Is Evolution Compatible With Religion?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/evolution-and-religion_b_1945083.html

Victor Stenger
Physicist, Ph.D.,
bestselling author, author of 'God and the Folly of Faith'

Posted: 10/06/2012 3:16 pm

Every major scientific society has affirmed that all our knowledge of biological science convincingly supports evolution by natural selection and cannot be understood without it. At the same time, these societies have carefully avoided offending religious groups by assuring that evolution does not conflict with religious beliefs. (See, for example, National Academy of Sciences. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, p. 58).

In fact, this attempt by scientists to convince the American public that evolution poses no threat to faith has largely fallen on deaf ears, perhaps because it is simply untrue, and believers can see this clearly enough.

A 2010 Gallup Poll found that only 16 percent of Americans believe in "Naturalist Evolution," defined as the view that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life [and] God had no part in the process." This is exactly the same percentage of Americans who declare themselves unaffiliated with any religion. It may be that the only Americans who accept naturalist evolution are those who do not participate in any organized religion.

Of 34 developed nations surveyed for their acceptance of evolution, defined as humans and apes sharing the same ancestor, only Turkey was lower than the U.S.

more at link

[patrice]

1. I can't understand why an omnipotent "God" could not do whatever HOWever s-he wills to. nt

[gcomeau]

159. I can't understand...

...what value or comfort people derive from such a belief.

What you are basically doing is coming along after science has done all th work of figuring out all this intricate amazing stuff about how the universe works and then sticking a big "BECAUSE GOD!!!!" on the end of it all.

WHY? It adds nothing. It contributes not one single iota to our understanding. It tells us nothing about reason or purpose. It just cheapens the entire endeavor to come ambling along at the end of all this truly impressive work and paste this tacky meaningless bit of magical fairytale on the end of it for no apparent reason except some people decided they like it there because it fits well with the rest of the magical fairytale view of the world they've immersed themselves in.


In the meantime, the scientific method rejects the addition on the grounds that unfalsifiable hypotheses are null value and have no place in serious scientific investigation.

[patrice]

164. "you"? Perhaps you should begin with me by asking me whether I'm "sticking" anything on to science

or not.

After-all, isn't that what an honest scientist would do?

[gcomeau]

165. That was a generic "you".

As in " were you (who are reading these words, whoever you may be) to do this then you would be..."

[Angry Dragon]

2. I fail to see why science should be concerned if it poses a threat to religion

If religion can not stand on its own then it is pretty much worthless

[cbayer]

3. I think the more appropriate question how the large number of creationists threaten science.

[Angry Dragon]

7. They do not threaten science because science can stand on its own

things will be what they are and the only ones hurt are the ignorant

[cbayer]

10. Let me rephrase.

If children are being taught creationism and told that evolution is false, that hurts science.

It's not about being able to stand on your own, it's about the future.

The creationists are not the only ones hurt.

[Angry Dragon]

14. I really do not see any religions slapping these people down

Most religions in this country live in a mind set over 2000 years old
Until these religions can move to the present day they hurt everyone
so you tell me what use religion really is .............

[cbayer]

15. If religion is of no use to you, so be it.

But if others find it useful, and it presents no harm to others, why is it anyone's business.

In this case, I think that creationism does present a harm to others.

I do agree that many religious organizations need to evolve to be compatible with the current culture.

[Angry Dragon]

19. I never said religion is no use to me, way to change the discussion

[cbayer]

21. Well, you said it was useless..... twice.

So I assumed that was your personal POV.

[Angry Dragon]

22. Show me the quotes of where I said it was useless

[cbayer]

23. Never mind.

[skepticscott]

24. Translation

"I lied about what you said and got called on it, so rather than apologize like a grown-up, I'm taking my ball and going home like nothing happened"

[trotsky]

38. Yep.

Different story, same ending. So much for honest discussion. The double standards of some folks are breathtaking.

[Leontius]

33. I see one of your stalkers showed up.

[cbayer]

34. They can't quit me.

[skepticscott]

41. Who wants to "quit" you?

You're simply being put on notice that your lies and hypocrisy will be pointed out. This is a discussion board, one purpose of which is (one would hope) getting at the truth and rooting out falsehoods. That's what happens here.

Don't like those kinds of responses to your posts? Stop lying and stop displaying such a blatant double standard.

[trotsky]

39. So it's "stalking" to point out that someone lied,

and can't be bothered to apologize for making false claims? Interesting.

[Leontius]

42. Waiting for Curly

[trotsky]

43. Name-calling.

Stay classy, good Christian. Make Jesus proud.

[Leontius]

46. Being human I grieve Christ everyday but I don't celebrate like some.

Who knows Shemp could return from the dead too but as you say with more class than before.

[trotsky]

56. And here I thought being a Christian meant you held yourself to a higher standard.

Instead, you call names and insult. Oh wait, there's that old "Not perfect, just forgiven" canard that lets Christians be as much of an ass as they want! Thanks for confirming the hypocrisy that is Christianity.

[Leontius]

60. But not quite like being called a liar when someone could not

post a link to a newsreel film clip from the 1930s they saw though is it, so much for standards.

[trotsky]

61. What? This is about YOUR behavior, that only YOU can control.

I don't believe you made false accusations on this thread, and comments pointing that out were not directed at you. You just jumped in to mock and call names. You are only responsible for that.

[Leontius]

63. And this is about your behavior past and continuing.

[trotsky]

64. So you are justified in your terrible behavior because you think someone else deserves it?

Can you point to the specific things I did that warranted being called names by you on this thread? Skepticscott and I both called attention to dishonest discussion tactics by someone else, and we were attacked personally by you for it. I'd like to let you give your side of the story and explain why you think your attacks were justified.

[trotsky]

68. Have you had enough time to identify my specific behavior that warranted your personal attacks?

Just wondering when you will be providing that. Thanks!

[trotsky]

69. Hi, still waiting to find out why you think your attacks were justified.

When you have a moment, please post here. Thanks!

[trotsky]

70. Have you figured out yet what I did to deserve punishment?

If not, will you apologize for the personal attacks? That would certainly be a "Christian" thing to do.

[trotsky]

71. I see.

You have absolutely no evidence that I committed any kind of transgression that warranted your personal attacks; it seems you just wanted to lash out. And you can't even manage to apologize for that.

At least it's obvious what kind of Christian you are. Thanks for making it clear.

[Leontius]

45. Exactly what was the implication of 'what use religion really is'?

[Angry Dragon]

47. It was a question

I gave the poster or anyone else room to respond

[AlbertCat]

79. f children are being taught creationism and told that evolution is false, that hurts science.

No it doesn't.

It only hurts those children. Period.


Really, there is more to the world than your neighborhood. Creationism is essentially a USA thing. The rest of the civilized world doesn't care about it. If US children are ignorant, some kids in Europe or India or somewhere else will take up the slack.... thus pushing the USA back even further from relevance and to the bottom rung.

[Meshuga]

82. It hurts our society

...When kids are not taught science. That is the bottom line.

[Leontius]

6. One of the best statements that has been made

in this group.

[Angry Dragon]

8. Thank you

[MAD Dave]

17. Ding ding ding

As a Baha'i, that is exactly what I think!

[Angry Dragon]

20. Thank you

[longship]

4. I really like Victor Stenger.

He is a good guy. He is also a physicist, my field of study. (Sadly, mine is only a BS, but I try to keep up.)

I will read this later tonight. In the meantime, you get a DUrec and kick.

[cbayer]

12. He does not think they are compatible, but doesn't really offer

much in the way of solutions towards solving that.

[skepticscott]

25. Why does there need to be a "solution"

and why is it his responsibility to provide it? If certain religious folks (those would be the dumbasses, to you) find their worldview in conflict with incontrovertible fact that's THEIR problem. It's not as if the truth isn't out there, or lots and lots of scientists don't waste lots and lots of time "debating" settled science and debunking the same nonsense for the thousandth time.

[Warpy]

5. Roman Catholics seem to have no problem with it

along with most mainstream Protestant denominations, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and all sorts of flavors of NA religions I know about. Only when you start trying to claim a preposterous set of allegories is the literal truth do you get into serious trouble and have to deny evolution in order to preserve the allegory as historical record.

Religious believers, along with the hierarchy of the RCC, consider evolution to be a natural process guided by the hand of god. They also realize that a day for a deity must be billions of years long, since the first day occurred before there were stars, let alone planets to rotate around them.

In other words, fundamentalists shut down the conversation before it starts by thumping the book and saying "god did it." Other believers have read the books and ask the question "How did god do it and how long did it take?"

Scientific inquiry is not incompatible with belief. It's only incompatible with fundamentalism.

[Kalidurga]

9. Thank you

I was going to ask which religion. So, religions adapt to scientific thought a lot better than others. So, just ignore science or rail against it.

[patrice]

13. Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, a Jesuit, was ordered by the pope to stop writing about Science &

Theology. That's a pretty good example of rationalist trends within a very conservative institution like the RC church.

But then, Jesuits do have somewhat of a tradition for being intellectually courageous.

de Chardin was/is not the only rationalist in that culture. It's been a while since I have read St. Augustine, but I think he wrote some on the question too. And I'm pretty certain there are more recent examples . . . something else I should read up on.

[JoePhilly]

26. I attended a Jesuit University as a non-Catholic, and I agree with your view of the Jesuits.

One of my favorite classes was Roman Catholicism. Every kid in the class was Catholic except for me. And day after day, those kids tried to repeat their memorized Sunday school lines to the Jesuit priest. And every day, he'd DESTROY them.

He forced them to stop simply repeating lines verbatim, and acually THINK about their faith.

I'd started out in a Presbyterian family, then spent some years playing basketball with the Baptists. And most of my closer school friends were Catholic.

So I'd been exposed to multiple flavors of Christianity by the time I went to college. And I had lots of questions. And the Jesuits encouraged that.

It was great being a non-Catholic student getting As in Roman Catholicism, even as kids raised Catholic struggled to pass the class.

[cbayer]

27. Jesuits are my favorite order because they think and challenge.

The Jesuit high school in New Orleans is generally thought to be the premiere high school for boys and many of the most wonderful men I have ever known or worked with were educated there.

They tend to come out with a higher degree of belief in social justice, fairness, equality and are generally open to new ideas.

A book I often recommend is "The Sparrow". It is science fiction but really fascinating. It follows the first manned trip to another planet where it is known there is intelligent life and Jesuits are chosen to be part of the crew because of their history.

[patrice]

32. There was a blog post posted here today concerning myths about secularism.

I'll go find that link for you in a bit, but I mention it because the writer observes that the roots of secularism come from Christian philosophy, e.g. Martin Luther.

I think one of the reasons I don't have a problem with rationalism and authentic Christianity is because I came of intellectual age in the late '60s, at Catholic high school, and we were reacting to moral questions posed by the war on Vietnam and by the Civil Rights movement, e.g. the moral autonomy of individuals to do their best to identify what is right, even, or especially, when that means going against one's cohort in one or more ways. We had to think about stuff like members of our own age cohort having to go to war and also what photographs self-immolating monks in (Life? or Look?) magazines might mean, what a church bombing in Alabama was about and why there was a Civil Rights Act in 1964.

The principal at my high school was a diocesan priest of whom it was said, even though he was a relatively young man at the time, that he might never rise very high in the church because his graduate degree was philosophy, not theology. All of us came into those high school religion classes prepared with the memorized questions and answers from The Baltimore Catechism and in grade school we had had weekly visits from monseigneur somebody, who always lead us into our own questions, which were the usual harmless sort of things that grade school kids think of. I still think of those questions and answers as good starting points for digging deeper, much deeper.

I remember always being impressed with the way the high school principle lead us deeper into the philosophical issues, just deep enough actually, showing us that it is okay to think for one's self, and I remember his very consistent sardonic wit and the kind of mysterious, subtle, but very definitely amused half-smile he habitually wore. He had also been a Golden Gloves champ in college, so he was respected by all, even though he was anything but a beefy sort of fellow. There was another priest who was waaaaaaaaay more hip and artistic and popular, but it was Fr. Santa the philosopher who was just about the very first light to my mind after my union loving Dad.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

72. I can think of someone

You wrote, "The principal at my high school was a diocesan priest of whom it was said, even though he was a relatively young man at the time, that he might never rise very high in the church because his graduate degree was philosophy, not theology." I would point out that Pope John Paul II's doctorate was in philosophy.

[patrice]

85. It takes more than philosophy. My last Pope was John XXIII. nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

87. Oh, the last pope I liked was John XXIII

My point was that an education in philosophy, rather than theology, was not necessarily a bar to advancement in the Church hierarchy.

[okasha]

55. He was also a paleontologist.

N/T

[patrice]

57. Fascinating guy! I've only read The Heart of Matter, and only once so far, great breadth & depth.

I like the way that he seems to regard all of nature and everything about all of nature as a book, a holy book.

[patrice]

11. Vatican II Roman Catholics may find it not inconsistent with Transubstantiation. nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

73. Transubstantiation is wholly unrelated to evolution

Do you even know what "transubstantiation" means?

[cleanhippie]

75. Transubstantiation is wholly unrelated to reality.

[Silent3]

81. +1 :) n/t

[patrice]

83. to you . . . another name for such absolutism is Fundamentalist fascism. nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

88. Quite obviously, you do not know what "transubstantiation" means.

It has been Catholic dogma for well over a millenium that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas discovered Aristotle's Physics.

Aristotle divides the properties of matter into two categories, substance and accident. The substance is the radical being of anything, while the accidents are those things which can be changed yet do not change the substance. For example: Water may be liquid or ice, yet freezing water does not truly change that which makes it water. Similarly, wood may be sawn or carved without it losing its essential "woodiness"; yet if you were to burn it, it would be changed into a different substance -- ash and gas. (Note: This is a considerable oversimplification. For example, there are other Aristotelian categories, but those are the only two we need to concern ourselves with.)

Aquinas said to himself, "This explains how Christ becomes present in the Eucharist! The substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining their accidents of taste and appearance!" (See Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologia III questions 75 and 76 for a considerably more detailed discussion. It is available on-line in a remarkably stilted translation here. During the Council of Trent in the 16th century, transubstantiation was made offical Catholic dogma.

Personally, while transubstantiation is an ingenious explanation of how the Real Presence is affected, its basis in Aristotelian physics effectively tied Catholic theology to Aristotle. To my mind, it is far more significant to accept the Real Presence than to insist that it be done in a particular way.

If you would like me to expand on this, I can, but I warn you that a full explanation will be really technical.

[cleanhippie]

90. Quite obviously, you do not know what "reality" means.

Because transubstantiation has nothing to do with reality in any way.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

92. Catholics believe that transubstatiation is real

So you can take your bigoted sneers elsewhere.

My personal feeling about transubstantiation is that it is an ingenious explanation of how the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is effected. I would willingly dispense with it, but I will not dispense with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[cleanhippie]

95. Sorry pal, but reality isn't bigoted.

And the "real presence of Christ", whatever THAT is, has nothing to do with reality either.

Bigoted? I don't think you know what that word means, because you are using it incorrectly.


You have a nice day, ya hear?

[cleanhippie]

106. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the not-so-amazing christian apologist.

Able to hurl insults and spew tired apologist blather in a single breath.

No, pal, YOU prove all the nonsense you have been vomiting. You prove that your claim that the "real" presence of christ, whatever the fuck that nonsense is, is not just some more made-up bullshit. You prove that a cup of wine and a cracker turn into flesh. You believe any nonsensical, reality denying bullshit you want. It's your delusion, not mine. But if you want me to accept it, YOU have to prove it to be a real thing, and not just some crazy belief you hold.

Not very bright? Perhaps, but I will take not being very bright over being a dimwit any day of the week.

[trotsky]

111. I see that our meek, humble, loving Christian friend...

has removed himself from the discussion yet again because he just can't stop verbally assaulting others with insulting, disrespectful language. Jesus must be so very proud.

[cleanhippie]

112. Very proud, indeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. but it remains an open question if the rudeness as an accidental property of the poster

or a substantial property of the poster.

[trotsky]

98. If I had two communion wafers in front of me...

one consecrated, one not....

How would I be able to tell which one had the Real Presence of Christ in it?

[cleanhippie]

99. You need to use your "other ways of knowing."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

104. Faith is the evidence of things not seen

I have used the word "believe" consistently. That is because, unlike you, I believe that certain things are real. You, on the other hand, based on nothing more than your own prejudice, "know" they do not exist. As I said in the other post, prove it.

[cleanhippie]

107. No, YOU prove it. YOu are the one that claims supernatural nonsense is real. Its your delusion,

YOU prove it.

[AlbertCat]

119. Faith is the evidence of things not seen

Faith is the end of inquiry.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

102. Of course not

But that is the whole point of the substance/accident thing.

[trotsky]

105. The point is that it looks exactly as if it's complete bunk?

I see. Thanks!

[patrice]

84. Or you could call it blasphemy . . . . Pick your authoritarian poison.

[cbayer]

16. Agree, particularly with your last sentence.

I think those that believe that evolution was guided in some way does not contradict or interfere with scientific inquiry and progress.

But fundamentalist beliefs in creationism do.

The real solution, imo, is at the local and state levels, where we need to insure that creationism is treated as religion and not science.

[skepticscott]

36. Believing that evolution was guided in some way

is just another way of saying that you believe in intelligent design. If you think that isn't in conflict with legitimate science or corrupting of science education, you're very much mistaken. It stemmed directly from biblical creationism, disguised to try to pass legal muster, but it's simply another way of asserting that "gawdditit". ID was dreamed up specifically to try to destroy a purely scientific, non-supernatural explanation for why life is the way we see it, and it is promoted in law in exactly the same way.

[patrice]

58. It does if one's assumptions are hierarchical/top-down, instead of from the "bottom" "up", IMO, a

change in that perspective suggests that what we call "design," i.e. pattern, which can happen also to have a quality that can be refered to as "intelligence", i.e. functional adaptation, can be regarded as an emergent property (amongst, at least hypothetically, other emergent properties) of whatever is.

[skepticscott]

65. Ignorant claptrap

"pattern" is not equivalent to "design" nor "functional adaptation" to "intelligence".

[humblebum]

94. Religion and evolution can be fully compatible.

Evolution is based upon empirical, objective evidence. Whether or not the evolutionary processes were driven by some spiritual force is purely subjective opinion and unable to be proven objectively.

[AlbertCat]

80. those that believe that evolution was guided in some way

don't know what evolution is.

Such a notion directly contradicts the theory.

As usual, religionists don't know what the theory of evolution is. If they would do their homework and stop trying to inject their religious notions onto the theory, there would be no need for any of this thread.

[humblebum]

96. Bottom Line: The fact that an evolutionary process occurs is plainly obvious.

There is far too much evidence to argue against it. However, if the theory of evolution, as you understand it, contains a declaration that no deity or supernatural force was necessary or was not involved in the process, the statement is completely subjective and non-provable.

[AlbertCat]

100. the statement is completely subjective and non-provable.

No it isn't. It's obvious. There are so many examples of bad and loopy "design" that it would be a stretch to say it was guided (except by traits that allow the organism to survive better than others in its niche). There is no "goal" to, say, "humans". Humans are not at the "top" of evolution, obviously, because many of us fall for guesses with no evidence... even when there's evidence against our guesses.

The default position is that it occurs naturally without any help from the supernatural. The supernatural or a designer is superfluous. It's UP TO YOU to show there's some designer.

[humblebum]

101. Actually it is.

And who decided that there is a "default?" That is an absolute joke. Objective empirical evidence extends no farther than what is verifiable and observable. Anything beyond that is pure supposition. It cannot objectively be claimed that there is or is not something beyond that which can be observed. And to claim anything else is an ad hoc argument and an obvious logical fallacy.

[AlbertCat]

108. ad hoc

Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes -- wiki

See, you got it just backwards. A designer is not needed.... you don't need anything supernatural to get evolution. Yours is the "solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable".

Boy, do you not understand evolution or science!

[humblebum]

113. Huge difference between "ad hoc" and "ad hoc argumentum"

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 07:05 PM - Edit history (2)

"In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying sense or logical framework. Because of this haste and lack of a consistent frame-work, the explanation is likely to contradict existing thought or other arguments. Usually it happens if someone is put on the spot to explain something"

- RationalWiki

in order to justify your bolshevist logic you would need to define what deity or the supernatural are to claim that they are not needed. First, you would have to prove that something can come from nothing. Good luck.

[AlbertCat]

114. First, you would have to prove that something can come from nothing. Good luck.

http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350519081&sr=1-1&keywords=a+universe+from+nothing

&feature=plcp


Certainly not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but way more evidence than there is for a "designer" or any god.

[humblebum]

115. Been there done that. Just as you have created your own ad hoc definition of deity

to fit the desired outcome, skeptics have also redefined the definition of "nothing" in order to fit the desired paradigm. LOL

IOW your "nothing" is a something.

[AlbertCat]

116. The ol' redefine "nothing" dodge!

The definition of nothing used in these theories is what anyone would consider nothing. "a space with all the particles and all the energy removed"

As Krauss points out in the book (and you'd know about if you had actually read it) what this dodge has become: that folks like you define nothing as "That which only god can create from"

So nope... won't fly. You'll have to prove the math wrong.


Meanwhile.... religionists redefine "god" about every year or so. Move that goalpost!

[humblebum]

117. You appear to be the only one dodging here.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:11 PM - Edit history (2)

"That which only god can create from" - that's a new one on me. But you are failing to omit one element from your definition of nothing, which is "space" itself. Space is something.

What you have done is tailored "nothing" to fit your own paradigm, which of course is an ad hoc argument.

[AlbertCat]

118. The ol' "I'm rubber, you're glue" ploy

Again, you are talking about yourself.

Like I said, a space with all the particles and all the energy removed is a common and normal definition of "nothing". Actually, it's more comprehensive than the "street" definition. "What's in the box?" "Nothing" well it's full of air, and dust and particles and energy. But for precise scientific purposes, it is defined as " a space with all the particles and all the energy gone" Any reasonable person would know that was a normal and acceptable definition of "nothing".

But freaked out religionists, because they can't stand the idea of yanking the last refuge out from under their continuing redefined notions of a god, keep whittling down the supposedly acceptable definition of "nothing" until you get "That which only god can create from".

It's kinda funny, actually.

[humblebum]

120. Like I said your "nothing" is a something, and to substitute

such a something and to call it a nothing is extremely deceptive. As for Christianity, God is seen as far removed from space and time and certainly many do agree with such an assessment.

Science is concerned only with empirical objective reality, but even with your definition of something from nothing, which is laughable and a ruse, it still is not proven that something can come from nothing.

One can say that nothing was observed existing within that tiny amount of space from which a seemingly something emerged from nothingness, but to claim that something does not exist because it has not been observed is a true fallacy - a definite ad hoc argument designed to produce a desired outcome. Not one thing in the natural world suggests that anything can come from nothing. And yes, I am familiar with the experiments claiming such proof.

Space is most definitely a something. It has infinite height, width, and depth and is thought be many to be uniquely intertwined with time. So if time can be stopped as some suggest, then space would also cease to exist.

The bottom line sir is that you don't know the answer to anything, but are making every attempt to make the claim that you do have the answers.

[AlbertCat]

121. As for Christianity, God is seen as far removed from space and time

Then he has no power here... science has dropped a house on god's sister. He can be gone.

"certainly many do agree with such an assessment. "

This makes no difference. Just as it makes no difference a huge swath of the science community agrees with the current consensus that energy fields and particles are popping in and out of "nothing". It merely means that the definition YOU have of "nothing" (that which only god can create from) doesn't exist because in this universe (the only one we can experience) there will always be these quantum fields and virtual particle.

"laughable and a ruse"

Hardly. It's the same method and math that give us the most accurate predictions ever in science.

"something does not exist because it has not been observed"

No one says there is no god or designer because we can't see him.... but because we don't need him. There is no need to go to the supernatural to get to the universe we observe today. God adds nothing to the theory, and is superfluous. Like Russell's tea pot.

If you want to believe in a china tea pot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, go ahead. But if you want to refute the science that shows something coming from a very credible definition of nothing, you're gonna have to prove the math wrong.

[humblebum]

122. Like I said your nothing is a something.

It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue of what you are taking about.

"because in this universe (the only one we can experience)" - actually that flies in the face of quantum mechanics, which very much accepts the idea of parallel universes. And how do you know that it is the only one that can be experienced if you cannot even define it. Answer: you don't.

The fact still remains that your nothing is a something. And your claim of consensus in the scientific community is a logical fallacy in itself in that it is an Argumentum ad Populum.

Yes, your nothing is a something.

"No one says there is no god or designer because we can't see him.... but because we don't need him." - That in itself is an obvious ad hoc argument. And comical.

Anything to justify your radical atheist, very bolshevikian, ways.

[AlbertCat]

123. Oh for crying out loud

This "yes it is" "no it isn't" crap is a bore.

But go ahead and believe what you want.

And I do know what I'm talking about. The "many universes" theory (no mention of parallel) does not in any way say we can experience any of the other universes. Indeed, it shows why it's not possible to do so.

So we live in a universe where there will always be something.(like you admit) The math shows that. The math does not show anything like a designer or god. So we live in a universe in which god will always be irrelevant.... as you have just pointed out. Thank you.

P.S. "And your claim of consensus in the scientific community is a logical fallacy in itself in that it is an Argumentum ad Populum."

alas you're the one who brought up how many people matter."and certainly many do agree with such an assessment."

I know what an Argumentum ad Populum is.... I pointed out your use of it! What about "This makes no difference" do you not understand? Really, learn to comprehend as you read. You'll sound less stupid.

[humblebum]

124. "Indeed, it shows why it's not possible to do so." - what a crock.

The default definition of nothing as it is defined by physics is just that, in much the same way as the limits of the Scientific Method were defined by Logical Positivism. Today of course those limits are constantly being challenged by quantum thinking.

Tell me? Does gravity exist in that something you call nothing?

[Anthony McCarthy]

137. If no one else has asked you

where did the laws of quantum physics tocome from? Krauss admits he has no idea, whatsoever. How is that a harder thing to get past than a God which doesn't have a beginning? I've never read one of these attempts to use physics to disprove the existence of God that doesn't run into the same conceptual problem that they assert disproves God with science.

I used to have some respect for Lawrence Krauss but he's gone way past his competence and, if you've ever seen him debate a competent philosopher, it's clear he's not prepared for a real opponent. He should stick to physics, you know, in the physical universe where it used to reside.

[AlbertCat]

142. Here we go again

You can't disprove a god. Science would never waste its time in such a boring and lame pursuit.

It is simply that a god is superfluous. Not needed. The universe looks and works just as if there was no god at all.

It's up to believers to prove he exists.

And Philosophy proves nothing, BTW.

Also, it's not Krauss' theory or ideas. It's simply the current scientific consensus.



And I'm not going thru this again. You guys never get it anyway. So believe your ancient superstitions but get out of the way.

[MAD Dave]

18. ^^^ exactly ^^^

[Thats my opinion]

48. Wouldn't it make for more intelligent conversation

if you-all would stop fighting fundamentalists who aren't here, and debate with the advocates of religion who are? But then the fundies are easy targets, so I guess whacking away at them is like shooting fish in a barrel. Is ANYONE in "religion" defending creationism?

[okasha]

54. No.

But apparently reality is irrelevant in this instance.

Edited to add: one of my dear friends is a devout Baptist who is a retired biology professor who taught evolution with no religious slant at all for 40 years. He and his very ecumenical pastor are also deeply committed environmentalists. A couple years ago, my friend, his pastor, a Catholic priest and I were all prepared to chain ourselves to a bulldozer to prevent the destruction of a small but exquisite ecosystem slated for "development." Several more Catholics, another Native American traditionalist, a couple of atheists and assorted others stood by to bail us out upon arrest. (Not necessary, since our Catholic lawyer beat the bad guys in court.) Such things apparently don't happen in whatever universe some posters live in.

[Warpy]

62. Just once

I would like to see an answer to something I had actually written.

[Thats my opinion]

67. Hey Warpy, what was the question?.

Last edited Mon Oct 8, 2012, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

Do the believers represented here on "Religion" ask "How long did it take?"
The answer is "no". That question is best addressed by science.

Did God do it? If you mean God as a person who does things, "no."
If you mean God is the doing, the energy behind all that is, the answer is "Yes."

[skepticscott]

66. It would make for more intelligent conversation

if you responded to direct questions about what you post, and didn't constantly dodge them because they didn't make you warm and fuzzy. You claims to want real debate and discussion are as lame and empty as they've always been. You want an echo chamber for your "modern theology" and pretend "debates" with people who never seriously challenge or question your agenda.

[MgtPA]

52. I agree. I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and I learned about evolution

in 9th grade science class - straight up science, no creationism blurring the lines.

Interestingly enough, in 9th grade religion class, we were told that Adam & Eve, 7 days of creation, etc. were parables and fables, not to be taken literally.

Gotta love the nuns.

[gcomeau]

158. Nitpick

Ignoring the incompatibility and not having a problem with the incompatibility are not the same thing. Case in point:

"Religious believers, along with the hierarchy of the RCC, consider evolution to be a natural process guided by the hand of god. "

That is IGNORING the incompatibility. Science does not allow for supernatural unfalsifiable entities to be inserted into its hypotheses for no reason except some religious group decides they want to tack it on to satisfy their personal worldviews.

"In other words, fundamentalists shut down the conversation before it starts by thumping the book and saying "god did it." Other believers have read the books and ask the question "How did god do it and how long did it take?" "

It is truly disturbing if you seriously think this process:

1. Allow science to perform all the work.
2. Allow science to determine how everything happened.
3. Tack "because God" on the end of *any answer* they come up with.


...qualifies as asking anything resembling a serious question about "how did God do it". If God caused evolution to happen tell us what mechanism was involved in inserting himself or his will into the process above and beyond the purely physical chemical and biological processes that in no way whatsoever require intervention by an all powerful super being to do what we see them doing. THAT would be contributing a "how God did it" to the picture. Otherwise there is no "how God did it" about it. There is just how it happened.

[Warpy]

161. I know that and you know that

but believers are compelled to shove god in somewhere, even if it's obvious he doesn't belong.

I was pointing out the coexistence within one faith, not the quality of such coexistence or the validity of religious thinking, in general, and which I do not share.

[gcomeau]

162. Noted... -eom

[Swede Atlanta]

28. As a Christian...I have never believed in the Genesis story of 6 days...

I believe in a creative force (God) that creates the potential for life and sets things in motion. That force observes as the natural world acts and reacts. I have no problem believing that while mankind may be gifted with a soul that other life forms don't, we all evolved from a single source of life. Life's diversity is inexplicable without this natural "selection".

When I told my Dad's pastor my Dad believed in evolution (when we had moved my Dad to assisted living away from his home church) the pastor became totally irate. He said, that isn't what we believe. I told him well, he didn't believe the horse crap about the garden of Eden because he was in the oil business and knew about geology. No way was the earth formed in a few thousand years. Then I unloaded on him. I told him my Dad thought the church position on homosexuality was a crock of shit because I am gay. I told him my father knew I was as equally worthy of God's love and I was as much entitled to a sexual and emotional life with a man as any heterosexual was.

He about fell off his chair. I told him that I suspect many that sit in the pews every Sunday question his theology and with that I left.

[cbayer]

29. I hope you were able to find a better, more progressive church and pastor for your Dad.

[Swede Atlanta]

30. He never established a new church home....

He was hard of hearing and very shy. He tried but that never happened.

We had his memorial service last month in his "home" church with a different pastor. I didn't have the heart to tell him what Dad actually believed or didn't believe.

I guess when I give them the gift from his estate I can include a requirement they read his views on his own church's myopic worldview. Could be fun....Let's see.

[cbayer]

31. I'm sorry that you lost him.

Great idea about having them read his views when you gift them... preferably out loud during a service.

[Thats my opinion]

35. Many who are faithful Christians

are embarrassed by the nonsense that goes on in the name of religion.Of course evolution is valid scientifically and theologically.

[skepticscott]

37. Thank you so much

for your ringing endorsement. I'm sure evolutionary scientists the world over were waiting with great anticipation for theological approval.

[patrice]

59. There appears to be a bias that makes that fact less of an issue to at least some evolutionary

scientists than it is to some (but probably not most) of those who are engaged in what is referred to as theological efforts.

Why is that?

How does anything about that which one claims does not exist, or at best about which one recognizes no rational support, have any valence one way or another to those making that claim?

[Meshuga]

97. How is evolution valid theologically? n/t

[demosincebirth]

40. the only ones it's not compatible with is the christian fundies and maybe all all religious

fundamentalist

[moobu2]

44. So will somebody that thinks Christianity is compatible with evolution

please tell me how you deal with the fact that if Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, then why would there be a need for Jesus to have been born and then crucified? I'm mean that's pretty much the basis of Christianity. Original sin tainting all of humanity, and Jesus had to be born so he could die for our sins so that whosoever believeth in the Son - hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not in him shall not be saved bla bla bla...

It's all built upon the entire story being true, right? yes it is.

I think science proved Christianity was false and you can't let go of it.

[Thats my opinion]

49. nobody I know on"religion" thinks that. See my response above. nt

[cbayer]

50. Most christians are not literalists, that's how.

[ncgrits]

51. thank you! duh! nt

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

74. No problemo

To almost every Christian except fundamentalists, the first eleven chapters of Genesis are myth. Now, what do I mean by "myth"? Plato, in both The Republic and The Phaedrus says that at its best, myth is a story which, while not necessarily true, reveals truth. C. G. Jung, in his Answer to Job, says

[M]yth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are continually repeated and can be observed over and over again. It is something that happens to man, and men have mythical fates just as much as the Greek heroes do. The fact that the life of Christ is largely myth does absolutely nothing to disprove its factual truth--quite the contrary. I would even go so far as to say that the mythical character of a life is just what expresses its universal validity.

So, your statement that Christians believe that the story of Adam and Eve is true is incorrect. As far as Jesus is concerned, do you really want posts on such things as the Redemption and Original Sin? I can certainly oblige you, but I warn you that the explanations will be fairly long and in places rather technical.

[trotsky]

78. You are factually wrong with your first sentence.

As of this year, a full 46% of Americans believe in creationism. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Considering that about 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, and that the 46% who are creationists comes almost fully from the group identifying themselves as Christian, you now have a MAJORITY of US Christians who think that Genesis isn't just a myth.

Feel free to explain then, why you think the sacrifice of Jesus means something without the notion of original sin, but realize that you are speaking as a religious minority when doing so.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

89. It might have helped if you had bothered reading what I wrote

First, 46% is not a majority. Oh, and Orthodox Jews, many Mormons and certain Muslims are creationists. But then, you probably didn't know that.

Second, of that 46%, a probable majority, if not a plurality consists of fundamentalists, a group I specifically excluded from my statement.

Third, I did not say that I "think the sacrifice of Jesus means something without the notion of original sin" or anything even remotely like it. It is clear that you don't know much about Original Sin, or the Redemption, but I suspect that you aren't very interested in learning.

[trotsky]

93. 46% of the 100% of Americans.

Last edited Tue Oct 16, 2012, 12:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Add in ALL Jews (2%) and Muslims (1%) if you want to reach 78% of the total group. 46/78 is still a majority.

Your statement was factually wrong. Deal with it.

[hrmjustin]

53. I am a christian I believe in evolution. I just assume that God created us through this way.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2012, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Many people of different faith's believe in evolution.

[AlbertCat]

109. accept this as fact.

What you wrote is no fact.

[hrmjustin]

110. I edited my post.

[bowens43]

76. Science and magic are incompatable. nt

[Zambero]

77. Is anything compatible with religion?

Given that there are tens of thousands of religions and sects, each of which claims to be the "true" version. I recall hearing a belief expressed, and it sounds as good as any, that the process of evolution is part of a "divine plan", as opposed to creationism which clings to the fairy tale notion that the universe was created in 7 days around 6,000 years ago +/-. In the context of the former, religion might be compatible with evolution since it does not disavow scientific knowledge.

[2ndAmForComputers]

86. Religion, as a general idea, can be both compatible and incompatible with ANYTHING.

For every statement X, a religion can be invented that includes "X is true" in its principles/dogma/commandments/whatever. And another one that includes "X is false."

Whether a religion that does include a particular statement X has in fact already been invented, of course, varies.

[Sam1]

91. I think that non-theistic religions such as Buddhism would have no problem

with evolution. In the United States Unitarian Universalists accept evolution and find no tension between religion and science.

I don't think that it is possible to equate biblical literalists with religion. Religion has been around so long and taken so many forms that it is impossible to make any statements that are all inclusive. In fact the author of "The Religious Case Against Belief" (I would have given his name if I could remember it) asserts that the the only attribute that the religions have in common is their longevity.

So to my way of thinking the statement that Science conflicts, disproves, or is against religion must be qualified. That science conflicts with biblical literalism, it sure does; that it conflicts with Unitarian Universalism, it sure doesn't.

[Starboard Tack]

125. I grew up in an Anglican tradition

I found no conflict with evolution. Biblical teachings concerning creation were never presented as literal. The problems for me were the concept of heaven and hell and the need for a messiah.

[DCBob]

126. Why cant we credit God for creating the science of evolution?

...along with all the other laws of nature. Its seems perfectly logical to me being a scientist and a believer in God.

[cbayer]

128. It's perfectly logical for many, not just you.

Religion and science are not exclusive. Efforts to have them engaged in an epic battle where only one will stand the winner are pursued only by those threatened by one or the other, imo.

[skepticscott]

155. Sorry, lie

Efforts to fight the encroachment of nutbag religious fundamentalism into science are pursued by those interested in the truth.

[HereSince1628]

138. Well that depends on who 'we' are, and what 'we' deem reasonable.

as well as shifting the original question about religion in general to the specific domain of theism.

My personal experience suggests that from a western theistic perspective such a rationalization is popular. It works for many people and allows a limited answer to the question posed in the OP. Some people can reconcile religion and evolution.

But regarding a god creating evolutionary theory that rationalization doesn't work in any scientific sense. There is not only a lack of empirical evidence that a god created evolutionary science, there is evidence, in the form of archived letters, notebooks and a long chain of published materials that demonstrate that humans invented interpretations of evidence and explanations that we know as evolutionary theory. It's not parsimonious to invoke god as a cause for evolutionary theory.

Moreover, that approach lacks opportunity for falsifiability. Typically no theistic claim ever says "how" a god created evolutionary theory or names a consequence of a god having done it that is available to empirical investigation. It's usually left as an unnamed untestable miraculous possibility--the sort of thing that is unavailable to the tools of scientific thinking.

I have always found it difficult to understand why a scientist would prefer this rationalization for the origins of evolutionary theory over the quite obvious literary history documenting its origins. But some scientists do, I've personally known a handful who adopt what is more or less your position. I can only assume that many scientists take this position do so for non-scientific cognitive motivations.

[trotsky]

150. You can certainly do that.

But then it's not science, it's religion.

[DCBob]

166. to me its logical..

since there is no scientific basis for the underlying laws of nature unless one simply believes they just spontaneously materialized from nothing... but I think that would be more correctly called magic.

[trotsky]

167. But then you believe in a god that came from nothing, so you really haven't solved the problem...

you just added another (unnecessary and complicating) variable. And no, you can't escape by saying your god always existed, because we could say the same thing about the universe.

[DCBob]

168. it just makes more logical sense to me that an intelligent God was always there..

rather than some magical spontaneous eruption of the laws of the nature out of nothing.

[trotsky]

169. It may make more sense to you...

but logical it is not.

[DCBob]

170. you are entitled to your opinion.

but I dont agree with it. Ciao.

[trotsky]

174. As you are entitled to yours.

But you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[DCBob]

175. never said my opinion was a fact.

you seems to be the one talking about facts.

[trotsky]

180. Actually, you started things off in that regard.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=54624

Credit god? As if that was a fact?

[DCBob]

181. huh??

[cleanhippie]

171. Well, for starters, there was no "magical spontaneous eruption of the laws of the nature out..."

No scientist claims "magical spontaneous eruption of the laws of the nature out of nothing", so stop saying that. You just look childish and obtuse.

[DCBob]

172. Please explain how do you get from nothing to the universe we see today.

[cleanhippie]

173. Please show where anyone claims that but you.

You created that definition, I will not defend it.

Kindly show where scientists claim "magical spontaneous eruption of the laws of the nature out of nothing" as you claimed, then we can move forward.

[DCBob]

176. of course they dont because there is no explanation scientific or otherwise.

its just accepted.

[cleanhippie]

177. So in other words, you made that up. Got it.

Well, to be fair, YOU didn't make that up. That nonsense can be found on any Christian Apologists website and is common in Christian apologist arguments.

And it is nonsense.

[DCBob]

178. Thanks for the insult.

ciao.

[cleanhippie]

179. Wait a sec. You throw out a well-debunked Christian apologist argument and you find that insulting?

Or rather you find me pointing that out to be insulting?

Come on, man. Be honest with yourself at least.

[trotsky]

182. Please explain how you get from "god" to the universe we see today.

Your addition of "god" to the situation doesn't explain anything, it only adds another layer of complexity that itself will require an explanation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

127. You could devise a religon that uses evolution as the tool of the diety,

or change doctrine to use it that way. But that needlessly complicates evolution, adding a diety that is not necessary for it to function.

So I would say that evolution can be compatible with relgion, but it is not a two way street because no experiment can be made that validates the power of god in evolution.

[Anthony McCarthy]

129. Yes, of course it is

Victor Stenger is a professional religion basher, he has no credibility to speak on the topic.

As the great evolutionist and geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky said in his famous essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",

Was the Creator in a jocular mood when he made Psilopa petrolei for California oil fields and species of Drosophila to live exclusively on some body-parts of certain land crabs on only certain islands in the Caribbean? The organic diversity becomes, however, reasonable and understandable if the Creator has created the living world not by caprice but by evolution propelled by natural selection. It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

Victor Stenger doesn't have the scientific credibility that Dobzhansky had in the matter.

[SDjack]

131. Beware: Reconciling American style religious beliefs with

scientific evidence of evolution may cause schizophrenia.

[cbayer]

132. What are American style religious beliefs?

[SDjack]

135. What ever Billie Graham Cracker says it is.

[cbayer]

136. Only to some. US is a big tent and religion in the US is also a big tent.

[SDjack]

139. Rejection of evolution is mainly in Crackerstan. nt

[cbayer]

140. I'm not sure what you mean by Crackerstan, but it sounds like it might

be related to some regional bias.

Anyway, I think you are talking about fundamentalists here, but using a broad brush.

[SDjack]

160. Here is a county level map of religious domination.

[link:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/04/map-of-us-religious-affiliation-by-county/|]

Note the Baptist (Red) and Mormon (BROWN) dominated counties. Big contiguous zones. It is a broad brush, but I didn't paint it.

[cbayer]

163. I think you forgot your link. But I know what you are talking about.

[trotsky]

151. What the majority of American Christians believe.

I.e., biblical creationism, a god that grants wishes, etc.

[exboyfil]

133. Pursue science as if God does not exist

If he does exist, he will let you know at some point. The moment you say intelligent design explains evolution or that abiogenesis was a divine occurrence, you immediately shut down lines of inquiry. Lines of inquiry such as does the earth revolve around the sun, does the earth have a edge etc.

As far as religion it can be used to find meaning for your life and to reconcile you to your own mortality. That is a belief system. Science is not about belief. It is about cold hard facts and observations and explaining those facts with hypotheses and ultimately theories. These theories themselves change as we acquire more facts through better observations and more technology.

[cbayer]

134. Excellent way to express this difference. I think many scientists take exactly this approach.

[Angry Dragon]

141. Which came first?? .......... evolution or religion??

[cbayer]

143. Evolution, clearly.

[Angry Dragon]

144. So clearly then religion has to meld with evolution

[cbayer]

145. Why would that be?

Which was first - fish or humans? Fish. Do humans need to meld with fish?

Which was first - art or evolution? Evolution. Does art need to meld with evolution?

What does meld mean anyway?

[Angry Dragon]

146. Add together different elements

You asked the question and I answered

If evolution came first then religions in their teachings have to take this fact into consideration.
Everything evolves, art, fish etc.

Your first four question are really a distortion of the discussion.

6+++++++++++++++++++++++++++/ kitten typing

[cbayer]

147. This makes no sense to me. It makes no difference at all which came first.

Everything does not evolve. Evolution is not the only force in the universe.

While I find some religionists rejection of evolution ridiculous, the two really are separate entities.

[Angry Dragon]

148. Where to start ............

Why does it not matter which came first??

Tell me some examples of things that do not evolve??

I never said that evolution was the only force in the universe

How a religion looks at evolution makes a huge difference
One christian says that god created the world 15,000 years ago and that is that.
Another Christian says that the world was created millions or billions years ago.
Both of thes people claim they are Christians but they have very different views of the world around them.
The second one has a much better grasp of how they fit into the world around them.

[cbayer]

149. So what you are saying is that it is possible for christians to understand that

the earth was created billions of years ago and that those have a better grasp on how they fit into the world?

Totally agree. They understand evolution and are still religious.

It's not a contest between the two, you know. There will be no winner.

Evolution is a concept that is based on adaptation. There are many things that don't evolve. Dinosaurs apparently didn't evolve very well. The republican party is not evolving at all, it is devolving at this point. Evolution is a process that is unique to the flora and fauna on this planet, as far as we know. To think it supersedes all other forces is naive, at best.

Evolution existed before there were humans and before humans had any concept of it. It still existed. I would venture that there are other things this applies to still.

[Angry Dragon]

152. We agree on the first part.

It's not a contest between the two, you know. There will be no winner.
I never said it was a contest.
It is my position that the people that do not accept evolution can not truly come to know their god. It becomes a religion of blind obedience versus truly coming to their god.

There are many things that don't evolve.
You are making assumptions about dinosaurs. Many scientists believe that the dinosaurs got wiped out by a severe event not leaving them enough time to adapt. Evolution takes time.
Any others??

Republican Party: Who is to say that evolution is a straight line?? Who is to say that the republican party can not devolve before they can evolve??

Never said that evolution supersedes all other forces. We were talking about evolution and religion.

My position is that if a religion does not understand how the world works they can not truly understand their god. A religion has to also evolve. If it does not then it dies. All the gods that existed before the religions of today did exist. You are free to prove me wrong.

I still say everything evolves.

[cbayer]

153. Well, we agree. They are compatible and those that understand and accept scientific evidence

are better off.

We are talking about a segment of the christian population here.

BTW, do you think atomic particles evolve? Elements? Or do some things just exist?

[Angry Dragon]

154. I can not prove it but I think under certain circumstances they could evolve or change

[cbayer]

156. So..... some things may be possible that one can not prove.

Fascinating.

[Angry Dragon]

157. And I fail to understand what you mean by that statement

[Bradical79]

183. Simply ignore anything in your holy book that conflicts with the scientific evidence...

or reinterpret those sections as non-literal. There you go, compatibility achieved Honestly though, I find people who try to force the two into some sort of non-conflicting doctrine come up with something as (or more) convoluted and irrational than the original creationist belief. In the end you are attaching something for which there is zero evidence for to an established scientific theory that has a pretty extensive amount of evidence supporting it.

One person could say God is controlling evolution from behind the scenes.
I could say ancient aliens engineered us.
Another could say our entire universe popped into existence 10 hours ago in its current state (our memories and all) from the fart of a giant spaghetti monster named Johnny Noodle.

One thing those 3 ideas have in common is that there is no evidence whatsoever supporting any of them, making them un-falsifiable. So they are all no more or less compatible with evolution than any other idea that can't be tested, no matter how ridiculous.

[rexcat]

184. Irrelevant point...

Science and the theory of evolution does not require religion. On the other hand the some religious people may want to embrace evolution to try to give their religion some relevance to the modern world but it does not change the dynamics of religion, which, in essence is based on the superstition of a bronze age people, in the case of christianity.

Most scientists and science organizations in America wish to stay on good terms with the believing majority, and so the fundamental incompatibility between random evolution -- which is what science says happened -- and divinely-guided evolution -- for which no evidence exists -- is kept under wraps.

The problem with religion, IMO, is it lacks any evidence except what is written in their holy books. There is just enough historical facts in those books to give the gullible reason to believe.