-
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
Ella S.
Well-Known Member
Logic and reason are fields of the formal sciences, and everything that can be said to be "evidence" is in the domain of the natural sciences.
Science itself is applied epistemology.
So I have to ask if you're supporting fideism, just don't understand the full gravity of what you're saying here, or what?
They can go hand in hand. Even the Pope believes in the Theory of Evolution
Pope Francis: Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Real
Daniel Nicholson
Blasphemous Pryme
The reality is evolution is a fact, like the earth is round. You have to accept that, or choose to live in a fantasy.
"Religious beliefs" covers a lot of ground, and doesn't necessary involve a god. Some may be congruent with scientific method, others... not so much.
As for evangelical and many conservative Christian denominations, these usually involve magic (effect without mechanism), and claims of a divine magician. They're faith-based, (unfounded belief).
The ToE is fact-based, falsifiable, observable, testable, and productive. It posits neither magic nor an intangible magician. It's a description of mechanism, not an assertion of agency.
As for evangelical and many conservative Christian denominations, these usually involve magic (effect without mechanism), and claims of a divine magician. They're faith-based, (unfounded belief).
The ToE is fact-based, falsifiable, observable, testable, and productive. It posits neither magic nor an intangible magician. It's a description of mechanism, not an assertion of agency.
Sedim Haba
Outa here... bye-bye!
I understand your point. Allow me to elaborate. All living things have a soul.
Simple things, like single-cell organisms, have a correspondingly simple soul.
The Neshama that I refer to requires a host that is both sentient and sapient to
achieve it's full potential as an entity with free will and understanding.
Only ToE can create this, for reasons not relevant to this discussion.
So, can we prove this? absolutely not. It would require a time machine.
How far back would it need to go? Probably much farther back that YEC think,
or even my fellow Jews think. It would have to go back further than Iceman.
Back before there was any hallmark of mankind, a civilization. Notice I don't
say society, even the great apes have that.
So, hypothetical this exists. And you go back. Interact with the humans sans souls.
IMHO, it'd creep you out. You would know with every fiber of your being, that they
aren't human. Despite being genetically and mentally no different than you. Just a theory.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
All species are a distinct species. Otherwise they wouldn't be their own species.
Huh? Migration of entire populations happens all the time for all kinds of reasons. What's there to "not believe" about it?
And this is true for literally every species, not just humans.
Not sure what point you think you are making.
Modern Human species arose from ancient (and different) hominid species which in turn arose from an even more ancient ancestral ape species (which was different). Speciation is a major aspect of evolutionary biology where one type of species arise from another distinct type of species over time. This why for example, an ancestral feline species gave rise to all the current (and old extinct) varieties of cats, lions, tigers, leopards etc.
I am not sure if you are agreeing with or disagreeing with this.
Sorry maybe I used the wrong word? I mean we didn’t evolve from the ape. We were always a distinct human species since time began.
Just saying that Baha’is believe that we did not evolve from any other species such as ape or primate but have always been a distinct human species. We believe humans evolved along their own line.
What we found in Ethiopia at 4.4 million years ago is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor along our own line," White said.
'Ardi:' 4.4 Million-Year-Old Fossil is Oldest Human Ancestor
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That is demonstrably not true.
Not in the least because humans are apes, just like they are mammals.
You seem to be unaware of the fact that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
The theory of evolution deals with the mechanism underpinning the process of speciation.
In other words if you disprove evolution tomorrow, then common ancestry of species still remains a genetic fact.
Whatever alternative process to evolution you propose, it would have to deal with that fact and explain why it is so that the genomes of homo sapiens, chimps, bonobo's, gorilla's and oerang oetangs univocally reveal common ancestry.
And this isn't just the case among the great apes. When you throw in all genomes of all species that have been sequenced (a great many), the same pattern emerges throughout all living things.
These facts don't go away when you falsify evolution. And your alternative model, will have to address these facts also.
Your beliefs are against scientific evidence which clearly show that humans are and evolve from ancient ape species.
Ardipithecus is a great counter evidence for your claim as they possess features intermediate to those of ancestral apes that lived 6-8 million years ago (Naklipithecus) which were arborial quadrupeds and the Australopithecine group of hominids which began to be primarily bipedal and ground moving with partial arboreality (tree climbing ability).
Nimos
Well-Known Member
I obviously respect that you believe this. But im not even sure I would classify believes like these as even a theory. The reason for that, least to me, is because I think a theory need to address a known issue or problem for which we have no current answer or which is simply not understood well enough for us to figure out.
Lets say the creation of the Universe, we don't know what and if anything set it in motion, we know that the Universe appears fine tuned to allow us to be here. So we have a "real" problem or issue here, some people suggest that a God did it, lets call it the God theory and others have suggested the multiverse theory, so if there is enough Universes being created, eventually we will get a Universe that fits ours. Obviously there are other theories, but doesn't matter in this case.
But we have a real issue and varies theories trying to explain it.
In the case of souls and what you are talking about, it is not even a remotely known or potential issue, because no such thing have been observed to begin with. So its a theory about absolutely nothing, I might as well say that souls are created by these massive entities which float around in the Universe in a spirit dimension and whenever they get to close to a living being not already having a soul, one is detached and fired at it and then it connects with the living being. And that would be my theory.
But I haven't demonstrated any of this, so why call it a theory rather than just a believe or straight of guess, founded in absolutely nothing.
Only ToE can create this, for reasons not relevant to this discussion.
Why would only TOE be able to do this, based on what? Because I would say that it is not relevant in any discussion, unless we are dealing with an actual issue or problem.
Which is why the God theory vs the Multiverse theory is relevant, despite both lacking any form of explanatory power, at least they attempt to deal with the issue of fine tuning.
My understanding is that leaving God out of it fails to explain cause and effect and evolution itself which is impossible to have been a random occurrence which is not only very unscientific but I believe to be extremely superstitious because order cannot come from disorder and randomness. So the elements of the earth just got together and said ‘let’s create a human being’. The human body is the most complex existence in the universe requiring perfect regulation, cooperation and programming between the organs, blood, bone, tissue, nerves to function cooperatively. And this came about randomly? Impossible.
From a TV set to the latest computer, years of ‘deliberate’ technological and organised effort is required. Without a highly intelligent Being neither man, nor the universe could randomly create itself into a functioning entity as it has no will or direction.
So evolution yes but by design not randomness. Every seed every plant is ‘programmed’ to fulfil a certain function. As to man, God I believe willed the elements to come together in a composition and formula of His making, known only to Him, to create a human being, and ordained only humans to be spiritual beings not apes or chimps, which is why man over centuries can discover, research, fly to the moon and has progressed and advanced while the animals remain bereft of all these things and cannot advance beyond the limitations set on them by the creator.
It’s common sense to me and clearly obvious that man did not create or design himself and neither could the elements which have neither willpower nor intelligence to create something so complex.
If I leave a ton of bricks, wood, a roof and a floor and I come back in a million years will I find a house? Without a builder that’s impossible. An intelligent builder is required as the random elements alone would never have a clue how to build it.
How can we believe the Bible to be authoritative, if we do not believe already that the God of the Bible wrote it? For, I can hardly imagine that whoever wrote that first page of it could be taken seriously, unless we already assume it comes from the Boss Himself.
So, what came first, in your case?
Ciao
- viole
'Wrote' it vs 'inspired it'.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
There are certain scientific biases that makes it harder to integrate science and religion. For example, science assumes human DNA is the basis for defining the first human. This assumption causes the science to start humans over a million years ago, instead of 6000 years ago. We have old humanoid fossils with human DNA.
The question is, is this an infallible approach? The answer is no. As an example, domestic dogs and wolves both have canine DNA and are therefore both considered variations of dogs. Even though both have dog DNA, their brain's operating systems are quite different. Domestic dogs naturally love humans and like to interact with them. The wolf is too independent and wild and will allow this, only in a limited fashion. Their instincts and temperaments are not the same, even if they both have dog DNA. There is clear neural based behavioral distinction even though both classes of dogs have dog DNA.
Wolves and domesticated dogs can breed, which means there are very close in DNA. Such breeding has been done many times in an effort to make domestic super-dogs. However, what happens is the wolf-dog puppies tend to revert back closer to the wild side of the wolf; ferrel. The combined DNA of domestic and wild dog revert it back to the older version of the dog's operating system. The pure domestic dog is more or less lost.
Based on this temperament analysis, the bible definition of the first humans may be connected to the appearance of the modern human brain's operating system and a new type of human temperament. Forming civilization, about 6000-10,000 years ago, required the repression of thousands of years of migratory ways, naturally living off the land. This needed to be replace by new ways so one could live, stationary, via culture. This new domesticated human could still breed, with the migratory humans, even if they cannot see eye to eye. They both still had human DNA; wild versus domesticated.
Adam and Eve do not form by traditional or natural reproductive means. The bible does this on purpose to show a change in humans into domestication was not based exclusively on a quantum jump in genetics; DNA and natural selection. Instead it was based on changes in the brain's operating system; living soul, due to new and unique experiences. The 6000 year ago timing coordinates with the invention of written language.
I brought up dogs for another reason. The relationship between man and dog has been around for tens of thousands of years. Both were apex species, totally capable on their own. Together as companions, dogs and humans learned skills from each allowing both to become domesticated; willfully more tuned to each other. For example, in the ape world a dominant male will lead. But in the dog world both males and females can lead. Modern humans try to be more like dogs, than apes, even though we descend from apes.
The net affect was of two apex animals learning from each other, was new secondary natures appearing in each, based on learning useful things not part of their own DNA based natural instincts. Dogs hunt in packs, which is still the choice of invading human soldiers. Apes are more defensive and not organized like a pack of wolves, who will take on stronger opponents as a team. The changing and consciously evolving humans learned from this to become something new. By about 6000 years ago, further changes were in the works; written language, that would make the first modern humans. He was different from the wilder natural pre-human with shared DNA. He would form a new learned reality via civilization.
The question is, is this an infallible approach? The answer is no. As an example, domestic dogs and wolves both have canine DNA and are therefore both considered variations of dogs. Even though both have dog DNA, their brain's operating systems are quite different. Domestic dogs naturally love humans and like to interact with them. The wolf is too independent and wild and will allow this, only in a limited fashion. Their instincts and temperaments are not the same, even if they both have dog DNA. There is clear neural based behavioral distinction even though both classes of dogs have dog DNA.
Wolves and domesticated dogs can breed, which means there are very close in DNA. Such breeding has been done many times in an effort to make domestic super-dogs. However, what happens is the wolf-dog puppies tend to revert back closer to the wild side of the wolf; ferrel. The combined DNA of domestic and wild dog revert it back to the older version of the dog's operating system. The pure domestic dog is more or less lost.
Based on this temperament analysis, the bible definition of the first humans may be connected to the appearance of the modern human brain's operating system and a new type of human temperament. Forming civilization, about 6000-10,000 years ago, required the repression of thousands of years of migratory ways, naturally living off the land. This needed to be replace by new ways so one could live, stationary, via culture. This new domesticated human could still breed, with the migratory humans, even if they cannot see eye to eye. They both still had human DNA; wild versus domesticated.
Adam and Eve do not form by traditional or natural reproductive means. The bible does this on purpose to show a change in humans into domestication was not based exclusively on a quantum jump in genetics; DNA and natural selection. Instead it was based on changes in the brain's operating system; living soul, due to new and unique experiences. The 6000 year ago timing coordinates with the invention of written language.
I brought up dogs for another reason. The relationship between man and dog has been around for tens of thousands of years. Both were apex species, totally capable on their own. Together as companions, dogs and humans learned skills from each allowing both to become domesticated; willfully more tuned to each other. For example, in the ape world a dominant male will lead. But in the dog world both males and females can lead. Modern humans try to be more like dogs, than apes, even though we descend from apes.
The net affect was of two apex animals learning from each other, was new secondary natures appearing in each, based on learning useful things not part of their own DNA based natural instincts. Dogs hunt in packs, which is still the choice of invading human soldiers. Apes are more defensive and not organized like a pack of wolves, who will take on stronger opponents as a team. The changing and consciously evolving humans learned from this to become something new. By about 6000 years ago, further changes were in the works; written language, that would make the first modern humans. He was different from the wilder natural pre-human with shared DNA. He would form a new learned reality via civilization.
Last edited:
Yeah, well, but if you do not already assume it has been written by God, I wonder how people can actually go to page 2, after having read the first page. Because without that a-priori assumption that is just in line with what was known by people in the Bronze Age. Not a lot.
So, what is more likely: that it has been inspired by the very creator of the Universe in such a way to look like total factual nonsense (according to what we know today), or it has just been made up by someone with that "knowledge" available at that time? What would a rational neutral reader think?
Ciao
- viole
Let me try it this way. In the beginning, God created the laws of the universe including the law of evolution at least in this universe (if you accept the multiverse). In the realm of the physical, science is our best tool to understand how the universe operates. In other words, God is the who and why, the universe is how.
From my non-dual perspective, the universe is not separate from God just as a drop is not separate from the sea but that's a further step.