I do. That's pretty much the history of the universe since it began expanding. It generated filaments of galaxies of solar systems.
I don't know to what you refer.
-
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 there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?
- Thread starter anotherneil
- Start date
Yes, ever since the universe began expanding (stretching out) - Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 B
How but by God's great Power and Strength - Isaiah 40:26 - God sending forth His abundant dynamic energy - Psalm 104:30
Stick around and then we will find out more after the end of Jesus' 1000 year reign over Earth -1st Cor, 15:25-28
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
This is off-topic religious belief stuff, and has nothing to do with reasons for rejecting the science of evolution. It doesn't cure illnesses, or even put food on my plate.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
In my opinion, not all religion gives a valid view of reality. But that is the nature of the game. Not every religion can be valid in reflecting reality. Especially those that diametrically appose one another in some fashion.
A common misconception about religion is that it must, by its very nature, be apposed to science. This is incorrect. In Christianity for instance religion reflects a reality which includes science which mankind has been fashioned to be able to use as a tool to survive, thrive, and discover certain aspects concerning that reality.
Science from its beginnings was never meant to be in conflict with religious belief except that some ignorant people promoted it as so.
Religion doesn't supersede science. On the contrary, the modern scientific method budded from a foundation of religious beliefs.
Science is a tool. Religion is an experience. The hammer was never meant to be the carpenter nor the carpenter the hammer yet the two were meant to complement each other in building a picture of reality. The hammer can do nothing of its own accord nor know reality. The carpenter cannot build a proper house without the hammer though the carpenter can "appreciate" reality which the hammer cannot do. Appreciation of reality IS a religious experience.
One thing that has been discovered about that reality through science is that as we approach what we think is the most fundamental levels of reality we find science behaving more like a religion being founded more on faith than fact. I think that might be because reality supersedes what the hammer can build but in appreciating that fact the carpenter has gone beyond what the hammer can do.
I don't think you can take scripture too literally where scripture is meant to be literal.
Many people forget that scripture as a whole is much much more than merely literal.
God speaks to the mind of humans but also to our hearts. Where the rational speaks to our condition the poet speaks to our reality.
You mean like a boy evolving into a man? Or a crack evolving into a crevice which evolves into a crevasse? That kind of evolution?
I was unaware that evolution has been used to develop medicines or treatments for illness. Can you elaborate on this?
Give me a for instance from scripture that you think has been taken too literally. Appreciate the inputs from you.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Since scientists have worked out the shocking odds of this universe being so accommodating to life as we know it for instance I'm not sure why you think how the universe formed is a demonstrated counterpoint to what Hockeycowboy is getting at?
Your basically saying that since we are here and I'm a naturalist, that fact is a demonstration of how random processes created conformity out of chaos because there is no alternative even though that's just an unproven opinion. Why not go with the math and say that, that is pretty unlikely?
Astrophile
Active Member
Is the universe accommodating to life? Christians on these forums don't seem enthusiastic about the idea that extra-terrestrial life is abundant, or, to put it another way, that life may exist on any of the planets of the other 10^23 stars in the observable universe. Also, I am more impressed by the amazing diversity of stars and galaxies than by the evidence for extra-terrestrial life. One might almost think that the universe was created to accommodate the maximum variety of stars and galaxies rather than to be a home to living things.
leroy
Well-Known Member
It all depends on what you mean by evolution, some common definitions/(or ways to understand) for evolution are
1 organism change and adapt
2 common ancestry
3 complex organisms came from simpler organisms
4 the variety and complexity of life is mainly a consequence of the mechanisms of random variation + natural selection
The scientific consensus is that 1,2 and 3 are true beyond reasonable doubt…………..but there are good reasons to doubt “4”
Reject is a strong word………but Some reasons to doubt “4” are
1 the lack of conclusive evidence
2 the existence of other alternative mechanisms
3 the existence of obstacles that seem hard to overcome with these mechanisms alone
The universe is here. Arguments that it shouldn't be or that that is unlikely are interesting. In my experience, they usually are made to promote a god belief. If that's your purpose, you'll need to explain how a god hypothesis solves that problem. Gods are equally unlikely for the same reason.
I suspect that most cosmologists and quantum physicists would take issue with this formulation which, best I can tell, is little more than an appeal to some god-of-the-gaps.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
No question that this must be true...in some fashion.
My point is that given that the universe IS here and it seems to be here in a most unlikely form IF we assume just "natural" undirected processes but not if we assume directed (in some fashion) processes, then why have you chosen to view the universes creation in its most unlikely form?
Is it simply because you would rather disregard the "God hypothesis" than the "natural hypothesis" even though the latter is more unlikely mathematically?
Note: by referencing "God" I'm talking about some sort of sentient directed process being involved in creation. Not necessarily the Christian God for instance.
I'm not proving nor attempting to prove or necessarily promote anything here. I just find it fascinating that some prefer the more improbable over the less improbable just to remove any conditions which might involve sentient directives in the universes creation. Why is that do you think? Is it instinctual to some? Its certainly not scientific nor even rational if you go with the mathematically more probable.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Some perhaps...but those seem to me to be desperate. If you do a little research on what the founders of quantum physics up to contemporary physicists that are involved in new discoveries about the theory feel about it, you see a trend to towards the mystical when they attempt to describe what they are discovering about reality. Including that it seems to necessitate conscious interaction in its formulation.
I think the god-of-the-gaps phrase is a result of the ignorance and overzealousness of some to explain things they feel is true.
We shouldn't pour God into the ignorance science has yet to resolve. That's not the proper relationship between God and his creation. Science is a tool. Rational capability is something God has gifted mankind according to Christianity.
God is author of mans ignorance as well as his understanding.
God has created the solutions to our ignorance as well as given us the tools to get there. One of them being science. Science isn't pushing God out of the gaps every time it finds an explanation to a process. Rather it is testifying to the gifts God has given mankind to survive in and thrive in, and discover about the amazing things in his creation.
That is the proper Christian viewpoint anyway.
Last edited:
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I don't know about other Christians opinions. What I do know is that Christian scripture accommodates, mentions, and even requires the existence of advanced intelligent life beyond just the human.
There is no Christian qualms with assuming life to be abundant through the universe.
The "heavens" declare the glory of God and that includes the life we might find within it.
Your correct in a way but also missing half the recipe. The variety of amazing things we see in the heavens such as stars and galaxies are a result of the evolution of the universe which allows for the most unlikely accommodation of the life we know that exists within it. The two things are directly related. If they weren't precisely the way they were we wouldn't be here to marvel at them.
The observation of the way stars and galaxies are in this universe is a testament to the hidden processes which give us the mathematical improbabilities of them being that way in turn allowing life to be capable of existing the way it does.
Gods answer nothing. They are as unlikely to exist as universes. You're kicking the problem back from a universe to a god.
It's a logical error (special pleading) to apply an unjustified double standard for gods and universes. If one just looks at a cell or a universe and says, that's unlikely, he doesn't overcome that by positing an unlikely (for the same reasons) entity to account for it. Whatever the believer's reasons are for accepting that god unchallenged can be reasons to accept naturalism unchallenged. Whatever requirements he wants to subject nature to, he must subject his proposed deity to or give a reason why it should be exempted.
The usual reasons given are irrelevant:
- Because he's God
- Because he lives outside of time and space
- Because the laws of reason don't apply to their inventor.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
If the natural formation is of something so complex unlikely, just how is the formation of something sufficiently complex to do this unlikely thing.
And that is just the first turtle in Turtles all the way down.
Islam view is about creation,and mention on evolution too.
which mean both are true and parallel,life based on creation "blueprint"
Neither evolution nor religion puts food on your plate or cure illnesses
If I may briefly say we are all challenged that under the loss of physical health we would Not serve God
And a person who can work but does Not neither should he eat
However, Not so in the Bible because at Genesis 2:7 man did Not evolve but God formed or fashioned man from the existing ground
But The God of the Bible does inform.
What Power what Strength caused the Big Bang's start but according to Psalm 104:30 it was God's Power, His Strength - Isaiah 40:26
We find the 'answer as to what will happen' is when the powers in charge are saying. " Peace and Security...." that is the 'signal' when the political/military will Not bring Peace on Earth but will surprisingly turn on the religious world - 1st Thess. 5:2-3
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
That question depends on what makes something so complex, unlikely.
I think your mistaking complexity with probability. The probability of picking 1 blue ball out of ten red ones is the same no matter how complex or simple the balls themselves are.
Your simply asking what is the most probable sufficient cause of the formation of such complexity.
The answer is ...no one knows for sure. But the probability that natural undirected processes are sufficient to cause the formation of such complexity has been determined to be less - much, much less than the probability that some directed "unnatural" process is the sufficiency of the cause.
Why should it be that we were at one time willing to accept that the universe has just existed in eternal perpetuity eliminating "turtles all the way down" but we are not willing to accept the possibility of the same for what we call "God"? An eternal creator eliminates "turtles all the way day" just as sufficiently.
The buck stopping there so to speak.