Why can not religious beliefs and theory of evolution go hand in hand?

[rational experiences]

The realisation is based on substance.

Science quotes the substance Gods...plural is not one.

Each substance is one type.

Science tries to extend science to a claim first God as substance.

The substance owning reason for any other substance to exist separately.

Spirit human conscious innate versus human theist scientist artificial choices to manipulate substance.

The exact reason.

As natural is present and present means first.

Your subject is a past that is not present. Which intelligence human says is a false human statement.

First is present first.

As equals equals equals.

Three term.

 

[Ella S.]

The sun is exactly positioned to support life on earth. A coincidence? Or did the sun say to the earth’ listen here earth, we need to keep a certain distance from each other or man can’t exist, so let’s do it’.

The Goldilocks Zone is massive and the earth isn't a constant distance away from the sun since its orbit is an oval, not a complete circle. The earth is also not the only planet in the solar system. We already have other planets that aren't the proper distance away from the sun but could have supported life, namely Venus and Mars.

Many other stars have planets around them, too, which don't support life. This would seem to imply that, if the universe was designed for life, it is very inefficient at doing so.

Aside from that, I raise you the puddle analogy. Say that there's a worn-down road in the countryside, filled with potholes. One day, the rain comes down, filling the holes with puddles. The puddles wake up and go, "What a fascinating world I inhabit. Look at how perfectly my body fits in this pothole. It must have been made to have me in it."

When the sun comes out and the puddles start evaporating, they continue to cling onto this notion that the universe was designed for them, even as their bodies slowly shrink and no long fill the potholes as perfectly. I feel like that's the argument you're making here; it made sense centuries ago to think that we were intelligently designed, but now we know so much more about how life arises and the massive universe we inhabit that it just doesn't make sense to cling onto this idea anymore.

Then the elements had a party one day and said that ‘unless we have fruits and grains’ man won’t have anything to eat and die.

Fruits and grains existed first. Humans evolved to eat a wide range of organic materials, including fruits and grains, since they were already an available resource. If there were no fruits and grains, we would have probably evolved to be more carnivorous. You have the causality backwards here.

Also, elements aren't sapient.

What I’m driving at is that for this planet to sustain life there had to be intelligent decisions made to have everything in place for human life to exist.

An interesting hypothesis, sure, but you have to support that hypothesis with data. As it stands, I feel like we could be living on a planet in Alpha Centauri without any grains or fruits, much closer to the edge of that star's Goldilocks Zone, and you would still be making the same arguments. It seems like, no matter what the data would be, you would argue that it supports an intelligent designer.

I don't think that's a very good hypothesis.

 

[Ella S.]

The main difference between animals and humans is humans lack the natural instinct found in animals. We have traded that in, in favor of cultural training. Nature does not have or require a welfare state, since integration with nature and each other is hardwired into animals. They are spatially integrated with nature and each other. Humans have repressed this hardwiring in favor of learned cultural knowledge.

I really don't think this is accurate. We still have instincts. We still crave food, flee from danger, desire procreation, and so on. Freud would say that instinct is at the heart of all of human psychology and that everything we see as so advanced or divorced from the wilderness is just a higher abstraction of it.

Animals absolutely need a welfare state. Without one, several species go extinct and several more have dramatically small populations. Compare the lifespan of the wolf to the lifespan of the domestic dog; dogs have longer lifespans on average.

Before we had a welfare state, our lifespans were much shorter, too. This isn't in spite of our instincts; it's actually directly because of our survival instinct that we've worked so hard on developing these programs.

The main differences between humans and animals lies within the operating system of their brains. Humans have two centers of consciousness; ego and the inner self. The animals only have one center; inner self. The inner self is connected to genetic based natural instincts and the innate animal behaviors that define each animal as a member of a species. Since humans also have an inner self, we also have collective human propensities that define us as species; human nature. But the ego tends to lead making this less then fully conscious unless taught.

The ego or secondary center, which is common only to humans, is much newer than the inner self, in terms of evolution; less then 10,000 years old. The bible uses the number of 6000 years for a certain stage of ego development.

The ego center, which is a spinoff; satellite, from the inner self, is born empty and is conditioned by culture and the inner self; cultural animal. The ego lacks the depth of genes associated with the inner self of humans and/or animals. The inner self is unconscious in most humans, which is why we lost our natural instinct in favor of human based knowledge of good and evil. The story of Adam and Eve is about the rise of the human secondary or ego. This secondary led to the rise of civilization, which is not part of nature, but a human ego construct that often destroys natural eco-systems.

Plenty of animals have complex cultures, languages, even rudimentary religious beliefs and fashion trends. They also show self-awareness and the ability to plan based on how the rest of their society will view them, as well as recognizing themselves in mirrors, etc. Any "inner self" that we have, I can probably name several wild species that have been proven to have it, too.

The semi-exceptions, to the one or two conscious center rule, within the animal kingdom, are domesticated animals. Dogs, for example, can form a virtual secondary center, which can be conditioned by humans. This allows dogs to learn and even follow human needs and protocol, even to the point of overriding their own instincts. Wolves do not have this virtual secondary, but only the primary or inner selves of canines. Their inner self keeps them integrated with nature. The shepherd dog often takes its virtual secondary to the limit of becoming a willful ego based on choice. This is why there are at the top of the dog world in intelligence; border collie. At one point humans had a virtual secondary that would learn from natural experience; paradise.

Wolves do have the same capacity. They were our original dogs.

If this distinction is new to you, there is a home experiment one can do to experience the repressed human inner self. What you do is have a friend agree to scare you when you are not prepared. He/she can take their time to make it the most effective.

For example, they might catch you off guard by jumping out from behind a closed door. Under most conditions, one would instinctively jump and maybe even scream as adrenaline is pumped. This lightning fast reaction by the inner self, can embarrass the ego, since it would prefer save face and not act like a little girl. The inner self reacts naturally to the stimulus, with the ego often upset it cannot control the outcome to save face. The animal will react the same way, via their inner self, but without any mixed feelings. They are being directed by an integrated reaction from their inner self; fight or flight.

What's wrong with little girls?

The classic biology DNA distinction is too outdated to be effective, since it does take into account our modern insight into the operating systems of human and animal brains. It does not even discuss the ego and inner self. When God symbolically breathed life into Adam and made him a living soul, this is talking about the ego. The ego would have will and choice since it is detached from instinct. The inner self was already around, when the ego formed, helping to integrate paradise. With the rise of the ego, the natural human animal would become repressed, and unnatural behavior would appear.

Ego and Self aren't studied in biology because they're a part of psychology. It might surprise you to know that there is such a thing as animal psychology.

What humans call self consciousness is connected to the two centers. If I observe myself spontaneously reacting to a stimulus I become aware of inner self reacting to certain things that I am not controlling; laugh. Just as two eyes allows us to see in 3-D, our two centers gives human consciousness a spatial quality. I think therefore I am.

And we are not the only animals to demonstrate this sort of self-awarness.

 

[Sedim Haba]

This doesn't really add up in my opinion. if God is perfect then we can also assume that he is fully fulfilled in all his needs. So when God were alone before all of creation, he would still have been perfect, so he wouldn't have any need that being alone is not good for us/him, otherwise he weren't perfect, he would have had to desire an "Other".

Perhaps 'need' is a bit of a stretch, maybe he just wants an 'Other' to share with?
What motivation would exist for creating the universe otherwise I don't know.

Furthermore, if we assume that God did as you said, why on Earth didn't he get it right the first time? Clearly also this would indicate that God makes mistakes and isn't perfect.

What I've heard, and it makes sense but not fully, is that G-d being perfect can't
intentionally create imperfection. Yes, I know that's a bit like the old adage 'can G-d
create a rock too big for him to move?' We Jews have created an entire mystical
system (Lurianic Kabbalah) to explore this. In a nutshell, G-d creates a Heaven,
and then 'breaks' it. The rubble and chaos resulting is what forms impure matter.

I don't know what the differences are between the Tanakh and the OT, but in the OT as you said, God created man and didn't want him to be alone, so he created a women for him as a companion. But it doesn't as such say anything about what the big plan is that God want with all this, except that he think it is good.

Tanakh is Torah-Prophets-Writings. Basically the same as OT. The term OT is a bit
insulting, as 'old' implies 'obsolete'. Lastly, it's interesting that G-d never said 'good'
about the creation of Man as he did in the previous creation 'days'.

Again, this makes no sense in regards to the OT, again might be different in the Tanakh, but the OT doesn't say anything about God doing creation experiments and eventually being happy with Adam and Eve, as you said he created man in his own image, if they came about by "accident" through the TOE then they weren't created in his imagine, they just happened and God liked them, but they weren't created in his image.

So happy you brought this up, I totally forgot it!

Genesis 1:26 "And G-d said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

Who's the us here? Other gods, like some believe? NO. Talking to himself? NO.
By this time, the angels are put in charge of maintaining the creation. Overseers,
if you will, of the imperfect matter. Think of them as 'Mother Nature'. That's who.
According to my teachers, G-d (basically) said: You (material world) make the body,
I will create the soul. The 'image' is the soul, not the body. We could be talking
dinosaurs right now if there was no giant falling rock, we'd still be 'human'.

But again, as I said in the other post, there is no reason to not assume that souls already exist and just enters bodies at random in what you are writing here:

I did explain at the end of my previous post, that I have no idea of how souls
propagated into humanity. I only know before Adam, they didn't have a 'human' soul,
and after the fall they did. Did G-d just give everyone a soul at that point? Did it
spread like a genetic trait? No idea, and AFAIK no Jewish opinion either, I looked.

But I hope you agree, that at this point we are not really talking theory as much as just a believe or wild guesses of how this could work without having the slightest idea if souls even exist to begin with. Even if we assume that God existed, we know nothing about these.
I might be wrong, but I don't recall the OT explaining what a soul is, but that it is rather just assumed to be there. But again might remember wrong.

Yes, of course. I'm just trying to reconcile the creation and evolution as per topic.
There's a LOT in religion that people, and I'm talking about both Jews & Xians,
think is in the Torah (the most authoritarian part of the Tanakh) ... but isn't.
No souls, heaven (as reward) hell (as punishment) messiah (king is not the same).

EDIT: I know, I just said souls aren't in the Torah. Souls as in eternal spirit that get rewarded with
Heaven or punished with Hell? No. Soul in the Torah is 'Nephesh', breathing living Being; nothing
to do with the concept of an eternal entity to be rewarded or punished in an afterlife. That's later idea.

 

[Nimos]

Perhaps 'need' is a bit of a stretch, maybe he just wants an 'Other' to share with?
What motivation would exist for creating the universe otherwise I don't know.

Just so you don't misunderstand what I mean with "needs" as if it is meant as only something negative like "wants". If you take a human, the most perfect human you can imagine, eventually they are going to die from old age, sickness, lose someone, there might be things they simply can't do, due to the limitation of being a human. Even if they are as perfect as we can imagine, they will still have needs in one way or another or fulfillments that ain't being met, which makes them imperfect.

But God is considered to be perfect, which means that he ought to be fully fulfilled, otherwise he isn't perfect, if that makes sense?

What I've heard, and it makes sense but not fully, is that G-d being perfect can't
intentionally create imperfection. Yes, I know that's a bit like the old adage 'can G-d
create a rock too big for him to move?' We Jews have created an entire mystical
system (Lurianic Kabbalah) to explore this. In a nutshell, G-d creates a Heaven,
and then 'breaks' it. The rubble and chaos resulting is what forms impure matter.

But in that case, God could simply fix it right? or did he catch himself out or what to say meaning he have created a Universe for which he have lost control of and it is now basically going haywire?

Who's the us here? Other gods, like some believe? NO. Talking to himself? NO.
By this time, the angels are put in charge of maintaining the creation. Overseers,
if you will, of the imperfect matter. Think of them as 'Mother Nature'. That's who.
According to my teachers, G-d (basically) said: You (material world) make the body,
I will create the soul. The 'image' is the soul, not the body. We could be talking
dinosaurs right now if there was no giant falling rock, we'd still be 'human'.

Depends how one understand the use of "us" here, either God is simply referring to himself as "us" because he is one and everything. Sort of like a person referring to themselves in the third person, like a royal person might do. Which is what I think personally is the case here.

Alternatively, which might be a stretch is that he is referring to himself and wisdom, which were there at the beginning, before God created anything, Earth and heavens etc, which we learn about in Proverbs:

Proverbs 8:12-36
12 - “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion.
13 - The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.
14 - I have counsel and sound wisdom; I have insight; I have strength.
15 - By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just;
16 - by me princes rule, and nobles, all who govern justly.
17 - I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
18 - Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and righteousness.
19 - My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver.
20 - I walk in the way of righteousness, in the paths of justice,
21 - granting an inheritance to those who love me, and filling their treasuries.
22 - “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
23 - Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
24 - When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water.
25 - Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 - before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world.
27 - When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
28 - when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep,
29 - when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,
30 - then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always,
31 - rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man.
32 - “And now, O sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 - Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it.
34 - Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors.
35 - For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD,
36 - but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.”

So maybe he is referring to wisdom, whatever that is, because it seems to be some sort of entity in this case.

EDIT: I know, I just said souls aren't in the Torah. Souls as in eternal spirit that get rewarded with
Heaven or punished with Hell? No. Soul in the Torah is 'Nephesh', breathing living Being; nothing
to do with the concept of an eternal entity to be rewarded or punished in an afterlife. That's later idea.

I agree, this is not understood as the same in the OT as it is in the NT. I don't even think hell as such is mentioned in the OT at all.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Goldilocks Zone is massive and the earth isn't a constant distance away from the sun since its orbit is an oval, not a complete circle. The earth is also not the only planet in the solar system. We already have other planets that aren't the proper distance away from the sun but could have supported life, namely Venus and Mars.

Many other stars have planets around them, too, which don't support life. This would seem to imply that, if the universe was designed for life, it is very inefficient at doing so.

Aside from that, I raise you the puddle analogy. Say that there's a worn-down road in the countryside, filled with potholes. One day, the rain comes down, filling the holes with puddles. The puddles wake up and go, "What a fascinating world I inhabit. Look at how perfectly my body fits in this pothole. It must have been made to have me in it."

When the sun comes out and the puddles start evaporating, they continue to cling onto this notion that the universe was designed for them, even as their bodies slowly shrink and no long fill the potholes as perfectly. I feel like that's the argument you're making here; it made sense centuries ago to think that we were intelligently designed, but now we know so much more about how life arises and the massive universe we inhabit that it just doesn't make sense to cling onto this idea anymore.



Fruits and grains existed first. Humans evolved to eat a wide range of organic materials, including fruits and grains, since they were already an available resource. If there were no fruits and grains, we would have probably evolved to be more carnivorous. You have the causality backwards here.

Also, elements aren't sapient.



An interesting hypothesis, sure, but you have to support that hypothesis with data. As it stands, I feel like we could be living on a planet in Alpha Centauri without any grains or fruits, much closer to the edge of that star's Goldilocks Zone, and you would still be making the same arguments. It seems like, no matter what the data would be, you would argue that it supports an intelligent designer.

I don't think that's a very good hypothesis.

Evolution is not being denied at all, only that it is directed by a Higher Intelligence. Each seed, cell and gene has specific instructions which scientists agree but where did these instructions come from? Genes and cells didn’t program themselves to be a lemon tree or a human or an animal. It is coded in their cells and genes what they are destined to become.

Each specific formula results in a certain outcome, a plant, a vegetable, an animal or a human. These elements have no will power so could not have programmed themselves.

 

[Sedim Haba]

...
But God is considered to be perfect, which means that he ought to be fully fulfilled, otherwise he isn't perfect, if that makes sense?

Yes, this makes sense. But I have to wonder about motivation, right? If one considers
G-d to be eternal, without beginning or end, is the creation also eternal? With Multiverse
this well might be the case, that creation is an expression of G-d indivisible from Him.
Otherwise, one might imagine a G-d existing before the act of creation and then ...
what? a decision to create? That implies a change, a will of action based on... what?

In the circumstance I describe earlier, the decision to create a material universe was
necessitated by the failure of pure spiritual beings to be independent. However, that
doesn't solve anything, it only 'pushes the goalposts back'. Who knows how long He
tried with angels either. We may never know these things.

But in that case, God could simply fix it right? or did he catch himself out or what to say meaning he have created a Universe for which he have lost control of and it is now basically going haywire?

Well, aside from the Perfect VS Imperfect problem, we simply do not have a scale of
reference to creation. Assuming Infinite time for G-d, and infinite space with the
Multiverse that means; well imagine infinite petri dishes. Perhaps it's better to allow
a petri dish to evolve it's course, and not interfere. Learn something of value for later
iterations.

Depends how one understand the use of "us" here, either God is simply referring to himself as "us" because he is one and everything. Sort of like a person referring to themselves in the third person, like a royal person might do. Which is what I think personally is the case here.

Alternatively, which might be a stretch is that he is referring to himself and wisdom, which were there at the beginning, before God created anything, Earth and heavens etc, which we learn about in Proverbs:...

Yes, that is a common understanding, more common than the 'speaking to creation'
concept, but consider two things. First, no other 'step' of creation' is worded like this.
The First Creation (which is equal if not more important):

Genesis 1:3 "And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light."

No 3rd person 'royal' reference there. But I must admit that does sometimes happen in the Torah later. Unsure of the significance of that (there is one I just don't remember)

Second point is that this is a dual creation, body and soul. There IS a well known
teaching of the Rabbis that He IS speaking to the angels, but not mentioning if they
have an active role or this was just so they would not feel excluded. Because yet
another Rabbinic teaching is that the angels objected to the creation of man.
But, on the other hand... yet another Rabbinic teaching is that every blade of grass has
it's own guardian angel telling it "Grow!" .... that implies angel involvement.
(Sorry Jewish legends really do get to be like this...)

 

[Valjean]

Not a researcher as He already knows everything, then just God. But He knows the formula and combination and in what balance the elements have to be combined to create a human being. That formula is unknown to us.

But you called God a scientist. What is a scientist, if not a researcher? That's why I asked if you might mean "engineer.

it is the mind and the soul that distinguish humanity, and rejects the idea that human beings are merely animals, a haphazard accident, and captives of nature trapped in the struggle for existence. (Baha’i Writings)

It is evident that there are instances throughout history when statements made in the Sacred Scriptures that conflicted with the scientific views of the time were confirmed by science itself centuries later. There also may well be statements in the Writings about the material world the veracity of which will be proven by science in future. The notion of scientific “truth” does not encompass every claim or theory asserted in the name of science. (House of Justice)

This speaks to the broad society of humans; of humanity as a whole, not of biology. I'm talking about man's biology, not his nobility.

You and Baha'u'llah are talking about Axiology -- values, purpose, meaning and moral standing in the world. I, and your other interlocutors, are talking about Biology -- biochemistry, anatomy, natural history, taxonomy. These are non-overlapping magisteria, as Gould would put it.

I think we've been talking past each other.
Biologically, we are animals, evolved from previous animals. We're better at abstract thinking, planning and tool-making than other species, but, physically, we're no more complex than any other mammal.

So, speaking of humanity in your philosophical, spiritual sense: How do you know people have souls, that God exists, and what sort of relationship exists between God and man? Do you have any hard, empirical evidence of God or a soul, or is this a faith-based belief, based on tradition, what your parents or church told you?

 

[Valjean]

What I mean is that without ‘instructions’ programmed or mapped into cells and genes they wouldn’t amount to anything. A lemon seed is programmed to grow lemons and the human cell a human. It’s deliberate intelligent Will of God not cells and genes just flunking a human. They were programmed so as to become human. That’s why a lemon seed will never create anything but lemons. It’s common sense that every seed, cell and gene is programmed to perform a certain function. Who programmed it, itself? That’s so unrealistic and unscientific but believe it I respect you have a different view. I just don’t agree.

Natural Selection 'programmed' it.
Science has discovered, tested, and shown examples of the processes by which all this coōrdinated complexity came about. Apparently you haven't reviewed these. Planning and magical tampering are not necessary

Feel free to believe that then. That’s your right but I’m sticking with man as being a distinct species that did not evolve from animals. So we have the Mineral, Vegetable, Animal and Human Kingdoms. A human being a million years ago with the same composition as today was not an ape. And I don’t believe that the ‘missing link’ will ever be found because there never was one. Man was always man but it’s ok to disagree with me.

No!
Again, you're mixing apples and oranges again.. "Kingdom" is a technical, taxonomic term, and you're referrence to a "missing link" indicates that you're rehashing controversies of a hundred fifty years ago.

A human being a million years ago with the same composition as today was not an ape.

What does "same composition" mean? This sounds like chemistry.
The Bible and Lady Chatterly's Lover have the same composition -- same letters, language, grammar, &c, but they are different reads.
Biologically, we are apes, and there were no people a million years ago who looked like us Homo sapiens.

 

[Ella S.]

Evolution is not being denied at all, only that it is directed by a Higher Intelligence. Each seed, cell and gene has specific instructions which scientists agree but where did these instructions come from? Genes and cells didn’t program themselves to be a lemon tree or a human or an animal. It is coded in their cells and genes what they are destined to become.

Each specific formula results in a certain outcome, a plant, a vegetable, an animal or a human. These elements have no will power so could not have programmed themselves.

That's a different question altogether, and it's one of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic and I'd love to go into excruciating detail here, but I'll just say that RNA and DNA are known to form from perfectly natural processes without any guidance. Ultimately, they evolved from what are called "biochemicals" which naturally form under a variety of conditions.

No programmer is needed.

 

[Valjean]

If you have time and patience this might help clarify the Baha’i position. We do believe in science but there’s some things that science can’t answer which has to do with the soul or spiritual matters which we believe have a bearing not so much on our physical evolution but our intellectual and spiritual nature.

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mehanian_friberg_religion_evolution.pdf

Bahai's say that if there's a conflict between science and religion, go with the science, do they not?

Clmon that’s your bias speaking as you’re an atheist. What’s to say you’re wrong and there is a God?

I could also maintain its you who are ignoring that God created existence. So back and forth. Supernatural beliefs?? You guys are the ones saying intelligence appeared from non intelligence that man ‘just created himself’. That to me is irrational and superstitious. Science does have many valid truths but once God is eliminated that makes it less reasonable. If you read this it might explain a few things. We are not opposed to science it’s just that we believe in God too.

All we're asking for is some tangible evidence of this God. Our claims are empirically supported. I haven't seen any empirical evidence for a god or for magical creation. All the arguments are logically flawed, based on error. They're untested and unfalsifiable.

 

[Valjean]

God might have something to say about His creation but ignoring Him means that one is disregarding a very important source of information. Leaving Him out of the equation is taking the same stance of an atheist because He claims to have created the world not magically but according to scientific process which is why scientists today can see science in creation.

For thousands of years man relied on God as a source of information, but noōne could agree on what that information was, leading to endless wars and human misery. Why rely on divine information if it's no clearer than mud?
It was only when we abandoned this reliance on God and religion that mankind developed the technologies and insights that you've been using throughout this thread to distinguish us from animals.

The information stored in the genes remains time-invariant and guides the evolution of the embryo. Without this constant blueprint the development from a simple single cell towards a highly complex organism would be impossible.

The information in genes changes all the time. The embryo is not a replica of either of its parents.
The whole function of sex is to add yet another mechanism for shuffling the genes and adding variation to the mix -- particularly important in slow reproducing &/or long lived organisms if they're to be able to adapt to environmental changes successfully.

Biology explains and demonstrates the mechanisms whereby organisms and genetic blueprints change over time. There is no God, planning or magic needed. Ordinary chemistry and mechanics can explain it, which you'd know if you understood elementary biology.
And, again, I'd remind you, divine creation explains nothing, it just asserts an agent.

 

[Valjean]

I was an atheist once until I discovered I was in error. The thing is I was open minded enough to admit it when I got it wrong. I didn’t keep insisting I was right without hearing the other side of the story because there are always two sides. And if we consider ourselves to be fair-minded then we need to examine both sides.

I have been an atheist and examined that but also examined in depth Baha’u’llah. How many condemn Baha’i as false having read not one book or even a word. Most people only look at their side of the story.

I have examined and been both an atheist and Baha’i so I’m at least being fair-minded. But to just take one side without examining the other side of the story is very unjust and unfair.

But the 'other side' is intellectually and probatively bereft. It proffers no real evidence. Its untestable, unfalsifiable, unproductive, and inconsistent -- its advocates disagree wildly with each other.

 

[Valjean]

Evolution is not being denied at all, only that it is directed by a Higher Intelligence. Each seed, cell and gene has specific instructions which scientists agree but where did these instructions come from? Genes and cells didn’t program themselves to be a lemon tree or a human or an animal. It is coded in their cells and genes what they are destined to become.

Each specific formula results in a certain outcome, a plant, a vegetable, an animal or a human. These elements have no will power so could not have programmed themselves.

Please, Please, Please! Take a basic biology course. We know where these instructions came from. We know the mechanisms by which they grow, and change.
True, we don't know the whole of biology, but these "evidences" are no longer mysteries. Ignorance of cause or mechanism is NOT evidence of God or magic. We were ignorant of almost everything we now know today -- and were just as eager to attribute them to magical, divine manipulation.

With each new discovery, we've retreated from these religious "explanations" for a long time. God claims continually retreat to ever more abstract issues. Creationism is just religion's latest stand.

 

[Valjean]

They can, and do. Just not to the extent of a LUCA that is promoted by many....

God seems to have created the taxonomic Families of animals, i.e., as the Bible puts it, “according to their kinds”: the Felidae (cat) Family, the Canidae (dog) Family, etc.

Those original species, however many there were (most are probably extinct), then evolved into other, newer species.

IMO, this is the only logical way to explain the arrival of novel features that are beyond the limited power of random mutation.

IOW, animals with the features that are unique to their Families, like the cat’s retractable claws, were created. And diversification/speciation grew from there.

So for you, "kind" = Family.
The term seems kind of malleable. I've seen it used for taxonomic catagories from species to phyla.
Ask how all the families of Animalia could fit on the ark, and apologists retreat to more inclusive taxa.

I don't understand why the same evolution/adaptation can create changes in species but not in families or orders. It's all the same process -- small changes accumulating into big changes.
Then there is the fact that multiple genetic chances can produce no discernible effect, whilst sometimes a single genetic tweak can create a massive alteration. There is often little correspondence between genetic vs morphological change.

IMO, this is the only logical way to explain the arrival of novel features that are beyond the limited power of random mutation.

First, logic doesnt apply to this. Second, neither does random mutation. Natural selection is not random, and most of it is the result of reproductive variation, not mutation.
I think you're laboring under false assumptions about what biologists claim and how evolution works.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

That's a different question altogether, and it's one of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic and I'd love to go into excruciating detail here, but I'll just say that RNA and DNA are known to form from perfectly natural processes without any guidance. Ultimately, they evolved from what are called "biochemicals" which naturally form under a variety of conditions.

No programmer is needed.

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are incredibly complex—so complex that claims they have evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support. [“There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.]

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But you called God a scientist. What is a scientist, if not a researcher? That's why I asked if you might mean "engineer.


This speaks to the broad society of humans; of humanity as a whole, not of biology. I'm talking about man's biology, not his nobility.

You and Baha'u'llah are talking about Axiology -- values, purpose, meaning and moral standing in the world. I, and your other interlocutors, are talking about Biology -- biochemistry, anatomy, natural history, taxonomy. These are non-overlapping magisteria, as Gould would put it.

I think we've been talking past each other.
Biologically, we are animals, evolved from previous animals. We're better at abstract thinking, planning and tool-making than other species, but, physically, we're no more complex than any other mammal.

So, speaking of humanity in your philosophical, spiritual sense: How do you know people have souls, that God exists, and what sort of relationship exists between God and man? Do you have any hard, empirical evidence of God or a soul, or is this a faith-based belief, based on tradition, what your parents or church told you?

By scientist I meant All Knowing. That God possesses perfect knowledge. Science deals with the physical or material world not religious truth. The greatest proof of God we have in this world are the Manifestations of God.

Baha’u’llah explains…


“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven”

So we have Beings like Buddha, Krishna, Christ, Muhammad, Moses and Baha’u’llah Who guide humanity. Their Words are creative. That is, whatever They ordain comes to pass.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Natural Selection 'programmed' it.
Science has discovered, tested, and shown examples of the processes by which all this coōrdinated complexity came about. Apparently you haven't reviewed these. Planning and magical tampering are not necessary
No!
Again, you're mixing apples and oranges again.. "Kingdom" is a technical, taxonomic term, and you're referrence to a "missing link" indicates that you're rehashing controversies of a hundred fifty years ago.
What does "same composition" mean? This sounds like chemistry.
The Bible and Lady Chatterly's Lover have the same composition -- same letters, language, grammar, &c, but they are different reads.
Biologically, we are apes, and there were no people a million years ago who looked like us Homo sapiens.

Natural selection has no intelligence or will and cannot choose to be a tree or a human unless it was destined to be so. All the instructions are coded into what a cell or gene will end up becoming. I’m saying that cells and genes cannot program blueprints or mapping into themselves. This mapping its clear to me was already there placed by a Higher Intelligence we call the Creator or God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That's a different question altogether, and it's one of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic and I'd love to go into excruciating detail here, but I'll just say that RNA and DNA are known to form from perfectly natural processes without any guidance. Ultimately, they evolved from what are called "biochemicals" which naturally form under a variety of conditions.

No programmer is needed.

Without genetic ‘instructions’ nothing can evolve. At conception the genetic coding is already encoded to evolve into a human. It goes through many changes physically then is born as a human and continues to manifest ‘potentials’ until it reaches maturity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bahai's say that if there's a conflict between science and religion, go with the science, do they not?
All we're asking for is some tangible evidence of this God. Our claims are empirically supported. I haven't seen any empirical evidence for a god or for magical creation. All the arguments are logically flawed, based on error. They're untested and unfalsifiable.

God is an intelligent Being I believe Who generated the codes and scientific formulas for cells and genes to evolve into minerals, vegetables animals and humans as well as physics to complement existence. So for example the sun has to be the right distance from our planet for all life to exist. The sun just fluked that? And there had to be sustenance and water on earth for man to survive. Another fluke? I just can’t accept anything other it was by design but you feel free to differ, I respect that.