That's why I suggested symbolism.
-
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!
Why can not religious beliefs and theory of evolution go hand in hand?
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I, like many other people, believe in God, and also accept evolution. I see no conflict.
They do as far as I know. God created evolution. And so we evolved but humans were always a distinct species. I dont believe in migration of species and there is no link to prove it.
We change from the embryo to many other forms within the womb and then outside it again we grow and continue to change form until adulthood. But all along we are still the same human species.
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
It's not that ToE is mis-understood or at fault. It's that Creationism is.
I believe in both completely, because I understand both.
No, I'm not anyone special, I just know: The Physical =/= The Spiritual
The Guf (the Body) had to be made first, by physical processes to make a suitable vessel for the Neshama (the Soul)
Nimos
Well-Known Member
They are related and we might eventually have a theory that covers both of them.
But there is a different between these and what we are talking about. To use an extremely simplified example.
We can imagine a child building a castle out of Lego blocks and we can see how it evolves as they add/remove blocks, but despite us being able to track the child doing this from start to finish, it doesn't tell us where the actual Lego blocks came from or how they were created.
In my experience, people who think that
- evolution happened, and
- evolution unfolded according to their god's design
... don't actually understand evolution that well.
Some implications of evolution:
- if God was involved in the creation of life at all, he had no significant effect after abiogenesis.
- the history of life is a long series of dice rolls. Life was not designed. If things were repeated from our initial starting conditions, we'd end up with a very different result.
Do you really accept these implications? If so, what role - if any - do you see in the creation of life?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Im sorry but that explanation doesn't seem like someone having an understanding, but rather a belief.
I can understand what you are saying, I do however not believe that it is correct.
As far as we have been able to demonstrate, there is no such thing as a spirit or spiritual world like that of a physical world, if at all. Could it exist? Sure.. but it still haven't been demonstrated.
So there is a lot of questions that need to be answered, before I think anyone can claim to have an understanding of something like that, and not merely call it their believe.
Even as you write here...: The Guf (the Body) had to be made first, by physical processes to make a suitable vessel for the Neshama (the Soul) if we assume that it is true, it doesn't logically follow that the body would have to be made first. Maybe the souls already exists and just fly into a body whenever it is available and that this just happens at random.
Given that we can't demonstrate the soul exist, let alone enters a body, who creates them, if they are even created, what purpose they have, are they good or simply parasites.
Even if we were to grant that souls exist, nothing is known about them or what or how they function. So at this point we would simply be shooting all over the place with ideas and wishful thinking, or assume that the source of whatever is said about souls is correct, without any way to verify it.
That is why things need to be demonstrated, if they are not, they are simply useless, besides them maybe having a personal value for someone.
Its not.
So since God created evolution then God is accountable for how defects in genes evolved. So when a child is diagnosed with a genetic disorder or disease we look to ask God why it created this phenomenon, especially as it causes pain, suffering, and death of children. Explain why you think God did this.
What forms are you referring to? You didn't mention zygote as a phase, oversight?
There is nothing to "misunderstand" about creationism because it presents a false scenario about reality. It is also a deliberate attempt to distort and misrepresent science to gullible believers. What is to be understood about creationism is that it is fraud.
Could it be: physical = real, spiritual = imaginary.
Where are all these souls before they are put into a body?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I am one who believes they both do go hand in hand. All it takes is the right science perspective and certain accepted theories to see this.
For example, the bible talks about the creation of the universe occurring in day one. However, the bible does not go into the details at the level of particle physics. This details were left for science to figure out. The bible starts the analysis as a formless void and evolves until; Let there be light. It begins with a void, then consolidated energy, matter condensation, then expansion. Genesis does not dwell on the details both before and after. This would be left for science to answer. Both can work together; outline and then fill in the colors.
The bible has creation happening about 6000 years ago. While science says the universe is 15 billion years old and evolved slowly over time. The question is how do you deal with this huge time discrepancy? One way to resolve this has to do with relativity. Einstein discovered that references are relative. Two frames of reference can see the same thing, but in different ways. This is quantified by General and Special Relativity.
For God to make the universe in one day, but science claims day one took say 1 billion years or so can be resolved with the concept of the relativity of reference. Our earth reference did not exist at the time of the BB. The universe was smaller and denser and the average space-time reference frame was far more distance and time dilated. Science uses a reference; modern earth, that did not exist back then. It is used for convenience, but it is not valid for that exact time frame. It has time moving way too fast so early in the universe. The actual numbers are too inflated to reflect only references that existed in historical realty.
If God, during the earliest part of universe creation, was in a reference close to the speed of light, 1 billions years today may seem like a day in his highly time dilated reference. One explanation for the discrepancy in time, is God was being true to his actual reference needed for creation from a singularity, while science uses a convenient earth reference that did not yet exist that far back. The bible anticipated the paradoxes of relativity. The left hand of science does not appears to remember what its right hand said about time dilation and references.
Conversely if we use the relativistic reference for God's frame of reference, starting at the speed of light and slowing, 6000 years would have been based on God's reference slowing from the speed of light. This would add to 15 billion in an imaginary earth reference, that would have existed from day one. We can translate from both ways to make both consistent; God reference versus earth reference.
The 6000 year ago estimate appears to align with a science discovery; invention of writing. This simple invention would change human nature and form a new type of modern human; civilization appears. Picture going to school with writing not yet invented. There is no blackboards, tablets or books to study. It is only word of mouth. In this case, memory will fade and different people will recall the past differently. After halt one would return to natural propensities.
Once writing appears ideas can linger in memory for ages, since there is a way to refresh memory with a reliable source carved in stone. This creates a mixed blessing. It can be used to help record the data from science, history and commerce. However, writing down temporal laws or temporal knowledge of good and evil could allow bad laws and idea to linger way too long; as it is written so it shall be done. This lingering of bad information, such as about natural instinct versus will power created repression from which the natural human brain would transcend into the first modern humans. Adam was formed from dust of the earth; dust from chiseling stone writings. In the beginning was the word; God. This was the first word using the new invention.
If you look at modern times; the internet and computers, phones and tablets are making humans more dependent on electronic sensory input, compared to age old natural sensory input. This will cause a change in the brain that may make us less natural and more virtual. This modern change is only about 20 or so years deep; since maybe Windows 98. But the change is already apparent as conformity to alternate reality. It may not have taken that long for writing to make its mark ion human nature.
It's more likely that the creation myth of 7 days represents the Babylonian week that was created by them in the 21st century BC. I find it humorous that believers work very hard trying to impose a new interpretation onto this myth using modern science. None of this is in the Bible itself.
No, it was Bishop Ussher who used Bible stories to try to pinpoint the date of creation, which was something like 4100 BC. Of course there are older settlements and cultures that existed before this, so it's not true. Even creationists have noticed they can't make this work and have pushed creation back to about 10,000 years. But whats the point of YEC if Ussher isn't right? This illustrates how believers trying to make the Bible seem significant and correct is fool's errand.
LOL, why not just admit the Bible stories are not literal?
They can be compatible, if you relax God’s requirement to be benevolent and with a clear will in His mind.
Therefore, since Christians believe that their God is benevolent, and knows what He wants, i believe they are right to consider their belief at odds with evolution by natural selection.
ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
The Bible does not teach molecules-to-man theory. It doesn't teach it with any fanciful stretching of the imagination. Genesis 1:27 says "And Yahweh created man in his own image, in the image of Yahweh created he him; male and female created he them." Yahweh didn't wait millions of years to wait for Adam and Eve to be evolved. Why would He do that? It's ridiculous. Yahweh created all things within a 7-day week and he created man in His image. Evolutionists want to recreate creation in their own image, sadly.
We believe the individual is born at conception.
We do not know exactly, only we know that the soul or spirit is unharmed regardless of the defects and that God more than adequately compensates the child and parents in ways only He can. This compilation is a good resource to answer your question. Section 3.6 touches on birth defects.
https://bahai-library.com/pdf/k/khoshmashrab_child_mine.pdf
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
Put it this way, gravity is also 'just a theory'
There's Newton's gravity, and there's Einstein's gravity and there's this new Quantum Gravity.
But you can still fall off a ladder and break your leg.
Same with evolution - there's various MECHANISMS involved, but we know it happens - just
look at how the Covid virus evolves.
Sir Joseph
Member
Although I've read a few agreeable statements here about the incompatibility between evolution and creation, there doesn't seem to be a true Bible believing Christian perspective here which is warranted. One needn't agree with my biblical beliefs in order to respect this answer to Seeker of White Light's questions.
First, "creation" can be interpreted as a vague term so I'll stipulate that my use of the word refers to the Bible's Genesis account of God's supernatural creation.
Second, "evolution" can be interpreted as a vague term so I'll stipulate that my use of the word refers to macroevolutionary theory, post Darwinianism, or the common biological evolutionary view today that all life came from non-life and evolved over millions of years from one species into the various ones of today via chance processes of mutation. It is imperative to understand that this (macro) evolution theory by definition is a naturalistic process; supernatural processes are necessarily excluded. (And though some may disagree, I think that the origin of the universe and building blocks for life must be considered as part of the evolutionary model. Thus, evolution is dependent upon the current big bang model - though its constantly changing.)
Given these two definitions, let me first say that several good studies show that both believers and non-believers are on the evolution side of the fence. Since the mid 1900's, our educational system, media, and secular trending culture has succeeded in convincing the majority of Americans (and probably the world) that evolution is a scientific fact.
Christians, Catholics, and others have reconciled their belief in creation with evolution by accepting the long ages and evolving processes, but have inserted a supernatural force (God) into the process - what we call theistic evolution.
Those who believe in theistic evolution don't understand evolution. You can't have a naturalistic process being orchestrated supernaturally. That's a contradiction. Nor can you have disorderly chance processes being ordered by an intelligent designer. That's another contradiction. The whole purpose and intent of evolutionary theory is to explain the origin and evolvement of life without a supernatural force, god, or creator. Any attempt to combine the two is irrational.
Christians, Catholics, and others who's faith foundations rest upon the Bible have another problem with theistic evolution. It counters the Genesis creation account - specifically in time frames (6000 yrs vs 13.7 billion), order of events (creation of earth first vs stars), species creation (each according to their kind vs a tree of evolving life), and other numerous details. It also counters the Noahic flood account - specifically requiring a regional flood and uniformitarian geologic processes vs a global flood and catastrophic geologic processes. Finally, it counters the words of Jesus, Peter, Luke, and Paul who cited the Genesis creation and flood accounts as historical events.
I haven't addressed the scientific evidence for creation vs evolution yet, nor would I expect anyone here to be receptive to my attempts to do so. But, to address the question of whether the Bible's creation account in Genesis is compatible with current evolutionary theory? The only way it can be done is to disregard the clear text of Genesis. This is what believers are doing today who accept evolutionary teaching, not understanding that it undermines the authority of the Bible - the very foundation of their faith - and derides Jesus and the Apostles as liars or mistaken. Ironically, they'll accept a supernatural virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus which has no scientific evidence of possibility, while denying the supernatural creation and flood account which has substantial scientific evidence of probability.
To those who want to believe in God and the Bible, you might start by respecting God's word over man's word. With that intention and an open heart, a study of creationism vs evolution from Christian apologetic sources will reveal that the former is actually far more compatible with science than the latter. I wouldn't expect any atheist to accept this notion, but any theist should consider it carefully. The evidence for a supernatural Creator is obvious just by looking up at the night sky or studying DNA and biological systems. This Creator has made himself known through the Bible unlike any other religion in the world. I'd encourage everyone to seek and invite him into your heart.
First, "creation" can be interpreted as a vague term so I'll stipulate that my use of the word refers to the Bible's Genesis account of God's supernatural creation.
Second, "evolution" can be interpreted as a vague term so I'll stipulate that my use of the word refers to macroevolutionary theory, post Darwinianism, or the common biological evolutionary view today that all life came from non-life and evolved over millions of years from one species into the various ones of today via chance processes of mutation. It is imperative to understand that this (macro) evolution theory by definition is a naturalistic process; supernatural processes are necessarily excluded. (And though some may disagree, I think that the origin of the universe and building blocks for life must be considered as part of the evolutionary model. Thus, evolution is dependent upon the current big bang model - though its constantly changing.)
Given these two definitions, let me first say that several good studies show that both believers and non-believers are on the evolution side of the fence. Since the mid 1900's, our educational system, media, and secular trending culture has succeeded in convincing the majority of Americans (and probably the world) that evolution is a scientific fact.
Christians, Catholics, and others have reconciled their belief in creation with evolution by accepting the long ages and evolving processes, but have inserted a supernatural force (God) into the process - what we call theistic evolution.
Those who believe in theistic evolution don't understand evolution. You can't have a naturalistic process being orchestrated supernaturally. That's a contradiction. Nor can you have disorderly chance processes being ordered by an intelligent designer. That's another contradiction. The whole purpose and intent of evolutionary theory is to explain the origin and evolvement of life without a supernatural force, god, or creator. Any attempt to combine the two is irrational.
Christians, Catholics, and others who's faith foundations rest upon the Bible have another problem with theistic evolution. It counters the Genesis creation account - specifically in time frames (6000 yrs vs 13.7 billion), order of events (creation of earth first vs stars), species creation (each according to their kind vs a tree of evolving life), and other numerous details. It also counters the Noahic flood account - specifically requiring a regional flood and uniformitarian geologic processes vs a global flood and catastrophic geologic processes. Finally, it counters the words of Jesus, Peter, Luke, and Paul who cited the Genesis creation and flood accounts as historical events.
I haven't addressed the scientific evidence for creation vs evolution yet, nor would I expect anyone here to be receptive to my attempts to do so. But, to address the question of whether the Bible's creation account in Genesis is compatible with current evolutionary theory? The only way it can be done is to disregard the clear text of Genesis. This is what believers are doing today who accept evolutionary teaching, not understanding that it undermines the authority of the Bible - the very foundation of their faith - and derides Jesus and the Apostles as liars or mistaken. Ironically, they'll accept a supernatural virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus which has no scientific evidence of possibility, while denying the supernatural creation and flood account which has substantial scientific evidence of probability.
To those who want to believe in God and the Bible, you might start by respecting God's word over man's word. With that intention and an open heart, a study of creationism vs evolution from Christian apologetic sources will reveal that the former is actually far more compatible with science than the latter. I wouldn't expect any atheist to accept this notion, but any theist should consider it carefully. The evidence for a supernatural Creator is obvious just by looking up at the night sky or studying DNA and biological systems. This Creator has made himself known through the Bible unlike any other religion in the world. I'd encourage everyone to seek and invite him into your heart.
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Before the Renaissance, the majority of Western Christians believed in the Genesis story literally and believed in something called "Spontaneous Generation" where the hand of God would come down to create life out of nothing. Even major scientific and philosophical figures like Isaac Newton and John Dee supported these concepts; to reject their reality would have been considered borderline blasphemy.
Then we discovered deep time and disproved spontaneous generation. This turned a lot of scientists and philosophers into Deists. Maybe Genesis wasn't completely literal, was the thought, but we still know that something created life with various purposes. Why else would the beak of a seagull so perfectly capture its prey? How else could a spider be perfectly designed to capture insects? Where else could something as complex as an eyeball appear, something that even no human could replicate?
Then, with the Theory of Evolution, we finally disproved the last remaining evidence for a Creator God. Deism turned to outright atheism as we slowly realized that, not only is God completely unnecessary to explain the natural world now, but there isn't any scientific evidence for a Creator at all.
Then we discovered deep time and disproved spontaneous generation. This turned a lot of scientists and philosophers into Deists. Maybe Genesis wasn't completely literal, was the thought, but we still know that something created life with various purposes. Why else would the beak of a seagull so perfectly capture its prey? How else could a spider be perfectly designed to capture insects? Where else could something as complex as an eyeball appear, something that even no human could replicate?
Then, with the Theory of Evolution, we finally disproved the last remaining evidence for a Creator God. Deism turned to outright atheism as we slowly realized that, not only is God completely unnecessary to explain the natural world now, but there isn't any scientific evidence for a Creator at all.