Evolution
Replies
-
Oooh Patti you're getting so good with the quote function I can barely keep up!
I learned from the best!0 -
Maybe to you God has no place in school or state, but that saddens many of us. We can speak about God without trying to convert anyone. We can teach people that by believing in science doesn't mean abandoing religion. Why shouldn't we teach World Religions or Atheism? Wouldn't we raise awareness and respect for people of all beliefs and non-beliefs?
i'm all for religious education in a theoretical way. i loved learning about all the different religions of the world, i'm a history student and religion is a major influence in the course of the world and completely fascinating to me. that's not the same as bringing God into a science lesson to talk about evolution though. i'm alarmed that people even need telling that it's ok to believe in science, but yes you should definitely be telling people that and opening their minds if they're shutting them tight in case they damage their religion.0 -
that's not the same as bringing God into a science lesson to talk about evolution though. i'm alarmed that people even need telling that it's ok to believe in science, but yes you should definitely be telling people that and opening their minds if they're shutting them tight in case they damage their religion.
Not necessarily bringing God into a science discussion, but merely educating students that understanding evolution or big bang theory does not mean "going against" one's religion, and then directing students to discuss this further with their priest, pastor, or whoever oversees their religious education (if anyone). I also believe it's important for religious educators and parents to make sure students understand the same.0 -
For those that believe in Creationism and don't believe in evolution do your best to explain how Neaderthal (who is not human, nor ape) and Cromagnon man (early), can be related, but Neanderthal looks much more human, with much better intelligence than any primate, but is still just a "cousin" to man.
We have proof that they existed by fossils and bones.
A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
This debate is really a "false problem". The stories in the Bible about the creation of the world and, eventually, of humans, are designed to answer the great questions about where we came from, what our existence means, etc. The Bible does this by using poetic imagery and devices. These stories are definitely not intended to teach a particular scientific theory about what physical mechanisms were used by God to bring about this world. I can believe that God created the world and guided an evolutionary process with the goal of eventually bringing humans into this world without contradicting the meaning of the biblical stories. To put it simply, whether or not one accepts some version of the theory of evolution should be based on the scientific evidence for that theory, not because the Bible supports or does not support it. The early chapters of the book of Genesis obviously have a poetic structure (e.g., seven creative days, Ten creative "words" from God; both recalling the commandments). It would be silly to interpret a poem as a literal statement and the same is true about the Bible. Although I do not know if the theory of evolution will survive future revolutions in science, I see nothing impossible with the idea that God brought a universe of unformed matter into existence by his infinite power ("Big Bang") and instilled in that material world the principles that would lead to a relentless process of "becoming" ("evolution") that would eventually produce creatures aware of themselves, the world, and God, who are also capable of freely choosing to return to their Creator.
beautifully worded.0 -
For those that believe in Creationism and don't believe in evolution do your best to explain how Neaderthal (who is not human, nor ape) and Cromagnon man (early), can be related, but Neanderthal looks much more human, with much better intelligence than any primate, but is still just a "cousin" to man.
We have proof that they existed by fossils and bones.
I'm still waiting for them to explain how two people having two sons = world wide population of human beings. So you may not want to hold your breath. Many don't do any critical thinking regarding their own beliefs, much less the science they dispute.0 -
For those that believe in Creationism and don't believe in evolution do your best to explain how Neaderthal (who is not human, nor ape) and Cromagnon man (early), can be related, but Neanderthal looks much more human, with much better intelligence than any primate, but is still just a "cousin" to man.
We have proof that they existed by fossils and bones.
This is not a problem for the view of "creation" I wrote about the other day. Of course, much of what we "know" about these pre-human beings is a lot of guess work based on a tiny bit of data; sort of like putting a 1,000 piece puzzle together based on three or four pieces. Scientists frequently change their interpretation of this data when a few more pieces come into their possession. In any case, that there were human-like beings that preceded (or even lived contemporaneously with humans) is not a problem for a view of creation and evolution that is both open to divine guidance as well as an internal striving within the creation towards consciousness, intelligence, moral decision-making, etc.0 -
I'm still waiting for them to explain how two people having two sons = world wide population of human beings. So you may not want to hold your breath. Many don't do any critical thinking regarding their own beliefs, much less the science they dispute.
Not sure what the problem is. My understanding is that contemporary genetics concludes that all humans are related and have a common ancestry. The book of Genesis says that Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters" (Gen. 5:3) so there is no need to say the whole world population came from two "sons." Just as people fail to exercise critical thinking regarding science and their beliefs, so others fail to carefully read the Bible!0 -
Not sure what the problem is. My understanding is that contemporary genetics concludes that all humans are related and have a common ancestry. The book of Genesis says that Adam and Eve had "other sons and daughters" (Gen. 5:3) so there is no need to say the whole world population came from two "sons." Just as people fail to exercise critical thinking regarding science and their beliefs, so others fail to carefully read the Bible!
Oh I knew about the other kids Patti, I'm well read on the opposition. Laura and Set I believe were the names given. But ask your average believer who Adam & Eve gave birth to. Cain & Able, that's all you'll get. When Cain killed Able he was sent to live with "other people", the bible never says where these other people came from. But oh well I guess!0 -
And this is why I originally stated that religion has no place in a discussion of evolution. You eventually find yourself arguing over Adam & Eve's supposed progeny or what animals did and did not fit in the Ark instead of evolution and all the wonderful and exciting things it has to teach us.0
-
Oh I knew about the other kids Patti, I'm well read on the opposition. Laura and Set I believe were the names given. But ask your average believer who Adam & Eve gave birth to. Cain & Able, that's all you'll get. When Cain killed Able he was sent to live with "other people", the bible never says where these other people came from. But oh well I guess!
I suppose if you ask your "average" anyone a question there's no telling what answer you will get back. It just takes a little creativity and imagination to figure out these kinds of questions. As I read the early chapters of Genesis, the main ideas are pretty clear: God made the world, the world is good, humans are made in the likeness of God, humans sinned against God's commandment, etc. To try and answer questions not in the intention of the biblical texts seems somewhat unfair to me, sort of like criticizing a science textbook because it doesn't explain the meaning of history or some other question outside the range of science. The early chapters of Genesis function as a backdrop to the story of Abraham and his descendents and summarize vast time-periods in a very short space. Remember the first "Lord of the Rings" movie, at the beginning when the whole background to the movies is summed up in a few minutes? Genesis 1-11 summarizes everything from creation to Abraham. We should not expect those chapters to explain every specific question about billions of years of history. Add to that, these chapters have an obvious poetic structure, a structure that has become more and more obvious as other contemporary ancient texts have been discovered. We should seek to understand what the texts are communicating through the genre and form used before we start formulating our questions.0 -
And this is why I originally stated that religion has no place in a discussion of evolution. You eventually find yourself arguing over Adam & Eve's supposed progeny or what animals did and did not fit in the Ark instead of evolution and all the wonderful and exciting things it has to teach us.
This thread "evolved" into this discussion of Adam and Eve. You threw them out there, not me!0 -
This thread "evolved" into this discussion of Adam and Eve. You threw them out there, not me!
YOU are absolutely correct! I take all blame myself.0 -
This thread "evolved" into this discussion of Adam and Eve. You threw them out there, not me!
YOU are absolutely correct! I take all blame myself.
0 -
And this is why I originally stated that religion has no place in a discussion of evolution. You eventually find yourself arguing over Adam & Eve's supposed progeny or what animals did and did not fit in the Ark instead of evolution and all the wonderful and exciting things it has to teach us.
Religion has a place in the discussion of evolution if evolutionary theorists step beyond the legitimate bounds of science. If an evolutionist, for example, wants to infer from his/her theory things like (a) there is no God, (b) there is no purpose or guiding "hand" in the process of evolution, (c) the human experience of freedom and morality are "illusions" and nothing more than biological urges fully "determined" by material causal factors, etc., I think it is fair to speak up and say that the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, focuses on certain features of reality but lacks the power to explain other aspects of it. Many evolutionists have been guilty of over-reaching their theory to make of evolution an explanation of everything. Richard Dawkins is a great example of this. If you grant this, there is nothing wrong with me reading the early chapters of Genesis as an answer to the kinds of questions that evolutionary biologists abstract away from in their scientific reasoning. The problem is that both sides fail to see these limits.0 -
Just as people fail to exercise critical thinking regarding science and their beliefs, so others fail to carefully read the Bible!
Again with the bible...Christianity is NOT the only religion. And as far as failing to carefully read the bible? I've never read the bible. I tried to read the first couple of page and got bored. Doesn't mean I fail to have a general understanding of Christianity. Also, bringing religion into a science classroom? Why?? Religion does not belong in public schools. Religious schools? Sure, yes, fine...that's a choice for people to make. But sending a child to public school means you're sending them for an education that doesn't rely on religion. I know I'd personally be REALLY angry if I sent my child to a public school and they were being taught about religion outside of an Intro. to Religion or World Religions course.
Again, the bible is something that cannot be proven. WHY in the world should it even be brought up? No religion's creation stories can be proven, nor can any of the supernatural stories be proven...they have no place in a science classroom.
A World Religions course? That's a different story. That's an elective. That's not a required course for an education.0 -
Religion has a place in the discussion of evolution if evolutionary theorists step beyond the legitimate bounds of science. If an evolutionist, for example, wants to infer from his/her theory things like (a) there is no God, (b) there is no purpose or guiding "hand" in the process of evolution, (c) the human experience of freedom and morality are "illusions" and nothing more than biological urges fully "determined" by material causal factors, etc., I think it is fair to speak up and say that the theory of evolution, like all scientific theories, focuses on certain features of reality but lacks the power to explain other aspects of it. Many evolutionists have been guilty of over-reaching their theory to make of evolution an explanation of everything. Richard Dawkins is a great example of this. If you grant this, there is nothing wrong with me reading the early chapters of Genesis as an answer to the kinds of questions that evolutionary biologists abstract away from in their scientific reasoning. The problem is that both sides fail to see these limits.
Science has no bounds. It's the way we learn. I'll not put any limits on it for the sake of the faithful.
You may CHOOSE to see a guiding hand in the process of evolution. But none has been found. Science can not state that the hand of God guides evolution because there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
And personally I looove Dawkins. But I'm sure that's no surprise.0 -
Again with the bible...Christianity is NOT the only religion. And as far as failing to carefully read the bible? I've never read the bible. I tried to read the first couple of page and got bored. Doesn't mean I fail to have a general understanding of Christianity. Also, bringing religion into a science classroom? Why?? Religion does not belong in public schools. Religious schools? Sure, yes, fine...that's a choice for people to make. But sending a child to public school means you're sending them for an education that doesn't rely on religion. I know I'd personally be REALLY angry if I sent my child to a public school and they were being taught about religion outside of an Intro. to Religion or World Religions course.
Again, the bible is something that cannot be proven. WHY in the world should it even be brought up? No religion's creation stories can be proven, nor can any of the supernatural stories be proven...they have no place in a science classroom.
A World Religions course? That's a different story. That's an elective. That's not a required course for an education.
No, Christianity is not the only religion but, interestingly, it does happen to be the one that dominated the culture in which modern science appeared. There are "presuppositions" of science that allow for the scientific mindset to be born. For example, if we do not assume that the world is orderly, regular and predictable, we will never ask scientific questions. It is technically impossible to "prove" the laws of physics will hold tomorrow or in a thousand years but everyone assumes they will. What "grounds" or makes possible this assumption in the orderliness and logically-knowable structure of the world? The answer given by most early modern scientists is that the Creator governs this world according to a "logic" and that we are endowed with the ability to discover and understand that logic. (Newton spoke of astronomy as "thinking God's thoughts after Him.") This is why our "math" works when we apply it to the world. Also, we must "assume" our senses are giving us accurate information about the world. This is another huge philosophical question that scientists largely ignore and assume the reliability of the senses in order to carry out their work. I could go on. I'm not suggesting science classrooms be a place for teaching the Bible but I do think it is fair that students be taught (a) the limits of science as a method that abstracts away from some aspects of reality and focuses on others (what are traditionally called "efficient causes") and (b) the historical origins of science within the Judeo-Christian world-view that provided an understanding of reality in which science could be born.0 -
Just as people fail to exercise critical thinking regarding science and their beliefs, so others fail to carefully read the Bible!
Again with the bible...Christianity is NOT the only religion. And as far as failing to carefully read the bible? I've never read the bible. I tried to read the first couple of page and got bored. Doesn't mean I fail to have a general understanding of Christianity. Also, bringing religion into a science classroom? Why?? Religion does not belong in public schools. Religious schools? Sure, yes, fine...that's a choice for people to make. But sending a child to public school means you're sending them for an education that doesn't rely on religion. I know I'd personally be REALLY angry if I sent my child to a public school and they were being taught about religion outside of an Intro. to Religion or World Religions course.
Again, the bible is something that cannot be proven. WHY in the world should it even be brought up? No religion's creation stories can be proven, nor can any of the supernatural stories be proven...they have no place in a science classroom.
A World Religions course? That's a different story. That's an elective. That's not a required course for an education.
0 -
Science has no bounds. It's the way we learn. I'll not put any limits on it for the sake of the faithful.
You may CHOOSE to see a guiding hand in the process of evolution. But none has been found. Science can not state that the hand of God guides evolution because there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
And personally I looove Dawkins. But I'm sure that's no surprise.
Science does have bounds. Science assumes many things that it cannot prove but must assume before it can carry out its work. The scientific method, for instance, is based on the validity of inductive and, afterwards, deductive logic. Logic, however, is the study of the very structures of thought. Logic governs our thinking about all things, including science. Science must use logic but cannot demonstrate its validity. Science is a product of logic but is not the cause of it.
There is tons of evidence that there is a guiding hand to evolution and, more generally all of nature. Although science intentionally ignores the question of why nature behaves in a predictable and orderly way (what are traditionally called "final" causes), the fact that it does shows that all events tend towards some "end" or purpose. When an apple seed is planted, you know good and well what it is moving towards when it grows. It has a "purpose." If this world were blind, random and purposeless, we could not predict effects but we do all the time. This betrays the fact that the nature is logical and purposeful and therefore we are able to know it, even before an effect occurs. I say this "proves" a governing intelligence: God.
You're right, not surprised on Dawkins.
0 -
I'm extremely confused. "Christianity dominated the culture in which modern science appeared." HUH?? Modern science appeared out of cultures like ancient Greece and Rome. If you're talking technology, well then you're talking about Japan (also not Christian.) There are a lot of different branches of science from physics to chemistry to medicine to biology to astronomy. Most of them had no origin at all in a Christian culture. In fact, in the cases where they did start in a Christian culture, the person who started them was often considered a heretic by the Church (Galileo for example.)Again with the bible...Christianity is NOT the only religion. And as far as failing to carefully read the bible? I've never read the bible. I tried to read the first couple of page and got bored. Doesn't mean I fail to have a general understanding of Christianity. Also, bringing religion into a science classroom? Why?? Religion does not belong in public schools. Religious schools? Sure, yes, fine...that's a choice for people to make. But sending a child to public school means you're sending them for an education that doesn't rely on religion. I know I'd personally be REALLY angry if I sent my child to a public school and they were being taught about religion outside of an Intro. to Religion or World Religions course.
Again, the bible is something that cannot be proven. WHY in the world should it even be brought up? No religion's creation stories can be proven, nor can any of the supernatural stories be proven...they have no place in a science classroom.
A World Religions course? That's a different story. That's an elective. That's not a required course for an education.
No, Christianity is not the only religion but, interestingly, it does happen to be the one that dominated the culture in which modern science appeared. There are "presuppositions" of science that allow for the scientific mindset to be born. For example, if we do not assume that the world is orderly, regular and predictable, we will never ask scientific questions. It is technically impossible to "prove" the laws of physics will hold tomorrow or in a thousand years but everyone assumes they will. What "grounds" or makes possible this assumption in the orderliness and logically-knowable structure of the world? The answer given by most early modern scientists is that the Creator governs this world according to a "logic" and that we are endowed with the ability to discover and understand that logic. (Newton spoke of astronomy as "thinking God's thoughts after Him.") This is why our "math" works when we apply it to the world. Also, we must "assume" our senses are giving us accurate information about the world. This is another huge philosophical question that scientists largely ignore and assume the reliability of the senses in order to carry out their work. I could go on. I'm not suggesting science classrooms be a place for teaching the Bible but I do think it is fair that students be taught (a) the limits of science as a method that abstracts away from some aspects of reality and focuses on others (what are traditionally called "efficient causes") and (b) the historical origins of science within the Judeo-Christian world-view that provided an understanding of reality in which science could be born.
As if that wasn't a strange enough statement you then go on to say that math works because we assume there is a God keeping things orderly? Am I getting that right? If so I don't even know how to respond. That makes even less sense than saying that science has a Christian base. I had to do a lot of proofs back in school. Not once was the answer "Because God makes things stable." Math has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Math is logical and provable. Religion isn't.0 -
(b) the historical origins of science within the Judeo-Christian world-view that provided an understanding of reality in which science could be born.
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.0 -
"Galileo's head was on the block
His crime was looking up the truth..."0 -
I'm extremely confused. "Christianity dominated the culture in which modern science appeared." HUH?? Modern science appeared out of cultures like ancient Greece and Rome. If you're talking technology, well then you're talking about Japan (also not Christian.) There are a lot of different branches of science from physics to chemistry to medicine to biology to astronomy. Most of them had no origin at all in a Christian culture. In fact, in the cases where they did start in a Christian culture, the person who started them was often considered a heretic by the Church (Galileo for example.)
As if that wasn't a strange enough statement you then go on to say that math works because we assume there is a God keeping things orderly? Am I getting that right? If so I don't even know how to respond. That makes even less sense than saying that science has a Christian base. I had to do a lot of proofs back in school. Not once was the answer "Because God makes things stable." Math has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Math is logical and provable. Religion isn't.
No, modern science began in the 15th-16th century with people like Bacon and others who developed the modern scientific method. It was the "discovery" of this method that has allowed for so much rapid scientific progress in the last four hundred years. Before that, the scientific method of Aristotle dominated but this approach did not take sufficient account of testable and repeatable observation through induction. What I'm talking about is standard history of science, not some goofy claim.
Concerning math, here's where going back to the Greeks would be helpful. The ancient Pythagoreans and Plato (not to mention the Stoics and many others) were deeply intrigued by mathematics. The Pythagoreans were a religiously motivated group that focused on the mathematical harmony of the universe; math then gives a "window" of insight, they claimed, into the spiritual source of the universe's harmony. Plato is filled with mathematical observations, especially from geometry. In fact, he did not admit anyone into his school of philosophy if they had not studied geometry. What amazed Plato was the fact that sensory objects change and, because known inductively, can only give probable knowledge. Geometry (and other forms of math) yield deductive certainty. It is, for example, always true that on a flat surface the interior angles of a triangle will equal half the degrees of a circle (or 180 degrees). This is a conclusion that may be proven with certainty and always holds true or, in other words, is timeless (not condition by physical conditions or changing conditions). That conclusion will hold long after we have died and it held thousands of years ago.
You say this is just "logic" but have you taken the time to think about what logic is and why it works?
Yes, you studied math but that doesn't mean you reflectively studied what that activity of the mind implies about yourself and reality. You may think my observations are "silly" but any introductory text in the history of mathematics, philosophy or science will show these are the primary issues that have driven discovery in the western philosophical and scientific traditions.0 -
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.
It is a historical fact that modern science arose within the Judeo-Christian world. You may argue this is a historical accident but I find it much more compelling that there were some distinctive features of that world that allowed for the modern birth of science. There are plenty of historians of science who argue persuasively that this is the case. I recommend Stanley Jaki's Gifford Lectures published under the title, "The Road of Science and the Ways to God." The book (to my mind) argues convincingly that science flourished only when there were "transcendent" principles sufficient to ground and allow for science. When science loses a sufficient basis for science beyond its own principles, it begins to question itself and eventually defeats itself. As a side note, I might add that C. S. Lewis makes a similar case in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He argues that human "greatness" has been expressed in our gradual conquest of nature. Once we begin to treat ourselves as nothing but "nature," too, we begin to destroy ourselves. If nature is there to serve and be manipulated by us, what is left to guide us when we make ourselves mere objects of nature? What will keep us from destroying ourselves like we are destroying nature? We need transcendent moral principles to keep from such destruction. In the meantime, we continue to borrow from moral principles supplied by religious systems since science is incapable of providing a basis of moral value. Yet another way that science is inadequate and incomplete.0 -
Are you quoting someone? These past few posts don't read like your previous posts or posts on other topics.
Oh, and modern scientific method was established almost entirely by Galileo who the Church called a heretic.0 -
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.
It is a historical fact that modern science arose within the Judeo-Christian world. You may argue this is a historical accident but I find it much more compelling that there were some distinctive features of that world that allowed for the modern birth of science. There are plenty of historians of science who argue persuasively that this is the case. I recommend Stanley Jaki's Gifford Lectures published under the title, "The Road of Science and the Ways to God." The book (to my mind) argues convincingly that science flourished only when there were "transcendent" principles sufficient to ground and allow for science. When science loses a sufficient basis for science beyond its own principles, it begins to question itself and eventually defeats itself. As a side note, I might add that C. S. Lewis makes a similar case in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He argues that human "greatness" has been expressed in our gradual conquest of nature. Once we begin to treat ourselves as nothing but "nature," too, we begin to destroy ourselves. If nature is there to serve and be manipulated by us, what is left to guide us when we make ourselves mere objects of nature? What will keep us from destroying ourselves like we are destroying nature? We need transcendent moral principles to keep from such destruction. In the meantime, we continue to borrow from moral principles supplied by religious systems since science is incapable of providing a basis of moral value. Yet another way that science is inadequate and incomplete.
You're looking at things through a Judeo-Christian lens.
C.S. Lewis? Seriously? I love Narnia, but he should have stuck to fiction. His non-fiction "philosophy" is terrible. He believes that pride is evil. Sorry...I don't buy into his stuff. Is what you say about nature being there to serve and be manipulated by us part of his theory, or is that your own? Either way, again, there's that Judeo-Christian lens coming into play. I personally don't see nature as something that exists purely to serve and be manipulated by us. A lot of Eastern religions early teachings also do not advocate being "above" nature, but instead, co-existence.
The Western world does in fact rely on religious systems in terms of our laws, principles, etc.That doesn't make it right. Laws change. Nations change. Or, maybe, they EVOLVE. 0 -
"Galileo's head was on the block
His crime was looking up the truth..."
then again it feels like some sort of inspiration to let the next life off the hook 0 -
Are you quoting someone? These past few posts don't read like your previous posts or posts on other topics.
Oh, and modern scientific method was established almost entirely by Galileo who the Church called a heretic.
Not quoting anyone. I try to change the style of writing or wording to suit the audience. It appears that I am now discussing with those who may be able to follow my line of reasoning.0 -
I believe in Evolution because just like was thought, when the look at DNA using today's technology, we are most closely related to Bonobos, Chimps, Apes, Orangatauns and Baboons, which means we had a common ancestor, just like predicted. The father back you go, the more you find we were all related just like predicted. We share the most characteristics with the Great Apes, then mammals, and so on and so forth.
I'm not saying Evolution has all the answers yet, and I think there are still valid questions out there, but the point is, really smart people who went to good schools and have spent countless hours of brutal research and testing built upon other peoples research and testing, all trying to disprove eachother or correlating eachother are trying to solve this, and I'll put my trust in them a lot sooner than I would put it in the Creation Myths of a bunch of Mesopotamian goat herders.0
This discussion has been closed.