 2 are parables, they are parables about why there is an earth, why humans and animals and plants share it in common and why there is pain and suffering in the world.

Parables are stories which may or may not be literally true but which imparts to us an important spiritual truth. In the New Testament we have parables such as the Good Samaritan, the evil vine-dressers; the parable of the prodigal son. None of these New Testament stories are literal fact but they are true in a deeper, more meaningful way. So it is with the parables of Genesis 1 & 2. In them we are not being told that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago. We are, however, being told that the world was created by God's intention, that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that God is a close to us as a friend who walks and talks with us in the cool of the day.

Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Serpent, Noah and his Ark may or may not be literal truth but they are markers of ultimate truth, of truth which can be held only in the imagination, of truth which can only be shown in images and symbols. Genesis can only be understood in that it is our story, each of us is Adam, each of us is Eve, we misunderstand the Genesis parables when we fail to realize that they are addressed to US individually.

Genesis, then, is our unique, individual story told as parable it is not some pre-sscientific attempt to explain how all things came to be but rather a profound series of meditations on why things should be in the first place. Once we realize this, we can see there are no contradictions, can be no contradictions between the findings of science and God's word to us in Genesis. We Christians need to give up our insistence on a literal Genesis and seek the deeper, foundational, religious truths that await us there.
Click to expand...
 
T

The Great Architect

Active Member
In a way, it is a moot point. People who are single-minded, 100%, down the line, evolutionists -- generally, don't believe in God.

Similarly, theists, who want to believe that God set the evolutionary process in motion, cannot adopt the hardline approach of someone like Charles Darwin; because they wish to incorporate both beliefs into their own view of the universe.

You can have your cake, and eat it, too. But the approach of the theist, will never be the same as someone who is 100% pro-evolution.
 
Popeyesays

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Well we will never truly understand the nature of the Creator because we are part of Creation.

That counts for both the "science" approach and the "spiritual" approach. Both eyes see the same universe.

Regards,
Scott
 
ChristineES

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
We can accept certain aspects of evolution without accepting everything about it. Just as we can accept certain aspects of anything else.
 
Jeremy Mason

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
With the exception of birds coming before land animals and the literal interpretation of God creating the heavens and earth in 7-24 hour days, I think that the steps of Creationism and Evolution follow the same steps.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
The Great Architect said:
In a way, it is a moot point. People who are single-minded, 100%, down the line, evolutionists -- generally, don't believe in God.
Click to expand...
*sigh* I get tired of repeating this. Evolution is not a belief system. There are no evolutionists. Evolution is a scientific theory. Those who accept science and its findings accept it, whether theist or atheist. Those who put religious "knowledge" above scientific knowledge, and whose literal religious texts contradict it, reject it.

Similarly, theists, who want to believe that God set the evolutionary process in motion, cannot adopt the hardline approach of someone like Charles Darwin; because they wish to incorporate both beliefs into their own view of the universe.
Click to expand...
Darwin was a scientist, who developed a scientific theory, which turned out to be correct. He was not some kind of philosophical radical.

ou can have your cake, and eat it, too. But the approach of the theist, will never be the same as someone who is 100% pro-evolution.
Click to expand...
Which is why people like Dr. Kenneth Miller (and many others like him) don't exist.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
ChristineES said:
We can accept certain aspects of evolution without accepting everything about it. Just as we can accept certain aspects of anything else.
Click to expand...
Well, on what basis? If you think the data supports one portion and not another, O.K. But as to the scientific method, you either accept it or you don't. If you think that ToE is consistent with and supported by the data, then you accept it. You don't get to reject the parts that you think contradict your religious texts. Do you feel like you have a good understanding of what ToE is and says? What "part" do you reject?
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
The Great Architect said:
But the approach of the theist, will never be the same as someone who is 100% pro-evolution.
Click to expand...

ChristineES said:
We can accept certain aspects of evolution without accepting everything about it.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that. I mean, I understand that many theists don't accept evolution, but there's no real reason a Christian couldn't or shouldn't simply accept the science for what it is. I've known Christians who do. Theistic evolution isn't really a separate theory; it's just a theistic meditation on the science of evolution.

The book I always recommend for theists who are struggling with evolution is Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth R. Miller. Miller is a believing Christian, and the book is an excellent explanation of why Christians need not be afraid of the implications of evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top