Religious Views On Evolution

Lux

Lux

Well-Known Member
Messages
319
Reaction score
92
Points
28
I thought it's probably better to make a separate thread ...
This question is more about a possible parallel between religion and science then how to read the old testament.


Thomas said:
Hi Lux –

Thought I'd pop in on this one from the Catholic pov.

Answer: Yes, Genesis is compatible with evolution theory. It's also compatible with cosmology generally, in fact its compatible with science, because it's not a science commentary. It's not an 'either Genesis or science' thesis.
Click to expand...
Then may I ask about this Pope Francis v. Benedict XVI thing I read?

The article below suggests Benedict XVI supported Intelligent Design (or ID) but Francis opposes it, is that so? I'm a little confused about ID theory, does it purport creationism? or it purports microorganisms eventually turning into animals/humans over billions of years (as evolution explains), but also purports that God's guidance was behind every mutation or at least once in a while? What are the differences between theistic evolution and ID theory?

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
 
Lux said:
... The article below suggests Benedict XVI supported Intelligent Design (or ID) but Francis opposes it, is that so? I'm a little confused about ID theory, does it purport creationism? or it purports microorganisms eventually turning into animals/humans over billions of years (as evolution explains), but also purports that God's guidance was behind every mutation or at least once in a while? What are the differences between theistic evolution and ID theory?
Click to expand...
Common ID theory was dreamed up by a right-wing (pseudo-)Christian think-tank and posits the idea that God micro-manages creation and everything in it. They're the same bunch that came up with 'creationism' and both ideas are a crock of ...

I think the kind of ID that both popes believe in is that God made the world for a purpose – to know Him – but not that God made butter so we'd have something to put on our toast, if you see what I mean?

The modern ID argument is deeply flawed ... but it's a rehash of Plato!

Plato believed that everything has its ideal and perfect 'form' or 'idea', and that life struggles to attain its perfection.

But he struggled with how to reconcile that with disease. Surely there should be the 'perfect disease'? A 'perfect plague', God forbid!

ID would say God created the Ebola virus. My argument is, why? And it's not a very good one, is it, cos if was any good, it would be untreatable!

I don't think Benedict XVI believes in the US version of ID, rather the Biblical version of ID ... I've read some of his stuff, and he's too much of a philosopher to fall for a nonsense like that.

When i did my course, we had a discussion about ID. About the idea that everything has to be done by God, everything sanctioned. "OK," the tutor said. "What shall we do with bicycles?" Blank looks all round. "Well, I mean," in mock horror, "They're not mentioned in Scripture, are they? Therefore they must be wrong!" :D
 
What Thomas said!

Also, the fundamental belief behind Intelligent Design is that evolution never took place. More specifically, the random mutations that led one species to develop from another could not have happened. Life is too complicated to be a random process. Hence the name. ID believes there had to be a Designer. Which would be God of course.

Furthermore God created every living organism exactly as they are today. ID proponents accept cross breeding. That there are many types of dog breeds, for example. They are good with that. But a dog never had a wolf like ancestor. A dog has always been a dog since the creation.
 
I admit to knowing nothing of Intelligent Design past hearing the term from time to time.

Having said that, why is the idea that G!d is somehow behind/within/a portion of every natural thing such an abhorrent idea? That is the fundamental precept of Native American and other tribal belief systems...what educated westerners call "animist." Even the rocks are alive.
 
the problem is I believe with the scientists who think G!d doesn't exist therefor has nothing to do with anything, and the religionists who deny evolution, and the religionists who try to force the two together (like trying to stick windows in a mac or OS in a IBM)....

I've got a little more panentheist view except my version of G!d is simply the principle behind existence, existence being a representation of G!d...

and then there is this (maybe more appropriate in the other thread) http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religion-Powell-Anglican-1800-1860/dp/0521101514
 
juantoo3 said:
I admit to knowing nothing of Intelligent Design past hearing the term from time to time.
Click to expand...

The issue with Intelligent Design is not that God cannot be a part of the Grand Design. The issue is that those who support ID claim it is a science; therefor should be taught in public school classrooms as science. It is an attempt to do an end run around the separation of church and state.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
The issue with Intelligent Design is not that God cannot be a part of the Grand Design. The issue is that those who support ID claim it is a science; therefor should be taught in public school classrooms as science. It is an attempt to do an end run around the separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
I see. So is this religion posing as science, or science posing as religion? Many people believe many things, and I hear lots of people across a wide range of beliefs, scientific and religious, who scoff at the notion of anything Divine within nature. From where I sit, both sides are mistaken. Ultimately it is politics, and nothing more. Who can force their views on everyone else...not a question, a statement. People are the same everywhere, nothing has changed, and it isn't likely to anytime soon.

So who is right? I am of course! So you should do what I say exactly how I say, because I am right...because if I am right, then by default you are wrong. Since you are wrong, no opinion of yours holds any merit, you aren't entitled to believe as you will. The government should forcibly make you and yours believe the same way I do, that way all will be well and good in the world, and we will finally have peace.

Where have I heard all of this before? People never change. <sigh>
 
Ah! So then we are both "right," which is impossible because if I am right, you *must* by default be wrong! :D So everyone should do precisely what I tell them to do. ;)
 
juantoo3 said:
Ah! So then we are both "right," which is impossible because if I am right, you *must* by default be wrong!
Click to expand...
a slight change to this, from wrong to "wrong or partially right" is actually a reasonable conclusion. It is entirely possible and probable for any situation that there is a single Fully correct or Most correct way. I don't claim my way as the only possible "Most correct" way, but I believe it is.

juantoo3 said:
:D So everyone should do precisely what I tell them to do. ;)
Click to expand...
This is the part that you add that makes the aforementioned part unreasonable or unlikable. You and some others (at least evidence here shows that) lump all those that believe there is a correct path into the same boat as those that say "You must join". Would I like it if you were to join? Absolutely. Would I advocate you "submitting" if you didn't believe? No.
 
What was said here, was said in sarcasm based heavily in comments and attitudes I've heard here and elsewhere by others in the past. Seems others reading this fully grasp the sarcasm and irony, certainly DA understood by returning my sarcasm. So taking these comments literally in order to continue our disagreement is a bit misplaced.

Let me state for the record, I have no grievance with you as a person. As a person, you are free to believe as you will. I too, am a person, and I also am free to believe as I will. I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking or belief, and I have no interest in being converted to your way of thinking or belief. I see what I see in the world, and I should be free to speak truthfully about the matters I see in the world around me, including the matters that fly in the face of and contradict the words I hear others try to use to persuade me. Others here seem to be allowed an opinion in matters, based on whatever methods and persuasions seem best to them. Whether allowed or not, I too have opinions that I will freely speak as I deem appropriate, and my opinions are based in my studies and in my examination of the world around me.
 
snarky smiles on either side of sarcasm should be enough to indicate what it is....

and should be utilized more often to offset confusion... (I'd put snarky smilies around that for effect, but that would be confusing)
 
wil said:
snarky smiles on either side of sarcasm should be enough to indicate what it is....

and should be utilized more often to offset confusion... (I'd put snarky smilies around that for effect, but that would be confusing)
Click to expand...
Alas...had already done that, and clearly that wasn't enough either.
 
juantoo3 said:
What was said here, was said in sarcasm based heavily in comments and attitudes I've heard here and elsewhere by others in the past. Seems others reading this fully grasp the sarcasm and irony, certainly DA understood by returning my sarcasm. So taking these comments literally in order to continue our disagreement is a bit misplaced.

Let me state for the record, I have no grievance with you as a person. As a person, you are free to believe as you will. I too, am a person, and I also am free to believe as I will. I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking or belief, and I have no interest in being converted to your way of thinking or belief. I see what I see in the world, and I should be free to speak truthfully about the matters I see in the world around me, including the matters that fly in the face of and contradict the words I hear others try to use to persuade me. Others here seem to be allowed an opinion in matters, based on whatever methods and persuasions seem best to them. Whether allowed or not, I too have opinions that I will freely speak as I deem appropriate, and my opinions are based in my studies and in my examination of the world around me.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point I was making. I knew it was sarcasm. And I know who (at least at the time) the ones are you were commenting toward. I input my opinion as to how your behind the sarcasm point was, is incorrect. Sarcasm, while not meant to be taken literally is also not to be taken without a point. you had a point in what was said originally, which is that anyone who says they are right and others are not are either ignorant or not worthy of making such a claim. It is entirely logical that there can be 1 truth, 1 correct, 1 perfect religion/worldview/belief. There are many logical answers possible out there, except that noone can be correct. This was my whole point. one I have reiterated several times to the same response nearly every time that I cannot be right as there are definitely multiple rights (an argument that still baffles me). Maybe this all stems from me wanting to keep things real in the discussion forums.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
It is entirely logical that there can be 1 truth, 1 correct, 1 perfect religion/worldview/belief. There are many logical answers possible out there, except that noone can be correct. This was my whole point. one I have reiterated several times to the same response nearly every time that I cannot be right as there are definitely multiple rights (an argument that still baffles me). Maybe this all stems from me wanting to keep things real in the discussion forums.
Click to expand...
Kindest regards, I do hope our discussion can proceed in the polite manner it is intended.

I think at this point we have no choice but to define what *precisely* you mean by "truth?" I have learned the painful truth the hard way many times that "truth" and "reality" are not always, in fact seldom, the same.

It is perfectly logical that there is only one reality. It is also perfectly logical that no one religion fully comprehends the total of that reality, therefore there is no one "perfect" religion. No one religion fully accounts for *every* aspect of reality, therefore no one religion is the whole "truth." So my answer is: "none of the above." Perfectly logical, and backed by reams of scientific findings across history, anthropology and psychology as well as personal experience. I must ask, what proof do you have that there is *any* "perfect" religion, that does not use a religious text for self-referential proof? (I am what I tell you I am, because the book I wrote says I am...that is circular reasoning and self-referential, and is a logical fallacy)

Before you ask...no, science does not understand the whole of reality either, but at least it is honest enough (at least among those who actually practice that tradition for a living) to admit there are things beyond its understanding. Religions...all of them...are hesitant to admit as much, it doesn't sell well among their followers.
 
Thinking that anyone or any religion has it all 100% correct to me....is illogical. That would be a lottery ticket winner for sure...one chance in millions.

Taking modern science and bending our beliefs, scriptures to conform is commonplace it seems, either that or you take the denial route (like that of the growing pentecostal and evangelical movement), that evolution theory and scientific creation is entirely wrong.

If I read you right Juan, science doesn't believe there are things beyond understanding, just beyond current understanding...the thought is that it will all be uncovered eventually... Religions often say something similar....in science it is all revealed piece by piece, tearing down old thought with the discovery of new. Religions (most) have stagnated, holding on to the old...waiting for the revelation to prove them right.
 
wil said:
Thinking that anyone or any religion has it all 100% correct to me....is illogical. That would be a lottery ticket winner for sure...one chance in millions.
Click to expand...
Trillions.

Taking modern science and bending our beliefs, scriptures to conform is commonplace it seems, either that or you take the denial route (like that of the growing pentecostal and evangelical movement), that evolution theory and scientific creation is entirely wrong.
Click to expand...
Pentecostals in denial? Hmmm... separation perhaps (though you are in the world, you are not of the world), but not sure I ever saw denial.

If I read you right Juan, science doesn't believe there are things beyond understanding, just beyond current understanding...the thought is that it will all be uncovered eventually... Religions often say something similar....in science it is all revealed piece by piece, tearing down old thought with the discovery of new. Religions (most) have stagnated, holding on to the old...waiting for the revelation to prove them right.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point...religions "say" similar, but don't "do" similar. And frankly science tends to stagnate as well, pending internal politics. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn highlights the mechanisms and internal politics behind the various avenues of scientific pursuit...the short answer being that new, more complete ideas only come to the fore *after* the old guard dies...it is almost never as simple as "science correcting itself over time." Yet even with the tail dragging science does do, it still modifies at break neck speed in comparison with religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top