Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[fantome profane]

A belief in God doesn't prevent someone from affirming evolution by natural selection. But mixing the two doesn't improve either.

I agree, but that wasn’t the question. The question was “is it possible to believe in both “God” and evolution?” And obviously it is, many people do so. The question of whether it is advantageous to believe in both is a very different question.

But I also see no advantage in trying to convince people that they must abandon their religion if they wish to embrace science. Most people if forced to choose between their “God” and evolution will not choose evolution, regardless of the evidence.


And we should also note that this is assuming we are talking about a “creator god”, which is what most people who believe in “God” believe in. But if we were to talk about a “created god” or and entity that evolved like everything else, then your skyhook objection is no longer relevant.

 

[Escéptico]

The question was “is it possible to believe in both “God” and evolution?” And obviously it is, many people do so. The question of whether it is advantageous to believe in both is a very different question.

That's not what I meant at all.

Believing in God and affirming the theory of evolution by natural selection aren't mutually exclusive. But trying to push God into evolution by way of 'theistic evolution' isn't affirming Darwin's theory at all.

 

[Yerda]

That's not what I meant at all.

Believing in God and affirming the theory of evolution by natural selection aren't mutually exclusive. But trying to push God into evolution by way of 'theistic evolution' isn't affirming Darwin's theory at all.

What do you take 'God' to mean?

 

[fantome profane]

That's not what I meant at all.

Believing in God and affirming the theory of evolution by natural selection aren't mutually exclusive. But trying to push God into evolution by way of 'theistic evolution' isn't affirming Darwin's theory at all.

Well the belief in “theistic evolution” should not be considered to be science or scientific. Evolution is a scientific theory. “Theistic evolution” is a metaphysical idea. As long as that is clear there should be no problem.

It has been my experience that it is not those who believe in “theistic evolution” who are trying to push their idea of “God” into science.

 

[Da Troof]

Answer........YES...........people do..................BUT,

here is the big big BUT,

If you believe in God and in evolution you are believing in things that are incompatible. Of course if you believe in God at all you must be able to ignore all sense of reason so why not believe in evolution too?
Come to think about it why not believe in a Christian God, Allah, reincarnation, and that my aunt Hilda knitted the whole universe from a few left over bits of wool all at the same time? It makes just as much sense as believing in God at all.

 

[Escéptico]

If you believe in God and in evolution you are believing in things that are incompatible.

They're not always incompatible concepts. It's just that certain definitions of God conflict with an understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The more active one's God is in Nature, either as a Creator forming species out of dust or a loving Father who cares for His creations, the less compatible the concept is with the reality of the mutation-selection process.

 

[Da Troof]

They're not always incompatible concepts. It's just that certain definitions of God conflict with an understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The more active one's God is in Nature, either as a Creator forming species out of dust or a loving Father who cares for His creations, the less compatible the concept is with the reality of the mutation-selection process.

ER NO! Belief in God is not compatible with any proper science. Many more words can be written about this, but that is Da Troof. If you think otherwise you just haven't thought about it enough.

 

[Magic Man]

ER NO! Belief in God is not compatible with any proper science. Many more words can be written about this, but that is Da Troof. If you think otherwise you just haven't thought about it enough.

What is incompatible about believing God created the universe, and then let things evolve just as the theory of evolution says? In that case, there is a God, and there is evolution.

 

[Michel07]

ER NO! Belief in God is not compatible with any proper science. Many more words can be written about this, but that is Da Troof. If you think otherwise you just haven't thought about it enough.

This is an opinion that is false to Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, the " father of modern genetics" Gregor Mendel and Owen Gingerich, Professor Emeritus of History of Science and Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Harvard University to name only a few. Just who hasn't given it much thought?

 

[camanintx]

Do you think it is possible to believe in both evolution and God/creationism.

At Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, apparently not.

Begley: Can God Love Darwin, Too? | Newsweek Voices - Sharon Begley | Newsweek.com

 

[logician]

Belief in a god THAT TAKES AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THE UNIVERSE and belief in evolution are certainly incompatible. One can believe in a first cause god I suppose and evolution, but that god left the scene long ago.

 

[Michel07]

Belief in a god THAT TAKES AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THE UNIVERSE and belief in evolution are certainly incompatible. One can believe in a first cause god I suppose and evolution, but that god left the scene long ago.

Your view is certainly applicable if you have a very narrow concept of God and a huge concept of your own deductive logic.

 

[Escéptico]

Your view is certainly applicable if you have a very narrow concept of God and a huge concept of your own deductive logic.

Technically, empirical evidential inquiry is based on the principles of INductive, not DEductive, reasoning.

 

[Michel07]

Technically, empirical evidential inquiry is based on the principles of INductive, not DEductive, reasoning.

As I have pointed out before there are too many brilliant scientists who were and are believers for me muse the notion that atheists can claim science and logic for themselves.

 

[fantome profane]

At Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, apparently not.

Begley: Can God Love Darwin, Too? | Newsweek Voices - Sharon Begley | Newsweek.com

I’m not sure I understand the controversy on this one. Am I missing something? Was there something specific that he was teaching in his general biology class that caused him to be removed? Or was he removed from this position just because he wrote the book?

I have been a strong proponent of evolution and of scientific education, and I feel strongly that creationism or intelligent design has no place in public schools. But this is a university. This is where wacky ideas should be explored. University students should be intelligent enough and educated enough to rip apart any lecture by a professor that involves creationism/i.d. And any university student that feels they are not getting a sufficient scientific education in biology should just leave and enroll in a better university. But from what I have read this guy doesn’t even seem to be promoting anything like intelligent design or scientific creationism. He is simply stating his belief that “God” created using evolution. I don’t agree with his position, but it seems to be a position that is inline with the philosophy of the university where he taught.


So what is the issue here? Are we really saying that anyone who holds the views that Richard Colling holds is disqualified from teaching biology? Are we going to ban all Christians or all theists from teaching science?


Again I ask, am I missing something here? Please if I am I hope somebody here can fill me in.

 

[Escéptico]

As I have pointed out before there are too many brilliant scientists who were and are believers for me muse (sic) the notion that atheists can claim science and logic for themselves.

Did anyone ever say that believers weren't welcome to do science?

The point is that Newton and Pasteur, whatever their religious beliefs, never proposed supernatural or theistic mechanisms to explain natural phenomena. This is the advantage of methodological naturalism: anyone of any philosophical or religious bent can use the principles of scientific inquiry to test theoretical models of material reality.

 

[Michel07]

Did anyone ever say that believers weren't welcome to do science?

The point is that Newton and Pasteur, whatever their religious beliefs, never proposed supernatural or theistic mechanisms to explain natural phenomena. This is the advantage of methodological naturalism: anyone of any philosophical or religious bent can use the principles of scientific inquiry to test theoretical models of material reality.

The difference here is that I consider religion to be metaphysical science and its intrinsic intangibleness ( in some of its dimensions) do not limit it to methodological naturalism for the arrival of conclusions. As Owen Gingerich Professor Emeritus of the History of Science and P.E. of Astronomy once said "Divine revelation comes through the human mind from God."
In any case, Pasteur, Newton ,Einstein etc. did not refer to theistic mechanisms to explain natural phenomena because the natural was already a part of their religous beliefs within the context of creation. Not everyone finds science and religion incompatible and they did not.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Entropy says that things go from organized to chaos and scientist now say the universe will go cold and expand into nothingness. So entropy/chaos wins in this universe. However, universe has a degree of engineering that fueled not only the existence of the universe but the curiosity of scientists such as Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, etc. Now I believe that God used evolution to manifest creation and science, to those scientists , was the study of how God did it. But this was not to refute miracles or the existence of God.

 

[Michel07]

Entropy says that things go from organized to chaos and scientist now say the universe will go cold and expand into nothingness. So entropy/chaos wins in this universe. However, universe has a degree of engineering that fueled not only the existence of the universe but the curiosity of scientists such as Pasteur, Newton, Einstein, etc. Now I believe that God used evolution to manifest creation and science, to those scientists , was the study of how God did it. But this was not to refute miracles or the existence of God.

Hi , Besides the very claim "God does not exist" implys knowledge of God ..isn't that humorous?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Hi , Besides the very claim "God does not exist" implys knowledge of God ..isn't that humorous?

Well, I wouldn't go as far as to say that because if atheist/agnostic people truly knew God there wouldn't be atheist/agnostic people. I think their problem is with religion and all the mishaps that it has caused and to that extent I can understand there apprehension. But there are people who have experienced miracles and still refuse to acknowledge the possibility of some divine source and that I find terribly humours.