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

[loverofhumanity]

And none is needed. The process is automatic and unguided. The mechanisms for this are well established. Learn them.
A genetic configuration -- whether human or protozoan, is an unguided product of natural selection &al.
This argument is so tedious, and has been so thoroughly debunked, so many times, that I'm always annoyed at its resurgence. But, apparently, it's still active in the religious community.
Life did not choose anything. Water runs downhill. It doesn't choose to do so. Natural selection, from genetic to morphologic levels, is automatic and unguided.
The coded instructions evolved just like the forms they code for. They didn't just pop into existence by divine fiat.

Baha’is believe that humankind did not evolve accidentally but according to God’s purpose and plan.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is no evidence of this. Everything appears to function automatically and without direction or planning.

So your religion doesn’t believe in God?

 

[Messianic Israelite]

They could have become more complex as time went on, much like the omicron virus is more complex that the original alpha variant.

Behe is a terrible source based on his past performances and his endorsement and spreading of disinformation. Here: Michael Behe - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Court Cases" that involves his lack of both science basic logic during the Dover Case]

Hi metis. Good afternoon. DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, [a] but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. [b] Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. [c] Therefore, the entire manufacturing system—and its products—must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

Further reading found below:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. DNA and Proteins (creationscience.com)

 

[metis]

That’s even another proof of the oneness of God that no two creations are identical. Amongst billions of people no two are identical. So in the dna human diversity was made to reflect diversity that there is only one of a kind of each kind.

As much as I would love to agree with you, that is simply not proof.

 

[metis]

Hi metis. Good afternoon.

Hi MI, and ditto to you.

DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, [a] but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.

Amino acids are part of the building blocks for protein, and they've been found in some of the moon rocks, and yet there's no life forms yet evidenced.

Therefore, the entire manufacturing system—and its products—must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

Not necessarily.

Thanks for the link but it is not a scientific source, but it is a creationist one.

 

[Valjean]

Baha’is believe that humankind did not evolve accidentally but according to God’s purpose and plan.

Baha'is believe one should defer to the scientific findings.

So your religion doesn’t believe in God?

How did you come to that conclusion based on my belief in natural selection?

 

[Valjean]

Hi metis. Good afternoon. DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins, [a] but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA. [b] Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other. [c] Therefore, the entire manufacturing system—and its products—must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

Further reading found below:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. DNA and Proteins (creationscience.com)

No. The entire manufacturing system evolved together, by known and easily demonstrable mechanisms.
And the flood.... Don't get me started.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As much as I would love to agree with you, that is simply not proof.

Thats fine. No problems. We all have different understandings.

 

[Truthseeker]

Due to an other OP about ToE i wanted to ask this.

Why is it so difficult to be an believer in God (or other deities) and still say.
Theory of evolution may have a lot of truth in It?

Belief is a belief/ Theory of Evolution just a Theory about how life started in our universe.

Non of them give a 100% clear answer.

Or what do you think?

It's about taking the Bible literally, at least fir Christians.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The arrival of two-toed Africans makes humans animals. Humans have evolved further. The Vadomas.

Nice photo. The toes may have malformed but they are still humans.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Similarly appearances and capabilities may have changed but Humans still remain animals. Where do you put the dividing line and why?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Similarly appearances and capabilities may have changed but Humans still remain animals. Where do you put the diviing line and why?

If you wish to be an animal you will become one. The difference lays in how humans think and interact with each other

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you wish to be an animal you will become one. The difference lays in how humans think and interact with each other

It is not a question of wishing. Humans are animals. Do you think animals do not think or interact with each other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As it should be if you accept NOMa.

I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone who says they accept NOMA about how they think the existing overlap between science and religion should be dealt with.

Should religion be constrained so that it doesn't make claims within the scope of science (i.e. any falsifiable claim)?

Should science be constrained so that it doesn't investigate claims that touch on people's religious beliefs?

 

[pearl]

Should religion be constrained so that it doesn't make claims within the scope of science (i.e. any falsifiable claim)?

Should science be constrained so that it doesn't investigate claims that touch on people's religious beliefs?

No. There has to be a mutual respect, acknowledgment of each discipline. Problems arise when one field crosses over to the other. Science may find a creator God unnecessary, but to insist there is no creator God crosses over to the field of theology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. There has to be a mutual respect, acknowledgment of each discipline. Problems arise when one field crosses over to the other. Science may find a creator God unnecessary, but to insist there is no creator God crosses over to the field of theology.

You didn't answer my questions.

You talk about one field "crossing over" into another; where do you see the line between the two fields?

Is a scientist acknowledging that evolution happened "crossing over" into the field of religion? What about when they point out that evolution is an unguided process?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. There has to be a mutual respect, acknowledgment of each discipline.

Sorry - I have to go back to this: what would this mutual respect look like? In what ways do you think science should be deferring to religion?

 

[pearl]

Is a scientist acknowledging that evolution happened "crossing over" into the field of religion? What about when they point out that evolution is an unguided process?

No to the first. As I stated, the same as stating a creator God is not necessary.

[QUOTE="9-10ths_Penguin, post: 7567008, member: 13455" In what ways do you think science should be deferring to religion?[/QUOTE]

Science should not defer to religion nor ought religion defer to science, they are different fields of disciplines, theology and science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No to the first. As I stated, the same as stating a creator God is not necessary.

Wait - are you saying that science should or shouldn't say that a creator-god is unnecessary?

Science should not defer to religion nor ought religion defer to science, they are different fields of disciplines, theology and science.

But they make conflicting claims. For them not to "overlap", one or both of them need to retreat from territory they both currently claim. Some sort of deference would be necessary to actually achieve NOMA.

 

[Heyo]

I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone who says they accept NOMA about how they think the existing overlap between science and religion should be dealt with.

Should religion be constrained so that it doesn't make claims within the scope of science (i.e. any falsifiable claim)?

Should science be constrained so that it doesn't investigate claims that touch on people's religious beliefs?

I don't think there is any overlap, that's why it's called non-overlapping magisteria.
If it can be measured (in SI units), it is science, if it can't, it is not science and open for grabs between maths, philosophy, law, economics, etc. But science is out.
The margins between e.g. philosophy and religion are a bit more blurry and believers will surely object to my proposal that religion should be constrained to their core subjects like "sin", "salvation", "karma", etc.