Religion, evolution can live side by side

[Bahai.Lifter]

CLIFFS:

• 2001 Gallup Poll: 37%: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

• Barriers to accepting theory of evolution/religion include: "The Warfare Model of Science and Religion" -- i.e., one has to be right, and the other has to be wrong; lack of information; association with ethical nihilism, etc.

• To theists, it shouldn't matter if the world that God created is ancient; that doesn't detract from the greatness of His creation

• God as the creator of natural forces vs. "miraculous spoken word"

• No matter how God created the world, His creation deserves praise

• Believers in God should embrace both science and evolutionary theory, because it has shown the magnificence of God's creation to even deeper levels to us

*********

Source: CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/2...arwin.matters/

Religion, evolution can live side by side
By Michael Shermer, Special to CNN
November 23, 2009 10:59 p.m. EST

Editor's note: Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine (skeptic.com) and a monthly columnist for Scientific American. He is the author of "Why Darwin Matters" and "The Mind of the Market." He blogs at trueslant.com and you can follow him on twitter @michaelshermer

(CNN) -- Tuesday marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, 1859. All 1,250 copies of the initial print run of the book were scooped up by readers eager to see the British naturalist going rogue with his radical new theory of evolution, "By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," in the book's full title.

How important is this book? Thomas Henry Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") proclaimed that "On the Origin of Species" was "the most potent instrument for the extension of the realm of knowledge which has come into man's hands since Newton's 'Principia,' " and lamented to himself: "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that."

The Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, arguably the greatest evolutionary theorist since Darwin, asserted: "It would be difficult to refute the claim that the Darwinian revolution was the greatest of all intellectual revolutions in the history of mankind." The Harvard paleontologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould called the theory of evolution one of the half dozen most important ideas in the entire history of Western thought.

Why, then, do so many Americans not accept the theory of evolution? A 2001 Gallup Poll found that 45 percent of Americans agree with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," while 37 percent preferred a blended belief that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process," and a paltry 12 percent accepted the standard scientific theory that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

These percentages have remained largely unchanged in subsequent surveys, although most scientists would prefer that the questions were asked without reference to God since the science of evolutionary biology stands or falls on its own whether God directed the process or not, or even if there is a God or not.

There are at least six reasons that make people resistant to accepting evolution.

1. The Warfare Model of Science and Religion. The belief that there is a war between science and religion where one is right and the other wrong, and that one must choose one over the other.

2. Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets. Many people attempt to use science to prove certain religious tenets, but when they do not appear to fit, the science is rejected. For example, the attempt to prove that the Genesis creation story is accurately reflected in the geological fossil record has led many creationists to conclude that the Earth was created within the past 10,000 years, which is in sharp contrast to the geological evidence for a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth.

3. Misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. A significant problem is that most people know so little about the theory. In the 2001 Gallup Poll, for example, a quarter of the people surveyed said they didn't know enough to say whether they accepted evolution or not, and only 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about the theory. Because evolution is so controversial, public school science teachers typically drop the subject entirely rather than face the discomfort aroused among students and parents.

4. The fear that evolution degrades our humanity. After Copernicus toppled the pedestal of our cosmic centrality, Darwin delivered the coup de gr?ce by revealing us to be "mere" animals, subject to the same natural laws and historical forces as all other animals.

5. The equation of evolution with ethical nihilism. This sentiment was expressed by the neoconservative social commentator Irving Kristol in 1991: "If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded -- or even if it suspects -- that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."

6. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed human nature. The first five reasons for the resistance to evolutionary theory come almost exclusively from political conservatives. This last reason originates from liberals who fear that the application of evolutionary theory to human thought and action implies that political policy and economic doctrines will fail because the constitution of humanity is stronger than the constitutions of states.

All of these fears are baseless. If one is a theist, it should not matter when God made the universe -- 10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless to an omniscient and omnipotent being, and the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened.

Likewise, it should not matter how God created life, whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created. The grandeur of God's works commands awe regardless of what processes He used.

As for meanings and morals, it is here where our humanity arises from our biology. We evolved as a social primate species with the tendency of being cooperative and altruistic within our own groups, but competitive and bellicose between groups. The purpose of civilization is to help us rise above our hearts of darkness and to accentuate the better angels of our nature.

Believers should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors. We have learned a lot in 4,000 years, and that knowledge should never be dreaded or denied. Instead, science should be welcomed by all who cherish human understanding and wisdom.

[curtis999]

The point made here is that for those who choose to be religious, evolution doesn't even need to ba a problem for them.

However, this does not say that there IS a God/s who may/or may not have USED evolution as a means to further life. --just to clarify.

[An hero]

Evolution is incompatible with a personal God. I didn't read your thread because all you do is copy and paste colossal articles without cliffs, but there's my claim.

EDIT: cliffs were at the top, my bad, I just scrolled straight down

[An hero]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

CLIFFS:

• 2001 Gallup Poll: 37%: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"

There's absolutely no reason to assume God guided anything. Evolution is a completely autonomous process that could have reached the same result (so far) with or without God. There's no evidence whatsoever to say that Evolution was guided, and so it's stupid to assume it was.

• Barriers to accepting theory of evolution/religion include: "The Warfare Model of Science and Religion" -- i.e., one has to be right, and the other has to be wrong; lack of information; association with ethical nihilism, etc.

One doesn't HAVE to be right and the other wrong, but that's the way it is. Religion is false.

• To theists, it shouldn't matter if the world that God created is ancient; that doesn't detract from the greatness of His creation

No, but it should cast some doubt. Why would God make the entire Universe (bigger than you could ever possibly imagine), billions of years ago, just for us, who wouldn't even be around for several more billions of years? Why would he even evolve use, if he could just create us like most theists claim he did? What is the point of him inventing a process that makes his own powers redundant, and makes it SEEM as if he doesn't exist? Make sense God does not.

• God as the creator of natural forces vs. "miraculous spoken word"

• No matter how God created the world, His creation deserves praise

see point above

• Believers in God should embrace both science and evolutionary theory, because it has shown the magnificence of God's creation to even deeper levels to us

I agree, everyone should embrace science.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

materialism - metaphysical theory that the only thing that exists is matter, all things are composed only of matter, and all phenomena are the result of material interactions.

i don't understand why superstition and materialism are clumped side by side as if materialism has an innate shortcoming? science has to be materialistic by nature. it's true that a scientist can be both religious and scientific, but you cannot mix religion into the practice of science.

[pikeamus]

Couldn't read the thread past the point of the pic saying "Science without religion is materialism". I facepalmed over and over and over.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by An hero

There's absolutely no reason to assume God guided anything. Evolution is a completely autonomous process that could have reached the same result (so far) with or without God. There's no evidence whatsoever to say that Evolution was guided, and so it's stupid to assume it was.

I agree that "evolution is a completely autonomous process." That does not disprove God. He could have created physical laws and set a system in motion which could work autonomously.

Originally Posted by An hero

One doesn't HAVE to be right and the other wrong, but that's the way it is. Religion is false.

Proof?

Originally Posted by An hero

No, but it should cast some doubt. Why would God make the entire Universe (bigger than you could ever possibly imagine), billions of years ago, just for us, who wouldn't even be around for several more billions of years? Why would he even evolve use, if he could just create us like most theists claim he did? What is the point of him inventing a process that makes his own powers redundant, and makes it SEEM as if he doesn't exist? Make sense God does not.

Good question. Who is to say there aren't other beings in the universe that are capable of knowing God?

[andrew28]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

I agree that "evolution is a completely autonomous process." That does not disprove God. He could have created physical laws and set a system in motion which could work autonomously.




Proof?




Good question. Who is to say there aren't other beings in the universe that are capable of knowing God?

any time we show proof with good reason and logic, you theists somehow always manage to say something like "well what god meant was...." etc. you have an answer to everything to justify you religion's validity.

plus the burden of proof falls in the hands of the theist. and so far i havent seen any.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by andrew28

plus the burden of proof falls in the hands of the theist. and so far i havent seen any.

I'm not the one that made the statement "Religion is false." He did, and he should have proof if making that statement. Atheists, agnostics, materialists, etc., likewise have to back up their own statements, my friend; there is no exemption for them in that regard.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by andrew28

any time we show proof with good reason and logic, you theists somehow always manage to say something like "well what god meant was...."etc. you have an answer to everything to justify you religion's validity.

plus the burden of proof falls in the hands of the theist. and so far i havent seen any.

my favorite is: "his ways are beyond our comprehension". it's hilarious and depressing at the same time.

so basically we're supposed to assume that there actually is the specifically defined abrahamic god of the bible, and we have to then ignore all of our "god" given logic and reasoning facilities and simply surrender them to faith in god because there is a possibility that this assumed god of no evidence works in such a way so to elude our comprehension.

there are no words to express how insane that is.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker021

my favorite is: "his ways are beyond our comprehension". it's hilarious and depressing at the same time.

so basically we're supposed to assume that there actually is the specifically defined abrahamic god of the bible, and we have to then ignore all of our "god" given logic and reasoning facilities and simply surrender them to faith in god because there is a possibility that this assumed god of no evidence works in such a way so to elude our comprehension.

there are no words to express how insane that is.

If we are spiritual beings, then the most logical thing in the world is to acknowledge the Truth of God; likewise, the most illogical thing in the world would be to deny His Truth. This is a statement which the atheist can readily agree with.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

If we are spiritual beings, then the most logical thing in the world is to acknowledge the Truth of God; likewise, the most illogical thing in the world would be to deny His Truth. This is a statement which the atheist can readily agree with.

i consider myself spiritual. i define spirituality as meditative introspection and reflection on the state of the universe.

what is your definition of spirituality, and why does it need to include or presume anything supernatural?

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

If we are spiritual beings, then the most logical thing in the world is to acknowledge the Truth of God; likewise, the most illogical thing in the world would be to deny His Truth. This is a statement which the atheist can readily agree with.

But there is no proof at all that we are "spiritual beings" in your metaphysical sense of the word. i.e. That we have a soul.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker021

i consider myself spiritual. i define spirituality as meditative introspection and reflection on the state of the universe.

what is your definition of spirituality, and why does it need to include or presume anything supernatural?

When we compare ourselves to other creatures, we realize that "meditative introspection and reflection on the state of the universe" is not possible for them, only possible for us. You are spiritual; we all are spiritual, in the sense that we have souls and are spiritual beings. Spiritual after all, by definition, is "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

But there is no proof at all that we are "spiritual beings" in your metaphysical sense of the word. i.e. That we have a soul.

Please see above post.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Source: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html (follow link to find more quotes on science and religion)

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith. The true principles of all religions are in conformity with the teachings of science.

The Unity of God is logical, and this idea is not antagonistic to the conclusions arrived at by scientific study.

All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress.

All religious laws conform to reason, and are suited to the people for whom they are framed, and for the age in which they are to be obeyed

. . .Now, all questions of morality contained in the spiritual, immutable law of every religion are logically right. If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which a man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism. All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent and with the scientific discoveries of the time. Many religious leaders have grown to think that the importance of religion lies mainly in the adherence to a collection of certain dogmas and the practice of rites and ceremonies! Those whose souls they profess to cure are taught to believe likewise, and these cling tenaciously to the outward forms, confusing them with the inward truth.

Now, these forms and rituals differ in the various churches and amongst the different sects, and even contradict one another; giving rise to discord, hatred, and disunion. The outcome of all this dissension is the belief of many cultured men that religion and science are contradictory terms, that religion needs no powers of reflection, and should in no wise be regulated by science, but must of necessity be opposed, the one to the other. The unfortunate effect of this is that science has drifted apart from religion, and religion has become a mere blind and more or less apathetic following of the precepts of certain religious teachers, who insist on their own favourite dogmas being accepted even when they are contrary to science. This is foolishness, for it is quite evident that science is the light, and, being so, religion truly so-called does not oppose knowledge.

We are familiar with the phrases 'Light and Darkness', 'Religion and Science.' But the religion which does not walk hand in hand with science is itself in the darkness of superstition and ignorance.

Much of the discord and disunion of the world is created by these man-made oppositions and contradictions. If religion were in harmony with science and they walked together, much of the hatred and bitterness now bringing misery to the human race would be at an end.

Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance!

Look around and see how the world of today is drowned in superstition and outward forms!

Some worship the product of their own imagination: they make for themselves an imaginary God and adore this, when the creation of their finite minds cannot be the Infinite Mighty Maker of all things visible and invisible! Others worship the sun or trees, also stones! In past ages there were those who adored the sea, the clouds, and even clay!

Today, men have grown into such adoring attachment to outward forms and ceremonies that they dispute over this point of ritual or that particular practice, until one hears on all sides of wearisome arguments and unrest. There are individuals who have weak intellects and their powers of reasoning have not developed, but the strength and power of religion must not be doubted because of the incapacity of these persons to understand.

A small child cannot comprehend the laws that govern nature, but this is on account of the immature intellect of that child; when he is grown older and has been educated he too will understand the everlasting truths. A child does not grasp the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, but, when his intelligence is awakened, the fact is clear and plain to him.

It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.

God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance.

To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an open book, but how can it be possible for a man devoid of reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities of God?

Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles - and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

When we compare ourselves to other creatures, we realize that "meditative introspection and reflection on the state of the universe" is not possible for them, only possible for us. You are spiritual; we all are spiritual, in the sense that we have souls and are spiritual beings. Spiritual after all, by definition, is "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

okay well if that's what spirituality literally translates to then perhaps i'm not spiritual; i only used the term spirituality in a poetic sense. i use the word "soul" in a metaphorical sense to describe that part of our conscious and reflective mind that arose out of sensory sentience.

we "feel" things when our senses haven't touched anything. these feelings arise from something inside of us which might lead you to believe there is a literal soul.. but if you simply studied the human brain i think you'll find that most likely electrical and chemical signals and pulses make up the whole of our earthly experience, and it's not a bad or demeaning truth either.. it's just the way it is. sorry that there probably isn't more - of course maybe you're right though.. there just isn't a shred of evidence, and your way of thinking is based on wishful thinking.

[An hero]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

I agree that "evolution is a completely autonomous process." That does not disprove God. He could have created physical laws and set a system in motion which could work autonomously.

He COULD have, yeah, but then again it COULD have been Thor, or Zeus, or Raptor Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Blue Power Ranger.

Proof?

See: every other thread about religion

Good question. Who is to say there aren't other beings in the universe that are capable of knowing God?

Who is to say there are?

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by An hero

He COULD have, yeah, but then again it COULD have been Thor, or Zeus, or Raptor Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Blue Power Ranger.

Invalid comparison. Those you mention are material things, therefore an impossibility. Only an immaterial, All-Powerful Being is capable of such.

Originally Posted by An hero

Who is to say there are?

You said, "Why would God make the entire Universe (bigger than you could ever possibly imagine), billions of years ago, just for us." That statement is assuming that there are no other intelligent beings in this universe capable of knowing God. I was just giving another possibility.

[NeAbuZe]

Just a few questions i'd like to ask you Bahai.Lifter.
Do you fully accept the theory of evolution as the truth?
If so, how long have you accepted it for?

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

When we compare ourselves to other creatures, we realize that "meditative introspection and reflection on the state of the universe" is not possible for them, only possible for us. You are spiritual; we all are spiritual, in the sense that we have souls and are spiritual beings. Spiritual after all, by definition, is "of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

What you're talking about are mental cognitive abilities which stem from the brain (a physical object & organ) which came about through Evolution, and therefore if you accept the theory of Evolution, you accept that every animal has the potential ability to hold the same mental capacity (and 'spirituality) as us, and in this view we are only unique because of natural selection, not divine intervention.

[Large_Emu]

In this thread we see how science has brought religion to its knees, so much so that religion is begging for a compromise.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

if you accept the theory of Evolution, you accept that every animal has the potential ability to hold the same mental capacity (and 'spirituality) as us, and in this view we are only unique because of natural selection, not divine intervention.

I don't believe that animals can have the same spiritual capacity as us.

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

I don't believe that animals can have the same spiritual capacity as us.

why not?

"evolution is a completely autonomous process." - you

sorry but your religious undertones are unraveling before you.

[andrew28]

Originally Posted by LordDarwin

we are only unique because of natural selection, not divine intervention.

thank you! basically we are just animals with highly evolved brains. religion was invented by humans to cope with our knowledge of death as the inevitable.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by NeAbuZe

Just a few questions i'd like to ask you Bahai.Lifter.
Do you fully accept the theory of evolution as the truth?

Science itself is always evolving as we make new discoveries and gain new insights. Science has been wrong many times, and has also improved. So I agree with a lot of aspects of evolution, not that I think the theory is infallible; however, I do believe that man was always set apart from the animal kingdom, even if his form was more monkey-like or whatever at some point (i.e., if his form was not as pleasing as it is now). Even at the one cell stage, for the sake of argument, our lineage was always destined to be man. A fetus in the womb looks nothing like a fully grown man; however, even at the one cell stage it is destined to become man and not animal or plant or mineral or anything else.

Originally Posted by NeAbuZe

If so, how long have you accepted it for?

Since teh wombz. Actually, I don't remember what grade they started teaching this stuff.

[Bahai.Lifter]

Originally Posted by shadowwalker021

why not?

"evolution is a completely autonomous process." - you

sorry but your religious undertones are unraveling before you.

Yes, and the process that God set up was such that humans would come into being -- spiritual beings which could know Him and love Him.

[LordDarwin]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

I don't believe that animals can have the same spiritual capacity as us.

Then you don't accept the theory of Evolution!
^^^^

[shadowwalker021]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

Yes, and the process that God set up was such that humans would come into being -- spiritual beings which could know Him and love Him.

*raises one eyebrow slightly*

[An hero]

Originally Posted by Bahai.Lifter

Invalid comparison. Those you mention are material things, therefore an impossibility. Only an immaterial, All-Powerful Being is capable of such.

On the contrary, my friend, Zeus is all-powerful. He is both material and immaterial, and his methods cannot be comprehended. Given these conditions you have no choice but to accept Zeus as the one true god!

You said, "Why would God make the entire Universe (bigger than you could ever possibly imagine), billions of years ago, just for us." That statement is assuming that there are no other intelligent beings in this universe capable of knowing God. I was just giving another possibility.

Of course its a possibility, in fact it's an overwhelming probability that there IS other intelligent life in the universe (no evidence for this, of course, just a probability).

I don't know about your wacky religion, but evolution IS incompatible with most theistic religions and certainly all Abrahamic religions. For instance, the thing I already mentioned about God creating the entire universe for humanity (which IS part of Abrahamic religions, whether the Pope believes in aliens or not).

Secondly, you have the process of natural selection. That process is undoubtedly incompatible with a loving, personal god. Maybe god didn't "invent" natural selection, but that's the process by which evolution occurs, so if he's guiding evolution, then he must also be guiding natural selection. That means god is choosing certain species as superior to others, and certain individuals within that species as superior to all others in the species (but you know this; the abrahamic god is racist and genocidal).

Thirdly, you have the problem of mass extinctions. Why did god evolve the dinosaurs, just to kill them all off in a violent, terrible, destructive disaster? Or if he didn't kill them (they just happened to be hit by a meteor), then why did he evolve them in the first place, having full knowledge of their eventual death? Evidence also suggests that there have been many other mass extinctions throughout earth's history.

Lastly, why would god evolve all the other "homo" species, just to kill them off and make humans "supreme?" Why did he make the neanderthals, homo floresiensis, etc, if he knew they would just die off?

also you never answered my question: "What is the point of him inventing a process that makes his own powers redundant, and makes it SEEM as if he doesn't exist? Make sense God does not."