Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution

Well, if nothingness is stupid:(, let me sit there with all the great physicists who explore the limitations of human knowledege. Oh, and let me also sit with the likes of Philo, Augustine, Wesley, Henry & Hartshorne (as well as any good Muslim) as a theologian.;)

You may believe me mistaken, that is your right. I would point out that even Goswami, Turok and Stienhardt (three physicists who postulate a pre-existing something) admit that it is basically a matter of faith.:cool:

Finally, nature abhors a vacuum. So there are these neat little things called vitual particles that zip into and out of existence... creatio ex nihilio again. They explain about ninety percent of quantum forces. Oh, things like the strong force (the reactors that produce a lot of real electricity), the electroweak force (that explains how the sceen you are looking at is lit up), and a myriad of quantum forces that go into things like diode design.:)

So in the end it really is nothingness and creation from nothing that explains not only the structure of the Kosmos but a great many important things we human beings have implemented in technology.:D

Pax et Amore Vincunt Omnia... radarmark
 
donnann said:
I believe the big bang was the big fall. Prior to that the universe was immortal and perfect. I believe evolution is an increase of knowledge to bring things back to the prior state not only with people but the environment and that includes the whole universe. I do not believe in the we evolved from a lower state I believe the fall caused a de-evolution of sorts. I believe the evolution of human beings was to occur naturally with them learning from the tree of life as they grew in knowledge in thier original human state. The fall caused a split which is what I call the big bang.
Click to expand...

I think you are trying to fit God into your understanding of science. If a Christian does not accept the Bible as inerrant, then the question is what parts are in error and which parts are correct. That leaves God's word subject to carnal man's judgement, and worthless as the source of Christian belief and doctrine. As Christians we hold the hope of eternal life and it is from the Bible that we read about it. It seems that to question the Word of God is to destroy it's value and promise; might as well dump the Bible as worthless.

:eek:
 
Foutsie,

There are an awful lot of us who see things just the opposite way. If the literal reading of the NT (whichever version you use) or OT or Qu-ran or Guru Granth Sahib or whatever text you happen to use is contradicted by science or math (or whatever), perhaps the literal reading is wrong. Many believing Christians (I among them) do not accept literal inerrancy as a matter of our faith. Believing in the literal word only marches us backwards in time to when a person was burnt or stoned for their reading of the Bible if it conflicted with the powers that be.

Donnann, we may have our disagreements (mainly over science), please do not abandon it as something that one must consider.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia.... radarmark
 
Let's use our words reasonably here, a belief is false if the state-of-affair it refers to is false. Science says evolution is true, so where is the false belief?

You are entitled to believe what you want. But the truth is not yours to define for the world.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia, radarmark
 
radarmark said:
I clean fergot! The second of my life-changing events (the first was my Father's demise) was seeing Louis Leakey when I was in 5th grade. Not only was he a remarkable scientist, but a very spiritual one. When the local John Birch Society (kind of a more racist fore-runner of the Tea-party for those of you who do not know about JBS) challenged him about evolution, he replied (without blinking an eye): actually, Genesis is a pretty remarkable parallel to evolution, providing one properly translates days as eons and accpt that to mean some undefined period of time.

Then he pulled out his Masai Bible and began reading it to the incredulous audience.

Knew then and there I wanted to be a scientist, wanted to fight for inclusion, and that even mainstream (in the sense of world-wide and historic, not with a myoptic view of 20th century fundamentalist sectarians) Christianity could (1) be approached systematically (am softening my usual scientifically) and (2) be reconciled quite well with evolution.
Click to expand...

Well, that certainly answers the question, "Can belief in a higher power be combined with evolution?" Obviously it can, because Leakey did it. :)

Regards,
Jim
 
foutsie said:
I think you are trying to fit God into your understanding of science. If a Christian does not accept the Bible as inerrant, then the question is what parts are in error and which parts are correct. That leaves God's word subject to carnal man's judgement, and worthless as the source of Christian belief and doctrine. As Christians we hold the hope of eternal life and it is from the Bible that we read about it. It seems that to question the Word of God is to destroy it's value and promise; might as well dump the Bible as worthless.

:eek:
Click to expand...


As Christians, we have a wide range of differing perceptions concerning the Bible. The vast majority of Christians are not Fundamentalists and therefore regard the Bible as authoritative in matters of faith and morality, but not in matters of physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, or geology. To claim otherwise is to subordinate the spiritual and moral authority of the Bible to falsifiable human opinion, and this is precisely what the Fundamentalists have done.


The evidence that the earth is more than four billion years old, and that life has existed on it for more than three billion of those years, is overwhelming, and can be found in any study of geology, biology, paleontology, and/or genetics. Considering just one of those fields, genetics, one quickly finds evidence which evolution explains, but Fundamentalism, even in its current incarnation as "Intelligent Design", cannot explain, e.g. the GULO gene, which codes for the production of Vitamin C and which is "broken" in all species of the order of primates:


1. The fact of a broken gene;
a) broken in general;
b) broken for Vitamin C synthesis;

2. The fact that for life forms with a broken gene the gene is broken in fundamentally different ways for organisms in different nested groups (e.g., primates and guinea pigs);

3. The fact that the nested group of primates with broken GULO gene share the same debilitating point mutation;

4. The fact even within the nested primate group the degree of similarity for how the gene is broken tracks ancestory (more closely related more similarity in how it is broken);

More specifically:
Human - Chimp 97%
Human - Orangutan 94%
Human - Macaque 89%

5. Nested hierarchies using the broken GULO gene show the same basic nested hierarchies revealed by other types of genetic evidence for evolution.

Intelligent Design has never been able to explain any of the above, or present any falsifiable hypothesis to cover it. In addition, we have the fact of the fossil record of life, beginning appoximately 3.5 billion years ago and continuing until the present time.


This fossil record was not discovered by evolutionists, since at the time of its discovery there were no evolutionists; it was discovered by William Smith (1769-1839), an engineer, and first examined scientifically by Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), a geologist. Neither of these men were evolutionists; the theory of evolution by natural selection was first propounded in 1859, decades after both of them were dead. For a brief introductory discussion of the fossil record, see:
Fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


The question of how one can integrate science (including evolution) and faith can be difficult for some, but has been done by a great many people, including paleontologists such as Louis Leakey and geneticists and evolutionary biologists such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In 1997, Stepen Jay Gould, the late paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, formulated a way of conceptualizing this: Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," 1997 which has been widely accepted as a workable hypothesis for anyone who is able to accept the idea that the Bible was never intended to be a textbook in science, but rather a guide to salvation and spiritual development.


Regards,
Jim
 
fadded blue jeans said:
the false belief in evoloution i suppose can even be combined with accepting the
truth that the united sates now has 50 states ..
so i would have to say yes ..
Click to expand...

How do you know there are 50 states? Have you been to 50 states? Have you met someone who lives in, or comes from, all 50 states? Or do you simply accept that there are 50 states because someone told you there were 50 states?

If I were to suggest to you that there are 48 states, not 50 states, and submit as evidence the fact that the flag raised on Iwo Jima by U.S. marines has 48 stars, not 50 stars, how would you go about supporting your claim that there are 50 states?

The answer is, of course, that you would gather and submit evidence supporting the 50 state claim.

But in doing this, you will put yourself in a rather difficult position, because if you insist that evidence establishes fact, you open yourself up to the fact that the evidence supporting evolution, in geology, paleontology, genetics, and many other fields, is overwhelmingly massive and uncontestable.:D

Regards,
Jim
 
I accept evolution as more true than anything else, but is it more than theory? I have never seen it be proven, how can you prove it?
 
vizenos said:
How do you know there are 50 states? Have you been to 50 states? Have you met someone who lives in, or comes from, all 50 states? Or do you simply accept that there are 50 states because someone told you there were 50 states?

If I were to suggest to you that there are 48 states, not 50 states, and submit as evidence the fact that the flag raised on Iwo Jima by U.S. marines has 48 stars, not 50 stars, how would you go about supporting your claim that there are 50 states?

The answer is, of course, that you would gather and submit evidence supporting the 50 state claim.

But in doing this, you will put yourself in a rather difficult position, because if you insist that evidence establishes fact, you open yourself up to the fact that the evidence supporting evolution, in geology, paleontology, genetics, and many other fields, is overwhelmingly massive and uncontestable.:D

Regards,
Jim
Click to expand...
50 States, 6 Territories, and 14 Protectorates, to be exact. And as a miltary member (now retired) I have been to each and every one of them...

They do exist
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I accept evolution as more true than anything else, but is it more than theory? I have never seen it be proven, how can you prove it?
Click to expand...
the·o·ry

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.



For fun and enlightenment: Definition of Scientific Theory
 
Wil's got it. The difference between laws, hypotheses, and theoriews are thin. For instance the most verified scientific principle is that of the quantum, and we still call it "Quantum Theory".

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark
 
I still don't get it. I would say there is a difference between "commonly regarded as correct" and something that is proven correct.
 
Gravitational force is also just a theory. But I have a lot of personal evidence that supports the theory of gravity. And none that doesn't. I don't know many scientists that disagree on gravity. But the Catholic church didn't believe in the theory of gravity when they thought the sun revolved around the earth. This misguided belief also stemmed from the bible.

That's how I view evolution. The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. As vizenos posted, numerous scientific disciplines; including biology, palentology, and genetics; have found evidence supporting evolution. I have a lot of personal evidence/experience throughout my lifetime that supports evolution. And very little that supports "Intelligent Design" except the bible.

You can't prove a theory. You can only disprove it.

So if a person who thinks evolution conflicts with their literal interpretation of holy scripture and therefore doesn't want to believe in the theory of evolution, that is their choice. But then, maybe they shouldn't believe in gravitational theory, either?
 
I'd like to add a little to what IG says. While it is true one can never proove a theory, one can gather enough evidence to proove its likelihood. In this sense Einstein's Theory of Relativity is more likely to be true than any other. But one must be able to disprove a theory for it to be considered scientific. For example the theory that the universe is earth-centered is falsifiable (and has been shown to be so).

Radarmark.
 
I've never heard that you can't prove a theory before, maybe I have a different understanding of the word than what is commonly agreed upon.
In the case of gravity I would say there is a slight difference. I can test what we call gravity. I can drop things of different shapes and sizes, from different heights and in different environments. I might not be able to prove the cause of falling objects but I will be able to say with absolute certainty what will happen when I drop cup of tea on a stone floor.
Concerning theory, I would say that; while I experiment by dropping object I formulate a theory as to what would happen if I dropped a feather in vacuum. Dropping a feather in vacuum would either prove or disprove my theory. Where do I err?
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I've never heard that you can't prove a theory before, maybe I have a different understanding of the word than what is commonly agreed upon.
In the case of gravity I would say there is a slight difference. I can test what we call gravity. I can drop things of different shapes and sizes, from different heights and in different environments. I might not be able to prove the cause of falling objects but I will be able to say with absolute certainty what will happen when I drop cup of tea on a stone floor.
Concerning theory, I would say that; while I experiment by dropping object I formulate a theory as to what would happen if I dropped a feather in vacuum. Dropping a feather in vacuum would either prove or disprove my theory. Where do I err?
Click to expand...

A theory, by definition, is not a fact - you can support, but once it becomes a fact it is now a law.
 
It really depends on the tradition as to whether evolution is possible within its confines.

In Christianity and Judaism, I do not think it is true, God has finished creation after the 6th day but evolution says it is an ongoing process. These are completely at odds with one another, you cannot say one is right without saying the other is completely wrong. This is why there is such opposition to evolution in Christian countries still to this day: they understand fully well the ramifications.

In Buddhism, Dharmakaya is the higher power, and yet it fits perfectly well within Buddhism - in fact, we can say evolution is merely the process of dependent creation, one of the core tenants of this faith. As we make choices of partner and have children, we have participated in evolution and created something which combines both sets of genes. The baby is subtly evolved compared to either parent, but it has been created dependently of both parents.

As for those looking for evidence of evolution in the real world, how about in sports? Just 50 years ago, the athletes were almost normal, no real difference except specialty. Now, if we look at American Football, these men are monsters. If we look at Basketball, again we see clear evidence of superior athleticism. If you look at Basketball even 20 years ago, these men can hardly dribble, let alone the jumping other skills perfected today. In todays NBA, Dr J would be almost a normal player, common place... he was a phenomenon, but now every team has at least one player like him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top