Evolution
Options
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
