The Evolution Conflict

DrFree said:
And you might look at In Search of Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller to learn why evolution is essential to modern science. Miller, by the way, is both a Christian and a biologist, and works hard to demonstrate the compatibility of both.


I doubt, however, that there is any point to a my-source-is-better-than-yours type of argument.

​
Click to expand...


Actually I personally find no conflict between the two. It is the either/or arguement that really rubs one the wrong way.

v/r

Q
 
Welcome to CR, DrFree :)

I also do not see a conflict and I agree with you, Q, that the either/or debate is ridiculous.

I've heard good things about Miller, I think one of his essays was posted here at one time and I remember enjoying it. I would be interested in reading Finding Darwin's God and discussing it here.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Quote:
Is this the Peter principle in action?


I don’t know is it – explain – sounds interesting.

The "Peter Principle" is that eventually everyone stops getting promoted: namely, once they have reached jobs for which they are incompetent!

 
The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity!
Click to expand...
The "Peter Principle" is that eventually everyone stops getting promoted: namely, once they have reached jobs for which they are incompetent!
Click to expand...
While the theory of evolution doesn't indicate that it arrives at humanity as the be all and end all...there are many branches to those trees arriving at various 'mutations' in their highest levels.

However with humans we have now supposedly evolved to what we are today, a point where survival no longer determines the gene pool. Artificial insemination, government run entitlement programs, equal rights, sperm banks, etc., equal technological and moral advances that insure the 'weak' survive and repopulate. Good, bad, thoughtless or indifferent, if evolution is true, we've put a stop to it, likewise if Creation and/or some Creative/Divinely Guided Evolution is true, with genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, and artificial insemination, seedless plants and all the rest...we've decided that we are smarter than our Heavenly Father, Creator, and Mother Nature as well.

A variation of the peter principle in action, no/yes?

namaste,
 
Hi Wil,
That's interesting, but...
wil said:
While the theory of evolution doesn't indicate that it arrives at humanity as the be all and end all...there are many branches to those trees arriving at various 'mutations' in their highest levels.
Click to expand...
How have you determined this, that any species is at some highest or most perfected level? This actually does not make sense at all with respect to the mechanism of evolution based upon descent with modification. All species will continue to change as their environment changes, those most suitable for their environment will be best adapted and have highest survival, leaving the most offspring. Species best suited today may very well not be competetive at all in several thousand years.

However with humans we have now supposedly evolved to what we are today, a point where survival no longer determines the gene pool.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Survival always effects the gene pool, although not in time frames we can observe, or in ways that we can reliably predict. Too many variables!

Artificial insemination, government run entitlement programs, equal rights, sperm banks, etc., equal technological and moral advances that insure the 'weak' survive and repopulate. Good, bad, thoughtless or indifferent, if evolution is true, we've put a stop to it, likewise if Creation and/or some Creative/Divinely Guided Evolution is true, with genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, and artificial insemination, seedless plants and all the rest...we've decided that we are smarter than our Heavenly Father, Creator, and Mother Nature as well.
Click to expand...
Evolutionarily speaking, we live and die as a species. We have not and can not put an end to evolution, although we may be effecting the end of our own species. What we have observed throughout recorded history is like looking at one still frame of a movie and saying that because the picture does not change the movie is at an end. And YEC implies that the movie also has no prior plot; what we see is what we have always had with little or no changes. We may (or may not) be affecting the competiveness of our species, and we are also in the position as a speicies of having a large and far-reaching impact on our environment, which will also effect our survival, but in no way have we terminated evolution, in no way have we stopped the work of our Heavenly Father as you put it.

All the so call "artificial" means of altering the gene pool do not mean that we've put a stop to evolution, in fact it might be that we are speeding up the process by introducing mutations at an ever increasing rate at the same time that we are changing our environment.

Science fictiony perhaps, but we could be either the termination of an evolutionary branch or the "common ancestor" for a future next plethora of humanoid species to survive on this planet. I don't think that man's doing, no matter how extreme, could wipe out all life on this planet, but I think it sure could wipe out all human life.

A variation of the peter principle in action, no/yes?

namaste,
Click to expand...

When we can no longer compete, we will no longer survive as a species.

Just wanted to brighten your day. :)

cheers,
lunamoth
 
I don't think that man's doing, no matter how extreme, could wipe out all life on this planet, but I think it sure could wipe out all human life....When we can no longer compete, we will no longer survive as a species....Just wanted to brighten your day
Click to expand...
Man cannot destroy the earth, man can only make it uninhabitable for man, the planet will survive-Rush Lmbaugh

I'm not a fan, but I sure like that quote. And I did miss state on survival not affecting...I meant to say the strongest and fittest concept has been eliminated, my bad.

and yes evolution I suppose contains devolution as well...up down or sideways we continue to change/evolve.
 
wil said:
Man cannot destroy the earth, man can only make it uninhabitable for man, the planet will survive-Rush Lmbaugh

I'm not a fan, but I sure like that quote. And I did miss state on survival not affecting...I meant to say the strongest and fittest concept has been eliminated, my bad.

and yes evolution I suppose contains devolution as well...up down or sideways we continue to change/evolve.
Click to expand...

Sorry to nitpick about this, but it is just this kind of vagueness that confuses the issues around evolution and religion. The survival of the fittest concept is alive and kicking, not eliminated. And you might argue that we are decreasing the fitness of our species for the environmnent, or altering the environment negatively for our speices, but the result will still be evolution (or extinction), not devolution.

But we do continue to change and evolve, we just are in no position to witness it.

And it sure is amusing to find something upon which both Rush and I agree. :D

peace,
lunamoth
 
I believe that the theory of evolution is where it is at, and the creation story in the Bible is just a tale created by its author in the days before science!
 
You keep wanting to make that correlation, and it does not seem to me to be a fair one.

Definition Fundamentalism:
1. (Christianity) (esp among certain Protestantsects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true.
2. (Islam) a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law.
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.

Obviously in this context we are referring to the 3rd definition, yes? You are trying to correlate a strict definition of scripture - which is indeed unchangeable, with a strict definition of science, which is changeable. As I am sure you are sick of hearing me say all the time, facts change in science. If it can proven that a fact is wrong, it is junked in favor of the new version of that fact.

You keep trying to equate a belief system where nothing can change with one where anything and everything can change depending on our ability to examine and test information for accuracy. Saying that making a choice to accept science over religion is not a fundamentalist statement.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
You keep wanting to make that correlation, and it does not seem to me to be a fair one.

Definition Fundamentalism:
1. (Christianity) (esp among certain Protestantsects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true.
2. (Islam) a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law.
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.

Obviously in this context we are referring to the 3rd definition, yes? You are trying to correlate a strict definition of scripture - which is indeed unchangeable, with a strict definition of science, which is changeable. As I am sure you are sick of hearing me say all the time, facts change in science. If it can proven that a fact is wrong, it is junked in favor of the new version of that fact.

You keep trying to equate a belief system where nothing can change with one where anything and everything can change depending on our ability to examine and test information for accuracy. Saying that making a choice to accept science over religion is not a fundamentalist statement.
Click to expand...
maybe off topic, but your 2nd one isn't accurate for most uses of the word fundamentalists. (although I would like people favoring strict observation to be referred to as fundamentalist than the terrorists that seem to have inherited the title) Fundamentalists should refer to those who are strictly observing the exact revelation that they believe (be it any religion). The issue is that by calling terrorists or Harsh interpretationalists as Fundamentalists it causes people to think that what those people display is an exact display of that religion. I wouldn't think that someone as involved here as you would think Al-Queada (SP?) is an example of Islam as revealed by Mouhammed (PBUH) in the Quran, but by calling them fundamentalists (you didn't, but others do) and then you defining fundamentalists as strict followers, it sends messages that aren't accurate. I'm sure you didn't pull this definition out of thin air, so it is definately someone elses input.

As Juan's example of jj's explanation, he is saying that JJ50's explanation shows his strict adherence to scientific theory, discounting others as "obvious fantasy" shows that it is in line with definition 3. Unless of course you are trying to say that absolute devotion to scientific theories isn't a belief system.
 
Joe... I thought the same thing...when I allowed my prejudices to be read into what was written...but it is not there...

He is saying
(Islam) a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law.
Click to expand...
not that they are following a radical interpretations of the Quran based warped hadiths....preached by Imams inciting violence....those are the terrorists... not the fundamentalists.
 
Joe, it isn't my quote. The definitions came from Dictionary.com. Like Wil, I am confused how you got terrorists out of there. The definition simply states 'strict observance' - it's essentially identical to the Christian definition. Unless you were simply objecting to the concept that fundamentalism in today's world tends to be the label used for religious extremists, and that is not the correct use of the word. If that is what you mean, I agree that the word is being misused in modern societies. You are going to have to take that up with the world's news organizations though!
 
Hello

About a year and a half ago I was awakened to questions of myself and my life experiences. I started out by picking up a pendulum and asking the basic questions, who am I, what am I and will I live beyond this life time. The answers kept me asking questions and none of the answers seemed to align with all the new aged or old aged messages. I spent several months seeking answers to help decipher the messages I was receiving online and in many forums. Today a whole story has been put together, one that has left me perplexed and baffled but at the same time it's like I understand it so well.

This thread is about the evolution conflict. Here is what i have been told regarding evolution. First off I hear voices 24/7 and yes all through the night as dreams and subconscious talking. My experiences with the voices are spiritual.

A world is selected to become something that can hold life. The world is then assigned a world soul object to become the life force of that planet. For argument sake we will call this world soul object Gaia or Mother. Gaia is the child of source or a living part of him that separates, all world soul objects are female. Gaia holds inside her the seeds of all the beginning life forms that will become something on that planet within her. Some worlds are inherited and some worlds will become all new life. Gaia will mate with source to release the angels of her world from within source. The angels can become any shape of any species and can become that species to direct its shape and energy. Life starts as a single molecule and over thousands and millions of years the angels with gaia will shape life into the life we see today. When life has taken the shape of those that will inherit them, they will come to that world and become the souls of them becoming themselves here. In worlds not inherited the angels will allow these souls to become something of themselves. Angles carry templates of species within them that they can become to allow many species to become something again from worlds that went extinct. If they wanted man to have six fingers the angels will enter the body in the shape of something with six fingers and within a few generations, these species will then have six fingers through subtle manipulation of the soul.

Powessy
 
Hi Powessy! Hearing voices can be a serious thing, might be worth checking up with medical doctors just to be safe. Wish you the best.
 
If people are hearing voices, they should certainly get medical advice.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Definition Fundamentalism:

3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs.

Obviously in this context we are referring to the 3rd definition, yes? You are trying to correlate a strict definition of scripture - which is indeed unchangeable, with a strict definition of science, which is changeable. As I am sure you are sick of hearing me say all the time, facts change in science. If it can proven that a fact is wrong, it is junked in favor of the new version of that fact.
Click to expand...
Definition of fact: "A thing that is known or proved to be true." Of course there are variant uses for the word, but this is the meaning that matters to our discussion. So in our heads we are pretty much on the same page. Where we go our separate ways is what you said here:

emphasis by DA

"….in other words facts don't change. So if facts don't change, science wouldn't change. If facts do change, they weren't really facts to begin with." -jt3
Click to expand...

After so much progress???

"Proved to be true," yet "changes." OK, what *precisely* does "true" mean to you??? For that matter, what *precisely* does "proved" mean? Are you in any way suggesting that reality "changes???" What I have been saying all along is that our *view* of reality isn't always correct. You are not saying that at all. If facts are true/truth, and facts/truth are reality, and reality doesn't change, it simply is what is...then facts do *not* change. Otherwise the term "fact" becomes semantically meaningless, "fact" becomes a euphemism for "dogma." "Fact" just becomes a cool sounding word that gives leverage to a statement...whether based in reality or not.

(In fact/truth/reality I have maintained for years that no single belief system including science had a lock on viewing the whole of reality, that at best each only had a view of a piece of reality, and that none was capable of viewing the whole of reality)
 
Last edited:
A Cup Of Tea said:
Hi Powessy! Hearing voices can be a serious thing, might be worth checking up with medical doctors just to be safe. Wish you the best.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your concern but I have been hearing these voices for almost a year now with no effect on my life at all. What do you think the doctor could tell me about the voices? A cup of tea, 18 months ago I came to this site to ask questions about the awakening I was having through astral projections and obes the things I was seeing were all following a certain pattern. 12 months ago something came and made changes to me and then the words began showing up in written form within my mind then they changed to spoken words each time moving higher and higher in my mind.

My questions are related to the story told to me by these voices as I am an atheist and would have never given to thoughts to grand design until now.

Powessy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top