Question for all religious folks...

[Siena]

I read an interesting article this morning in the Economist about the whole debate of teaching intelligent design in the classroom. It explained a little bit of the thinking that goes on with people who oppose evolution. Basically, they feel that human beings are entirely too intricate to have been created by unplanned, unguided natural forces. They believe that we have too many complex systems that will only work if all parts operate together and that this implies an intelligent designer - God. So, my question to the intelligent religious community is how do you feel about evolution vs. creationism? How do you reconcile the two?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Intelligent design will someday join the same dustbin...

That phrenology is currently in. Pseudo-sciences always flame out in the end as real knowledge grows. But creationism itself -- that is the religious belief without all the pseudo-scientific claptrap -- will be with us forever. You can always have faith in something that can't be disproved.

Evolution put the Adam and Eve myth out to pasture. So what happened? Some people refuse to believe in proven scientific fact, while others say God created the beginning of the universe, knowing to would lead to evolution and then to us. If and when we find out the precise origin of the universe, then the role of God will simply be pushed back even further.

On edit: Of course, you asked for the views of religious people, and I'm obviously not one of them. So I'll just shut up now. :blush:

[Coexist]

44. Don't forget ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!

it's a very full dustbin.

[papau]

2. God's plan could not have included DNA? - As in he is the "designer"

and he designed evolution and DNA.

I do not see the problem.

[Siena]

16. so why do they insist on rejecting science entirely then?

This is the part I keep coming back to. You make perfect sense.

[papau]

23. I have no clue - and thanks for the nice comment :-)

:-)

[SmokingJacket]

109. Maybe because the Bible doesn't mention DNA?

Some people want to interpret the bible literally.

[FreedomAngel82]

122. The Bible also doesn't mention

how Cain and Able flurished and had children, but apparently they had sisters so you can put two and two together.

[ComerPerro]

39. That's exactly it

Its not that the two views cannot be reconciled.

Its just that they are using "intelligent design" and "hearing all views" as a means to teach Christian dogma in public schools as though it were scientific fact.

[hfojvt]

82. well, they might want to teach it as a scientific "theory"

rather than as a fact. It must also be conceded, by scientists, that the chapter on the origin of life, where they attempt to "account for the origin of life without invoking a supernatural agency", is not scientific fact.

Although the theory of Oparin is "now widely held by scientists" they must still admit that "we have no direct evidence concerning the origin of life. We cannot be sure how life did arise..."

So how is ID any more of a leap of faith than Oparin? Is "looking for evidence of design" any worse than "gathering indirect evidence to show how it could have arisen"? And is the conclusion "how it probably arose" warranted, based on the evidence?

[kestrel91316]

47. You get the gold star for rational thinking today!

IMHO there may very well be a "god" who created everything, and if there is, then "s/he" created the process of evolution. Also created the laws of physics. And then set the whole thing in motion, and a few billion years later here we are. Nothing evil or atheistic or satanic, lol. Just the work of the creator.

[FreedomAngel82]

123. Right

But the thing is you can't prove there is a God or there isn't a God. That's why it's called faith. I'm pretty sure every religion out there has their own "in the beginning" story happened. I personally believe God began everything and the natural process just took over. I don't see why so many Christians have a problem with evolution. What are they afraid of? If God created everything that would include evolution, correct? Since God created everything. So why are so many of the conservative Christian types afraid of evolution? Do they not have enough faith in God?

[Siena]

144. That's exactly the question I kept coming back to...

And from what I've gathered from people in this thread, some of it is a fear in accumulating too much knowledge - maybe because they feel that that would lessen their faith.

[nemo137]

103. That's exactly what I believe.

I mean, my mother is a devout Christian and a biology teacher, who sees no contridiction in those. My father, who has a degree in English, is a raging Pentecostal, and claims no science background, claims that scientists "don't know how to count." I say my madre has it right.

[StopTheMorans]

3. i'm feeling hungry

:popcorn:

[bryant69]

4. They answer two seperate questions

I can't speak for anybody else, but for me the key fact in the Creation story is that mankind was created by a God who cares about and is personally involved with his children. Whether he used the dust of the earth or a process of evolution the end result, to me, is the same.

I will also say that some trepedation about the teaching of Evolution may come from a concern that some would use the teaching of Evolution as an argument for the non-existance of divinity. That's not all of it, of course, but perhaps a part of it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[liberalmike27]

5. Well

I'm not terribly religious, agnostic actually. But what irritates me is that even when you take the postition that you don't mind this being taught in a course on world religions, they seem unsatisfied, wanting it taught in science class. That is what irritates me.

Religion is actually coming closer to destroying us here on this planet than it will ever do in helping us. Hell, the whole philosophy of religion is that we will end up killing ourselves. I can't believe so many would embrace this hopeless legend.

We really don't know what happens when we die, but certainly there is an interest by wealth in the world to keep as many people duped, or doped by the various religions, as it makes the unwashed masses more easily controlled it would seem. Anecdotally, I've seen a lot of huge churches crop up here, what appears to be far more money than normally falls into the collection plates on Sunday. That would tell me that there are some big-money investors going into churches everywhere. I think it's all part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."

[FreedomAngel82]

124. To me I see any type of religion

as a peace of mind for the afterlife. You're right how we don't know what's to come when we die. We could really be at the true end when our bodies die for all we know. That's why it's called faith and a belief system. For all any religious groups could know whether they're Christian or Muslim could be wrong. What if the pagans were right?

[IrateCitizen]

6. I identify as a Christian, and I believe Creationism is a myth...

The majority of "religious" thought behind all of this is nothing more than a need for some people to make a complex world (and universe) simpler so their lazy brains can understand it without thinking too hard.

A primary part of this is the "human-centric" belief system that permeates monotheistic religions. I can only speak for Christianity, because that was the religion I was brought up in, but it presents a view of the universe that places human beings as the focal point. Now, knowing what we know (and still don't) about the vastness of the universe, or even the intricate web of life that dwells on our planet, a human-centric system seems ridiculous.

But acknowledgement of such a thing would require many people to abandon the notion that they are somehow favored by God, that God listens to them and answers all their prayers, and most importantly that God will fix everything that humans have screwed up beyond repair.

I identify as a Christian simply because it is a story that really speaks to me. And by that, I mean the gospels of Jesus, and the way that he tried to teach us to live our lives and treat one another. But I don't delude myself that it is based upon a mythology -- as all religions are -- and that considering it as some "ultimate truth" is something that is an insult to any notion of God because it means that you've chosen to use only your brain stem when you've been given all that other gray matter to work with.

[FreedomAngel82]

125. Exactly!

And in the book of Proverbs King Solomon wrote it for his children and it was included in the Bible we know today (it's one of my favorite books) and he even tells us to challenge ourselves and not to be gulliable and to check things out. You don't want to blindly follow someone because how do you know they're leading you down the right path? That's why you have to check things out yourself whether it be a political person you're going to support or a church you're going to attend. The Bible, in my opinion, is a great book and can teach you a lot in your personal life. I do believe in going out and spreading the word of Jesus and helping people but there's a boundry you have to have as well according to a law of the country and whatnot.

[sexybomber]

7. IMHO...

(by the way, I'm a scientist and a Buddhist, so I don't quite count...)

Intelligent Design does not apply to humans specifically. In my opinion, it applies to the big picture. Waaaaay back when, when life on Earth was just getting started, a group of amino acids came together. Then the Creator snapped Her fingers and they came to life. The rest is history!

So yes, technically, life on Earth was created, but only in that instant of the Cosmic Kickstart did the Creator take an active role in manipulating it.

ON EDIT: Even this view should not be taught in public schools, though.

[FreedomAngel82]

126. I don't think so either

I have read on another board I'm on (a Christian board I go to) that some think it should be taught in philosophy class. Not necessarily the Christian view point but just Intelligent Design in general. That someone started everything.

[sexybomber]

151. You make a good point.

It's one thing to discuss it in a philosophy class where it's all opinion-based.

It is another thing entirely to teach it in a SCIENCE class where it is presented as FACT.

[seabeyond]

8. i have sat in amazement. adults, educated adults tell me

that they believe in creationism. i didnt know this. i really didnt. my father argued with me the other night. it is just the last year i started listening to adults say they believe in this. my children went to a christian private school. i realized my son believed this. NO NO i tell him, lol. took 6 months for me to take him away from this. this is a child that at three was reading encyclopedias, on dinasaurs. saying what sense is it, htat there are dinasaurs, yet bible says planet is only 3562 years old. no sense

my educated friends i started challenging say, cant believe science. it is just a thoery. they cannot prove planet older. bullshit i say, rocks, bones, dna, facts are there. and they refuse

over the last couple months i have gotten harsh, i say there isnt a chance in hell you are going to teach my child an academic lie to validate your literal interpretation of bible. you are flat out lying to yourself to keep a story, a made up story going

this has been a big part of my argument with the people, good christians, that have taken over my life

i tell them, who are we to assume, god was working on 24/7 time scale. who the fuck knows. as far as i am concerned, one day to god, could be 10 billion years. i dont know. but i dont have to be challenge with creationism vs evolutionism. creationist on the otherhand have to tell self such a lie, to validate literal interpretation of bible

yes, adults allow themselves to believe this. another point

up to 2000 only about 14% took the story literally. since about 2002, it has risen to 25%, 38%, to 45% ....the last number i saw, 54% BELIEVED in creationism as a truth

amazing

[Siena]

12. seabeyond makes another good point..

How do you religious folks explain dinosaurs? Do you reject their existence?

[WeRQ4U]

33. From the mouth of a devout fundamentalist and literalist....

The dinosaur fossils were placed on earth by God to test Christians' faith. Kind of like a divine practical joke, you know.

[Siena]

34. Now that is the funniest thing I have heard all day!

:rofl:

[WeRQ4U]

36. Entirely true story.

This question came up after he told me he believed the earth was roughly 6000 years old. I couldn't even respond. I was in shock.

[Siena]

40. I am in complete shock too

How is that an argument to just reject anything we have learned thus far? Truly unbelievable.

[seabeyond]

48. they will flat out say,.....i am going to believe this regardless

my friend said,

i believe three things are possible
creationism,
evolution

and she never did get to the third. i kept interrupting.

i tell her, 3562 years we know is not true. so creationism is not an option for truth. 3562 years makes it a non truth

if we know nothing else. we know 3562 years isnt right.

she wont accept it. we were at a musuem, at the university with our three school agge kids, teaching. embracing academics. to feed the need to learn and grow in the academic enviroment. to encourage boys

the very last area was evolution. it was a grand display of dinasaur, periods,.....rocks......geography. truly the most awesome display out of all. and i look at one wall covered, i turn to the other wall filled with information. i focus on the 560 million years ago. i spread my arms and say to friend, you say 3562 years. do tell.


i am in disgust, sneering,.....as i say look, at all this.

she starts stuttering and i walk awya, head shaking, ya ya ya.

it really is an issue. they are bringing this story into school. our academics. academics, there at least has to be an effort at factual.

my brilliant ten year old boy said, man has an xtra rib. i choked on that one.

[Siena]

51. That's exactly what I feel like is happening in this country...

a huge rejection of all intellectual thought. It's really scary - especially for the younger generation.

[seabeyond]

42. i'z in shock to. 43, i didnt know people thought this

i am from calif. lol lol. we were spiritual. never was a battle and never heard anyone question evolution. literally for me it has been the last year. now i am asking friends and they believe it. then i thought, wtf, my brothers and father are getting religion all of a sudden. do they believe it? i mean, i have only known them intimately for 43 years. they are brothers and father.

the kick in my ass. my father believed it

now........

i say

and scratch my head

i called friend and just so mean to her, saying i canot believe you would tell yourself a lie, and i cannot believe you would teach your child an academic lie. no one, do you hear, no oone, will teach my child a lie. i wont have it. ye of so little faith, that you cannot trust god enough to let this go. dont you dare challenge my christianity, i challenge yours

i am not eing soft or gentle at all. i am being love. i can say. she can hear. my father and brothers can hear, the love. but i am not allowing. not even

[Siena]

46. it does feel like it's all of a sudden that people feel this way!

or is it that they just feel comfortable saying it now because the religious right it taking over the country and God's right hand man is apparently in the white house?

[seabeyond]

50. what i am seeing is people that

thought of themselves as christians, but didnt go to church are getting in. finding religion

60's thru 90's there was a peace between science and church. church was cooperative. i understood as a christian growing up, there were stories in the bible, and of gods voice, in love, but stories. and thru our behavior and being with spirit, all passages we could hear god. but.........you havve to sit in love. no story can be interpreted in grace, unless there is love.

if you take the bible literally, you cannot sit in love. or truth. the bible is being used in a manipulative, not pure way. as the qua'ran is being used in a manipulative, not harmonious way

tricky tricky stuff. just huge issue in my enviroment, with so many of the people

i told friend, not in battle here, i can see gods hand, in whatever story. i dont have to defend, i dont have to lie for god. silliness. i have faith

chrush, cult. the friend yesterday says, i go to church now, and i feel all they are doing is telling me the sinner i am. how bad i am. yes i say

that is how they hold on to you. you be bad, you need them,


it is big

[Siena]

52. Why do you think that is?

Why are people (well, Americans) finding religion now? Is it W's influence?

[seabeyond]

56. bushco, repugs, baptists and catholics united. that is awfully

powerful. and media,........are promoting for them. it is in our sc, it is in our government (congress gathering on sunday for schiavo to break constittution, fda doctor author of book, pms?...open your bible).

i am watching organized effort of baptists and catholics gather in specific areas to take over local government to influence law. state of texas, perry signed law of hate into being, on a sunday, in a church. no one was bothered

clue

lordy

on edit a cahtolic friend says, why would anyone trash mother theresa. why. i see no reason

i told her, people are angry at catholics. catholics are telling them they have to live, by catholic rule. pisses people off.

no we dont she says

i give her areas laws passed and she excuses it

i told her, you want to pretend it isnt happening so be it. but it is. and people are mad, hence the trashing of your religion

[Siena]

57. I am so scared of what is happening.

On the one hand I don't want to run away, but on the other, my husband and I are seriously talking about having our children in Europe. (He's an EU citizen)

[seabeyond]

59. i hold that option

again talking to friend yesterday i told her, thru out my life i have asked myself. what person would i have been during slavery, holocaust. i think of those times, the beliefs in brains because of the enviroment and time they were in. what kind of person would i have been

this is just another time in history. and interesting event. one to see what kind of person you are. i am the one that likes to understand, know what is happening. i am not afraid. i am no more afraid of my father, as i am my friend, lol. but i do know we are in a time, when too many are conditioned in stupid. from all areas, be it media, bush,.....religions. go to the core and we may have hope. work on the stupid. innately we are not all stupid. just factually cannot be true, a majority are below average in iq. wink

this is a backlash against the powers of liberalism. a battle. again do it in love, and see how easy it is. so for me, i am not afraid. i do watch. and do have the option to leave, if need be

i tell my boys, the nifty, the battle is now. by the time they are 20, it may be healed and they wont have to do the work, of this period.

and really bottom line, these people are praying so hard, so very hard for god to hear. they dont get it, that it already is. it really isnt this hard. fundamentalism in the moslum religion was almost dead. 9/11 was the final straw. we had world support. we could have took it down. instead religious and bushco slammed battle with our fundamentalist. now both feed each other.

[Siena]

65. Thanks for that.

That definitely helps and you're right. Remain optimistic that this is simply a time in history and we're stronger for having gone through it.

[thinkingwoman]

63. yes, definitely all of a sudden

When I was growing up (in a heavily repuke midwestern small town) evolution was a given. A given. Everyone I knew who believed in God reconciled the two by saying that God had his own timetable and the genesis creation story is a parable--like the ones Jesus tells in the New Testament. Evolution and religious belief were just fine side by side for the last 40 years of my life. Now, suddenly, literalism among otherwise intelligent folks?

It's like a mass brainwashing. It's spooky.

[seabeyond]

67. you said it much simpler than i. but right on n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

142. As I said on another thread a couple of days ago, it IS all of a sudden

When I was in high school forty years ago, evolution was completely non-controversial in a town where maybe 2% of the population had no religious affiliation.

But then the fundies leapt into the void created by the removal of required biology and chemistry courses and sowed ignorance and fear.

[CitrusLib]

106. OMG, I have aunts, uncles and cousins who believe this!

My jaw dropped open the first time I heard them say this. Absolutely boggles the mind!!!!

[Lerkfish]

71. might want to be careful with "you religious folks"

Most of the christians on this board are liberal. As such, most of us embrace evolution and dinosaurs.
Even most right wing christians accept dinosaurs, even if they reject human evolution.
It is only a subset of fundies that are true "creationists" who reject all fossil history and give earth's existence a ridiculously short span.

If you think all "you religious folks' are creationists, you'll be misinformed.
there's a difference between "creationists" and those who believe in creation.
Creation just means that God created all, which easily includes dinosaurs. Creationists reject science wholesale.

I doubt seriously there are any actual "Creationists" on this board.

[Siena]

74. I understand that entirely.

I specifically wanted to hear what intelligent religous people thought of this insanity. So, clearly I came to DU. I would have been shocked to meet a creationist here.

[Lerkfish]

76. Gotcha.

I just read into, from the way that particular question was asked, that it assumed religious people automatically had a problem with dinosaurs.

In rereading I don't see it that way, necessarily.

Religious people here are a bit touchy because generally many people who have legitimate gripes against the theofascists trying to take over this country, sometimes seem to think that all religion is like that or specifically all christians are like that. I belong to the UCC church, one of the more liberal denominations, which has been doing a lot of good things in engendering tolerance, compassion and other things the fundamentalists appear to have forgotten about Christ's teachings.

I try to remind people whenever possible that religion or even Christianity, of itself is not evil or bad, in fact, when practiced properly, is a beautiful expression of the love and compassion of God through his people on earth. Just because some idiots like to wear their religion as a banner and use it as a cattle prod to do various fascist things does not mean we all do nor that they are consistent with religion's intent.

Its sad that (IMHO) liberal christians, who "get it', who know tolerance and compassion were Jesus's hallmarks, have to spend a great deal of time trying to undo the damage that fundies have done in the Lord's name. I know they will be mightily surprised at the end of their lives..."Wha? you mean hating gays and cheering torture of brown people isn't being a good christian? but..but...God, my pastor told me so!"

Don't get me wrong, I am angry, perhaps even more angry than nonreligious people at the hijacking of a beautiful thing into such depravity and ugliness....and, I also recognize that religious DU'ers can sometimes overreact to criticism....But even so, I think its good to remember that religious DUers are in the yoke next to you, try to mill out the republicans and the theofascists.

We're on the same side.

[Siena]

79. I completely agree with you.

I do have liberal friends who look down their noses at all religious folks and it makes me so angry. And I would never simply assume just because someone is religious, that they are a fundie or creationist or for that matter, terrorist. Broad generalizations are never a good thing.

[FreedomAngel82]

131. I know how you feel Lerkfish

I go to a Church of Christ. We're pretty independent I think, well, the church I attend anyways. Everybody my age, except my brother and I, are very pro-Bush. It really baffles me personally. :shrug: One Sunday in the college class a person in the class made the point of how we as conservatives and liberals should be working together instead of fighting with each other about issues and if we did that we could do a lot of good, but of course certain people in the Christian faith don't want anything to do with us liberals and they think we're not religious, but we are. Even the most well known Christian preacher, Billy Graham, is a registered democrat and mixes with all types of people, so why can't we follow that example? Why can't we really follow Christ? Christ didn't talk about gay people. He talked about adultery and divorce and helping the poor and the meek and being a champion for the underdog. He taught us to take up our crosses and to follow Him. Remember the young man who came to Jesus one day. He told Jesus how he followed all of the religious laws of the day and did all this stuff and he asked Jesus how he could get to Heaven and what to do next. Jesus told him to sell all of his items and take up his cross and follow him. The message of Jesus is not about hating a group of people because we don't agree with their lifestyle. Jesus taught about love, about helping people, about loving our neighbors and loving God. No where in Christ's message did he teach about hating other religions or hating gay people. He did teach to go out and preach the gospel and I believe you can do that and should reach out to people but through God we have freewill and choices and consequences. If someone doesn't believe in God they don't believe in God. Only God can be the judge. I get so sick and tired of all these "holier then thou" types when most of the time they're the hypocrites. It's people like that who turn people away from Christ. I believe as a Christian it's my job to be a friend to the world. To show someone how Christ has changed my life and if they are interested in learning more about Him to help them learn more about Him.

[FreedomAngel82]

129. Creationsim is found in Genesis One

All it is is God said let this happen and it happened. I was talking about this with my mother earlier today. She's a Christian too but didn't grow up in the faith until years later. I was telling her how people want to teach this in school but we agreed how every religion has their own "in the beginning" story. That it's like me going out in my backyard and seeing a UFO or a fairy and telling the world about it without any proof. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove He doesn't? No. That's why it's called faith. Just because something isn't in the Bible doesn't mean it's not necessarily true either. I'm a Christian because I'm a follower of Christ. Many Christians I know believe that the Old Testament is just a history book of the faith and how everything came to be. My church in the sermons on Sunday hasn't ever used the Old Testament for a sermon unless you're going back to something. Christ came to change things from the old ways. There isn't too much with the Creation story to look at though. It's just God said let this happen and it happened. What's to probe and evaluate?

[Lerkfish]

140. no, be careful "creationism" is a specific movement...

"creationists" are the ones that believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, and that dinosaur fossils are false things planted on earth to test our faith. They deny all science or evidence of a long history of prehistoric life.

That's different from the account of creation. Creation in the bible is what you describe.
Creationism is a narrow wedge of fundies who have a lot of weird ideas. IMHO.
The problem is, most normal christians don't know this, and if someone asks if they believe in creationism, the normal christians thinks " sure, God created everything", but that's not what they're really asking. They're asking if you ascribe to the same views as "creationists".

the sad thing is, most nonchristians think all christians are creationists, and most christians misunderstand the term, so it causes a lot of problems because most christians will naively agree "sure, I'm a creationist" and then only further into conversation, after wrong assumptions have already been made, it becomes difficult to disentangle the confusion.

[FreedomAngel82]

128. No, dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible

They're just called a different name. Here is a link that talks about this from a Christian website: http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/home.html

This goes along with the Christian faith about dinosaurs. They do recognize they're real and in the Bible it does talk about animals (old testament) that are bigger then normal and mention their sizes.

[izzie]

I sort of looked at the Bible as not really saying how long a day was.

Each year could have been an eon and that would be a long time. People for get the Bible was used to self feed what they wanted people to believe. And on top of that words and their meaning do not stay the same in different ages.

[kestrel91316]

49. If you look at each "day" of the creation process as being

a billion years, then I could at least find some shred of semi-truth in it.

[rman]

45. "cant believe science", and yet, ID=science

(since according to ID-ers it should be taught in science-class)

Cognitive dissonance anyone?


Btw it's peculiar we don't here much these days about "ID is not creationism".

[Jo March]

70. seabeyond - one small correction

The Bible does not say that the Earth is only 3562 years old. Mankind has interpreted it to say that basing it on "So-and-so begat so-in-so, etc."

There are a few denominations of Christians who say that the Bible says that the Earth is 6444 years old. See? It's all in the interpretation.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the dinasaurs didn't exist, either.

Not arguing with you. I just wanted to clarify that point. Stuff gets attributed to the Bible that isn't even in the Bible!

[seabeyond]

77. it is fine with me, 6,444 years from here on out

fine with me. lol lol. i dont need to argue the point. dont care. i know it is not 6,444 years old either, lol lol. oh, ya i know. i just finally had a concrete number by "religion" why i grabbed it. personally seemed they said 6000 years, so can go with 6,444. cause after all, factually, lol lool i want to be correct.

funny funny

but thanks

[Kalish]

102. fascinating point

it's almost like it's a fad of sorts.

but science marches on. it can't be stopped.

[FreedomAngel82]

127. About two weeks ago

I was at my grandmother's church. She wanted my parents, brother and I to come with her since this was her first time at church since my grandfather died. They started their gospel meeting with a preacher named James Watkins. He made an interesting point that is very true. God is above time and space. He's above everything. So how do you know it was six days? On some science network (can't remember which one now) I was watching a program about time and dimensions and our dimension is the only one with any type of time. From my reading in dealing with the afterlife and the other side (aka Heaven in Christianity) there is no such thing as time. One lifetime of a person can feel like a day. You know when you feel like it's been the same day here for a whole week? Kind of like that. So since God is above time and space how do you know it was just six days and not six so many years?

[tanyev]

9. I believe there is a Creator, but I think a science class in a

public school should teach only the proven facts upon which all legitimate scientists agree. Any religions that want to teach their beliefs about God's role in the creation of the world should teach it in their own special classes or start up their own schools.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. The roots of anxiety about evolution are existential in nature

Some of the deeply religious can't reconcile the idea that they are special and select with the idea that they descended from animals. If they descended from animals, they are not (to their minds) special and select (i.e., created) and this negates much of what they consider the purpose of their lives to be.

[FreedomAngel82]

132. Has it be proven though we're from animals?

Even though he's a fundie Kirk Cameron once made an interesting point about that. He said that even though we have similiar features to a certain type of animal that doesn't mean we're necessarily from them. It just means they have the same type of design. I personally don't believe in Darwinisim but you can probe and look at it because who knows maybe on down the line he could be proven to be right. :shrug:

[TimeChaser]

136. Common misconception

We didn't develop from apes, but rather from a common ancestor.

Besides, humans are animals.

[Lerkfish]

11. bypassing "intelligent design" for the moment...

because I personally think "intelligent design" is a trojan horse for the fundies to teach relgion under the false pretext of science, which is reprehensible....

and be careful with the term "creationism" because that is a narrow wedge of fundies who refuse to accept evolution, so asking how to reconcile them won't work since creationism is based on complete denial of evolution....


back to a better version of the question, though, "how does a christian reconcile evolution and creation"

simple. I believe God created everything. If evolution is true (and I think it is) then that is part of "everything" and therefore God created the process as well. For me there's no conflict. All scientific discoveries are, in my opinion, merely investigating creation. Science does not disprove the existence of God, and religion does not , and should not attempt, to invalidate scientific discovery.

I think either camp that tries to force religion to disprove science, and vice versa, are misguided and are trying to use tools they consider absolute to destroy the POV of the other camp.

[Siena]

14. EXACTLY!!!!

I never understood why more religious people cannot simply believe that God is the "designer" behind evolution!

[bobbieinok]

101. in 50s in OK as a SoBapt.....most of my friends and I could see no problem

'In the beginning God..'

if God is all powerful, he can create however he wishes

we had no problem with this as juniors in high school.....we did have to deal with a youth leader who would say 'Darwin may have been descended from a monkey but I'm certainly not' ..... we'd just look at each other

she also said one time that she was proud she had not gone to college because she might 'have lost her faith then'......this was tossed into a discussion on a bus about what colleges we might want to go to, and we took it as advice that we should forget all about college

there's an old saying in pentecostal churches 'learning kills the burning'......modern pentecostal colleges advertise themselves as where you 'can get your learning and still keep your burning'

[FreedomAngel82]

134. That is what I believe

I believe God created everything and after he finished evolution just took over. And to me since I'm a Christian and believe in God since I beleive He created everything, including evolution, that I'm really studying something from God. He's showing me through evolution who He is and what He is about. I hope that makes sense.

[Siena]

145. Didn't you say above that you don't believe in Darwin's theories?

Then how can you say you believe in evolution. I'm confused.

[CitrusLib]

107. Awesome response. This is exactly what I believe.

[FreedomAngel82]

133. EXACTLY!

If God did create everything then he also created evolution. I don't understand why so many types of people are afraid of evolution. I love science and I'm a Christian. In high school I always loved biology and chemistry. I believe in evolution and I believe in God. You can't prove God exists except in your heart and your beliefs. You can't prove he doesn't exist either so thus you can't prove Intelligent Design. That's why it's faith and that's why it's a belief. I think only science should be in schools because it's something you can look at and probe and evaluate and study. School is a place to educate yourself for what you need to know for the future when you go to a job. Religion has no place except your private life.

[ChickMagic]

13. Here's what I don't get about it

Some Christians believe that we're basically animated dirt. How is that better than evolving from other living things?

In my job, I see tons of pictures of babies that didn't live because of their huge deformities. If that's the result of a design, I'd fire the designer.

My hubby's religious but he doesn't have a problem with evolution. He thinks God put that into motion.

[FreedomAngel82]

135. That's how I am

I believe when I'm studying evolution I'm studying God. I'm learning more about Him and what he can do. And with the deformities that's not necessarily God's fault or part. He can't do everything that has to do with our bodies. That depends on us and past generations and all that. Like if a mother smokes or drinks while pregnant there are natural consequences. That has nothing to do with God. God isn't like your fairy godmother.

[brooklynite]

15. Lets assume for the moment that ID is true...

and who we are today is the result of a complex "program" set into play by the unseen hand of a higher power. The underlying point of science is to understand how things work and change. Even if you accept ID, you have to study and learn about chemical reactions and cellular mutations et al, regardless of what set up the rules and exceptions by which they occur. Doesn't seem to change things much from what we're learning today.

[Siena]

18. I couldn't agree more...

But, for whatever reason, these people find it necessary to entirely reject science. Why do science and a belief in a higher power have to be at such odds?

[noonwitch]

17. I'm not a fundamentalist, so I accept biblical allegories as such

I don't see evolution and creation as opposite theories. If evolution is scientifically correct, it doesn't undermine my faith in a creator. There always will be a first cause in any theory of how life began.

Fundamentalists fear that accepting evolution means that God created the world through trial and error, and that undermines their whole perception of the Bible as the literal word of God. It upsets the religion they have built based on that perception.

I understand the differences between religion and spirituality, which was a big part of Jesus' teachings. Spirituality is about how you live your daily life, religion is about the dogma and the rituals of an organization.

[FreedomAngel82]

137. With trial and error

we are human beings. We make mistakes. This is why there is forgiveness. If we make a mistake or "sin" as it's called and do something that God isn't fond of (like murder, lying, cheating on your spouse) then we can ask him for forgiveness and he forgives you and it's up to you to change your life and to make the right thing wrong. God made us but we are of trial and errors because we have freewill and choice and consequences.

[DemBones DemBones]

19. As a scientist, sepcifically a biologist, and a

Christian, specifically a Catholic, I've never understood the big hoo-ha about evolution being anti-religion.

When my students who'd been taught that science was ee-vill raised the issue with me, I defused them by asking them if they didn't believe that God was powerful enough to set things up however He chose -- in other words, why would they think God Himself didn't "do" evolution?

In other words, I tend to agree with sexybomber, who described himself/herself as a scientist and Buddhist and said:

"Intelligent Design does not apply to humans specifically. In my opinion, it applies to the big picture. Waaaaay back when, when life on Earth was just getting started, a group of amino acids came together. Then the Creator snapped Her fingers and they came to life. The rest is history!

So yes, technically, life on Earth was created, but only in that instant of the Cosmic Kickstart did the Creator take an active role in manipulating it."


On edit: Oh, yeah, God is not really male or female, though Jesus was male (and so was Gautama, the Buddha) so you can call God He, as I did, or She, as sexybomber did. Either way, you're missing the mark and proving language has its limitations. The Bible consistently refers to God as Father but we Catholics have books in our Bibles that were thrown out of the Protestant Bibles. Interestingly enough, our Book of Wisdom, also called Sirach, tells about Sophia (Wisdom) who was present with God at the Creation, sort of advising Him. We also have great stories about Jewish women like Judith (who tricked and beheaded the Assyrian general Holofernes, saving her people) and Susanna (who was raped by men who lied about the incident but was vindicated.)

[Siena]

20. so why can't more religious people think like you?

Do you agree with noonwitch that "Fundamentalists fear that accepting evolution means that God created the world through trial and error, and that undermines their whole perception of the Bible as the literal word of God. It upsets the religion they have built based on that perception."?

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Perhaps many do! Certainly Catholics don't

have a problem with evolution, have always taught it in Catholic schools. Mainstream Protestants don't fuss about it much, either.

What noonwitch said is at least part of the reason people oppose the whole concept of evolution.

Got to leave now! Welcome to DU, Siena! :hi:

[Siena]

24. Thanks!

[ktowntennesseedem]

41. "Language has limitations..." Exactly.

Science and faith use very different languages, but that does not mean they are describing two different or conflicting things. As I see it, science and faith are two ways of descibing the same thing, both using inherently limited language. Which is perfectly reasonable, given that our understanding of science and faith are very limited. That's what drives both the scientist and the theologian: there are still more questions than answers.

[FreedomAngel82]

138. In the Bible

it was asked who is God and God said: I Am. Jesus Christ always called God "Father". Lots of Christians believe that Christ is God on earth. I don't remember in the Bible it saying that Christ is God on earth but he is the Son of God. Why would Christ call himself "Father"? I think Jesus Christ was his own being. God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are three seperate entities that work together as one. I've never heard of Sophia. I have heard of some goddess named Azna. Have you heard of her? She supposivley works with God as well. :shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

152. so who created the intelligent designer ???

:eyes:

[supernova]

21. I don't see a problem

with the whole God/evolution deal.

However God thinks about how s/he created this universe, evolution, part of the scientific method of observing the world, is simply how we observe how that has been accomplished.

I worship a God who wants us to explore and learn things about our environment, like any good parent wants her child to explore and learn something new everyday.

I seriously don't get this fanatical fundamentalist mindset that wants to limit what we know. That is antithetical to not only technological growth, but spiritual growth as well.

[fasttense]

25. What I've read about ID is that it incorporates all those creationists

lies. That the human race did not evolve but appeared just as we look now. That the earth is only 8,000 years old. That the bones of dinosaurs are all dated wrong. etc....

I do honestly believe there is one creator and to me it is a logical assumption. Something outside space and time started the universe and logically it was the creator. Now all the rest of the religious assumptions are questionable. A creator who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving is logically a contradiction. But there is something mysterious about this world and I'm hoping it is because of a God. I have read the Historical Jesus and I'm really hoping Jesus was connected to this God.

I believe that evolution just as it is taught today is scientific fact and true. I believe if we used the bible as a scientific document the earth would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth. The bible is a religious document and was written by men who could not understand science as we know it today. If these men were magically given the scientific information we have today, they could not understand it. So they interpreted what they saw based on limited scientific knowledge. The authors of the bible may have had extensive spiritual knowledge but their science education was seriously lacking.

[Siena]

26. So why can't the modern religious individual accept that?

Accept that it was written a long time ago by men who didn't understand what we understand today? Why do they have to take it to an extreme even thinking that the bones of dinosaurs are dated wrong??? But while we're on the subject of dinosaurs, there were certainly no dinosaurs in the bible so there must be a large contingency of these people that reject their existence entirely.

[Siena]

27. What I've gathered from the intelligent religious community...

is that none of you do reject evolution but rather see God as the designer of evolution. That works for me. I just don't understand why that doesn't work for the rest of the religious community.

[Sgent]

28. Without devolving to much into a evo/cre argument

First, ID as such is not a scientific theory. At best it is a hypthosis trying to disprove both evolution and aborigonis. The science on aborigonis is weaker than that on evolution.

Evolution is one of the best thought out theories in existiance. It has fewer holes in it and more proof than much of relativity, etc.

Now, as for religious reconciliation, every christian I know believes in biblical allegory. The question is how much? Most fundies don't believe in a flat earth, the extinction of mankind 2000 years ago, or any number of biblically inspired impossibilities.

They do however continue to believe in creation and ID in direct contravention to every piece of science ever done on evolution. So only the most fundamentalist person can believe in evolution assuming they have full knowledge of the science. The rest of religion believes in the creation story as an allegory. Generally they believe that G-d setup the "rules" of the world, and provided the divine spark neccessary to push the world into existance.

Religions that support evolution, or who have issued statements to the effect that evolution does not conflicet with their theology:

Catholics
Jewish -- All denominations inc. Orthodox
Muslims (varied, but most accept it)
Orthodox Christian
Mainline Protestants -- Methodist, Episcapal, ECLA, UUC, etc.

[ktowntennesseedem]

29. As a person of faith...

who very firmly believes in a designer who is not only intelligent but compassionate and merciful, it is enough to believe that all these intricacies and complexities were created by God. How God accomplished this remains a mystery, and I have no need to insist that it was done in six days in some mystical garden. I have grown to view the creation stories from my childhood as metaphorical, not at all to be taken literally as proponents of creationism and intelligent-design insist.

Science is not my enemy, and I do not fear any destruction of my faith by study and acceptance of solid scientific theory; science in fact enhances my faith. Religious conservatives look at evolution, and science in general, and feel threatened by terminology and descriptions that conflict with their rigid, literal interpretation of Genesis. I look at evolution and say, "Wow, so THAT'S how God did it!"

[Siena]

30. what a great statement, ktowntennesseedem!

Science enhances your faith! And why shouldn't it? If you believe that God is the catalyst behind all the complexities of human beings, I would think that would only strengthen your awe of God.

[ktowntennesseedem]

31. Thanks, Siena.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense to me, but having grown up among very conservative family and friends, I know how much they fear "losing their faith" because of too much education. My reply to such ignorance is that if your faith is so fragile that mere exposure to a few new ideas will destroy it, what kind of faith do you have in the first place?!?!

Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[Siena]

32. Thanks!

And I couldn't agree with you more. What are they so afraid of? How can you be afraid to learn???

[BeTheChange]

84. "Wow, that's how God did it"

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

I don't think ID should be studied in school. But I do think it should be mentioned unaffiliated to any specific religion. A paragraph acknowledgement in the 350 page text book is sufficient and non-crusade-ish if you consider the number of religious peoples inhabiting the country.

[FreedomAngel82]

139. God is above time and space

This place we currently are at is the only dimension that has time. So how come it says six days in the Bible? I really don't know.

[WeRQ4U]

35. Here is one of the things that I've never understood.

As you explained, literalists have a problem with evolution because "human beings are entirely too intricate to have been created by unplanned, unguided natural forces." Ok, that's a valid beef with the theory. But what is their counterargument? That an infallible, omnipotent, and omnipresent "being" in the sky created everything from nothing, in 7 days, on one of which he rested? How is it easier to swallow THAT than the intricate and fairly well-tested theory of evolution? I don't get it and I never will.

[Siena]

38. You are cracking me up WeRQ4U!

Well, the article said that ID asks interesting questions about evolution but all its answers are God. I guess, when it comes to God, no further explanation is necessary. It's not something that needs to be proven, it is just believed.

[Lerkfish]

37. on more reflection, my analysis of the core problem

Those who do not accept evolution for religious reasons...I think I have figured it out.

For them to accept evolution, they have to accept that man was not first.
He was preceded by many amazing creatures that survived for many millions of years and then died out before we even came upon the scene. That sticks in their craw.
They want to be the most important thing going (pride). So, therefore, Man must have been first.

The story of creation in the bible does not have man created first, btw. first the waters, the earth, plants, etc. were all created. If I'm not mistaken, animals preceded man as well (could be wrong about that part, don't have a bible handy). But fundies and creationists don't accept that for some reason. They don't have a way to integrate dinosaurs and fossils, etc. into their worldview because their world view is too limiting.

Do *I* understand why God made dinosaurs first, allowed them to flourish for so long, and then they disappeared? I have no clue as to the real why. I have a theory, though.
I think God is a big fan of LIFE, in whatever form. He certainly has created many many forms of it. I also think he's a big fan of the PROCESS of life. I think man fits into the process quite well, in God's eyes. The problem with man is that he likes to think of himself as OUTSIDE the process or independent of it.
It could very well be that God was happy enough with dinosaurs...they had a good, long run, but he wanted something else to happen, or something else did happen and he allowed it, and right now, he's happy enough with man...although, if I were God, i'd be getting kind of fed up right now. Good thing I'm not God, eh?

:)

[Siena]

43. Yeah with the way things are going...

It's high time for a good 40 day flood! Let's get the whole DU community together to build the ark so we can at least let intelligent thought survive!

[Occulus]

66. Isn't that kind of pride one of the seven deadly sins? n/t

[Siena]

72. Good one!

[Lerkfish]

73. "seven deadly sins" is a catholic assignment, I think.

nothing in the bible that lists "seven" as the deadly sins.
However, yes, pride is big sin.
But like most things, fundies don't judge their own behaviour, just that of others.
They are the modern day version of Pharisees.

[Beam Me Up]

53. Who or what designed the "intelligent" designer?

Is the universe constructed of phenomena that obey observable LAWS or not?

Questions are always more important than answers. Always. Because they lead us to observe and think.

Religions, however, are all about "answers" -- i.e., someone else's view that WE must accept because "it is a matter of faith".

People need to be reading William James' The Psychology of Religious Experience.

[Siena]

55. Very good question!

So religious folks, what is your answer to that one?

Tell me about the Psychology of Religious Experience. Sounds interesting.

[Lerkfish]

69. Both religion and science must stumble on that mystery.

Religion accepts that either God always existed (a difficult concept)
or the he created himself (another difficult concept)

Science accepts that either Universe always existed (a difficult concept)
or the Universe created itself (another difficult concept)

First cause is something beyond (at this point) our ability to comprehend.
If the Universe or God ALWAYS existed, how can that be?
If they created themselves, then what was there before, and how did it come to suddenly exist out of nothing?

Big Bang theory is that all matter was in one spot, then exploded and in so doing created the heavens. Well, for that to happen, the matter had to come from somewhere, right?

But where? and how?

[Telly Savalas]

95. But intelligent design stumbles hard on that mystery.

The basis for ID is that it's inconceivable that something as complicated as the universe could exist without a sentient creator, yet turns around and says it's completely conceivable that something as complicated as a creator of the universe doesn't need a creator. If one posits that the intelligent designer created itself or always existed, then why isn't it possible that the universe created itself or always existed?

For the record, it's via the metaphor of God that I grasp the notion of an amazingly complicated universe. For millenia gazillions of subatomic particles have danced around space, millions of years ago they arranged themselves into organisms we would call living, and a bit over 30 years ago they formed that which I call myself. That's a truly awesome thing to consider. (and I mean that in the original sense of the word "awesome", not in the Mountain Dew commercial sense)

When I look at things from this perspective, I see a spark of magic or the divine in it all and hang the label God on this spark. It's not so much a God that is a physical being that does things or created anything. Rather the universe contains God in the same way an organized pattern of soundwaves contains joy. Call that irrational, but even the biggest proponents of reason like music.

I identify myself a Christian because it's the tradition and culture in which I was raised, and a few blocks from here is an amazing church that's about peace and love, not "Thou shalts" and bigotry.

That said, I refuse to send my daughter to a school that tries to push any bastardizations of science like ID.

[Beam Me Up]

99. These questions can be solved if we accept multidimensionality as a

possibility that transcends temporality.

We exists in three dimensions of space and one dimension of time and we look at the universe and believe that we can understand in totality from our dimensional perspective. But the universe may be far more complex than we imagine. I believe it was the imminent physciscist Neils Bohr who once said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."

Physics and cosmology now posit that SPACE IS CURVED and it isn't too much of a stretch of the imagination to ascertain that TIME MAY BE CURVED AS WELL. If this is so, then questions such as "when did the universe begin" etc., end up being wrong headed. What we have to do is begin to imagine the universe from a multidimensional perspective -- that is, not limited to our 3/1 point of view. Needless to say, this is difficult. However, if you've ever had the experience of dejavu or glimpsed the "eternal now" of any moment, then one may be getting closer.

I argue that there is only ONE THING in the entire universe and IT is not a 'thing' at all. More over, it neither exists nor does it not exist, and yet all phenomena is made up of its manifesting/non-manifesting on every scale simultaneously throughout the entire time spectrum of the cosmos. Multiplicity is the illusion.

edit typo

[Lerkfish]

104. trying to wrap my head around your post...failing.

Even if space and time are curved incursions into themselves, they still EXIST in some fashion. Their existence must still have been caused or provided. To have something exist merely because it already exists is a neat abstract conception, but I do not think it explains away the mystery, merely sidesteps it.

similar to someone I had a discussion with once:

He: I don't think there's a God.
Me: where did the universe come from?
He: I think aliens from another universe came here and seeded this one with life.
Me: ok. where did THEIR universe come from?
He: they were started by a previous universe...

it has a misleading feeling of resolution but it merely avoids answering the core question:
what is the first cause?

[Beam Me Up]

98. Classic Psychology Text from turn of century 1900s.

The Varieties of Religious Experience is a classic of American non-fiction literature.

This review from a reader on Amazon says it better than I could:

A Giant Classic of American Intellectual Work, March 31, 2005
Reviewer: B. Marold (Bethlehem, PA United States) - See all my reviews

This new edition of philosopher / psychologist William James most enduring work, `The Varieties of Religious Experience' should show that this book is as valuable today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first published in 1902. William James is credited with being a philosopher as he gets credit for being the cofounder, with friend Charles Saunders Peirce of the distinctively American philosophical position of `Pragmatism'. In fact, William James is much more of a psychologist than a philosopher who contributed, with Sigmund Freud, to the separation of clinical psychology from philosophy into a distinct discipline. This means that while Wm. James' philosophical works were a bit amateurish when compared to professional Peirce, his knowledge of the history of philosophy is profound and this knowledge pervades and elevates this work of psychology subtitled `A Study in Human Nature'.

I will be immensely pleased if this little review convinces a single person to discover the richness of this work as I did when I first read it over 40 years ago when I was in High School. It probably reinforced my interest in becoming a professional philosopher. While I never got my philosopher's union card (Ph.D.), my interest in the subject stays alive and my regard for this book continues to grow.

The original work is based on a series of twenty (20) Gifford lectures on natural religion presented by Wm. James to an audience at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. This is no small honor to James, as it represents a reverse of the traditional flow of original intellectual work from Europe to the United States.

`Natural Religion' is probably a term not often used in academia today. It has probably disappeared by being split into philosophy of religion (which is something quite different from Theology) and main stream clinical psychology. And, I have a bit of a suspicion that this study may actually have fallen into obscurity by simple neglect or embarrassment similar to the embarrassment overcome by Dr. Kinsey when he did his study of sexuality. It may be that the very act of studying religion may be seen as blasphemous. If this musing is correct, then I feel even more strongly that a knowledge of James arguments and findings cannot be more important than they are today with the growing influence of fundamentalists and issues over the separation of church and state. This book does not solve those issues, but knowledge of this book can help clarify the issues in the minds of people who deal with policy in this area.

The first thing to understand about this book is its point of view. And, the title says it all. It is about `religious experience' and how this is different from, say, scientific observation, artistic experience, or even erotic experience, although there are probably some very strong family resemblences between religious, artistic, and erotic experiences. That means the book is not about doctrines, liturgy, theology, myths, language, or political leanings. To a great extent, James shapes what he means by religion by the scope of his inquiry. In Lecture II, James goes to great lengths to caution his audience on not putting to rigid a framework on the subject before the investigation gets underway, as the investigation may take one into unexpected directions. But, one can hardly begin unless there is a starting point. Even the simplest experiment begins with a supposition, as when you go about measuring the effects of heat on sugar, you assume that melted sugar will always behave the same way at a given temperature. So, in Lecture III, James characterizes `...the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto. This belief and this adjustment are the religious attitude in the soul.' Like James, I am neither an anthropologist nor historian of religions, but I do get a slight sense that this statement has slanted his inquiry toward those religions where a strong single godhead is the most important belief. I may be wrong, but I sense James definition may be leaving out things like Zen Buddhism. But, I believe this simply makes the work more interesting an object of contemporary study.

Of one thing I am certain. This starting point clearly makes the phenomenon of mystical experience the central object of interest in these lectures. Throughout lectures IV to XV, many points are deferred to a full discussion of mysticism that takes up two full lectures, XVI and XVII. I confess this focus is part of my interest in this book, as one of my high school fantasies was to join a contemplative monastic order, and I wasn't even Catholic. And, here comes the discovery of an important work by an American intellectual icon on precisely the subject that so enthralled me at the time.

James four (4) characteristics of mystical experience set the stage for his final conclusion that arises from this definition as inexorably as the curvature of space arises out of Einstein's theory of gravity. The characteristics are:

1. Ineffability. The experience defies expression in words.
2. Noetic quality. They give the sense of knowing about something that those who did not have a similar experience cannot know.
3. Transiency. Mystical experiences cannot last very long.
4. Passivity. While voluntary rituals or practices may bring on the experience, once the experience begins, the mystic's own will shuts down and experiences are directed by some superior power.

In case advocates of religion belittle this clinical approach, I would mention that philosophy has successfully demolished all logical arguments for God, while the evidence of mystics survives to this day.

James philosophical works are nothing more than history. His other psychological works have been superseded by the progress of new work in clinical psychology. This book is as alive today as it was 100 years ago!

[Siena]

110. I just bought the book.

Thanks!

[sakabatou]

54. I think that creation and evolution can somewhat go hand in hand

For instance first there was darkness and then there was light (the sun is born)
Then there was land mass (big earthquakes force mountains to go above the waterline)
Then there were the plants (this could be anything that has photosynthesis)
Then the fishes (I'm thinking zooplankton came first then evolved into fish)
Then came the land animals and flying creatures (bugs, insects; the in-bwtween being the amphibians, then lizards then whatever)
Then there were humans (evolving overtime from animals)

[Xithras]

58. ID = guided evolution.

Scientifically, there actually isn't any argument against ID if you remove religion from the equation.

We know from archaeological research that species A became species B which became species C. ID doesn't argue with the existence of evolution, but instead challenges the Theory of Natural Selection.

Try this checklist to see if you believe in ID. Remember, the question isn't whether or not you believe these possibilities, but whether or not they're possible.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that aliens exist elsewhere in the universe?
Do you acknowledge the possibility that aliens might have, at some point in the Earth's history, visited Earth?
Do you acknowledge the possibility that an alien race capable of crossing star systems might also have the ability to create or modify the DNA at the root of Earth based life?
Might it be possible that this alien race might have planted the seeds of life on Earth, or even helped its evolution along at various stages? I'm not asking about its likelihood, but it's possibility!

I'm faculty at a large college, and I've posed these questions to avowed atheists, biologists, and other anti-creationists, and to a person every one of them acknowledged the possibility of every one of those four options. Not only can't we prove that these things didn't happen, we don't even have any refuting evidence that something else DID happen.

If you acknowledged the possibility of those four questions, you just acknowledged the possibility of Intelligent Design. Some people just replace aliens with God.

[Sgent]

61. Scientifically

There is a very good arugument against ID -- its not science.

Science explains the natural world, with what we can observe, document, and reproduce. Regardless of whether G-d is in the ID argument or not, it does not live up to science.

[Xithras]

68. Reasoning the existence of aliens isn't science either, it's a probability

Much of science is driven by nothing more than probabilities...you should know that already.

Nobody has ever observed, documented, or reproduced an alien, but relatively few people question the probability that there is other life out there, somewhere. Is it science? No. But the science of probabilities tells us that we likely aren't alone.

Even Natural Selection, to get technical, is a probability based science. As of yet nobody has observed the process of natural-selection induced speciation in the wild. We know that natural selection exists as a functional process and have observed it on a small scale, so we fall back to the "science" of probabilities. We know that evolutionary theory plainly indicates that Species A forked into Species B, and we know that Natural Selection is the only process we've observed to be capable of changing the appearance or form of an animal. Even though we've never actually seen Natural Selection fork Species B away from its parent, the science of probabilities tells us that it is the most reasonable answer.

But when it comes right down to it, it isn't science either way. Until the process of natural speciation is directly observed by scientists, it's all really a battle of probabilities.

[Sgent]

75. Define speciation

we've observed it dozen's of times, in both the lab and in the wild, amongst high levl organizims and bacterium.

Every time the Creo's have defined speciation in the past, they change their goal post when they are shown proof.

As for "statistically based", its again based on observable, testable facts. Any theory must be disprovable to be valid, and since you can't disprove a negative, the conjunture that "Aliens exist" is no more science than creationism. A lot of people believe it in, but there is a minor portion of evidence for it, but it can't be disproven, so its not a scientific theory.

[Xithras]

78. The divergence of two species....

I'm not a fundie, and deal only with the scientific definition of speciation:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

And "species" is defined as such:

A taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus, and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Based on this "been solid for 100 years" definition of species, speciation occurs when Species A diverges into Species B, and lifeforms from Species A and Species B are no longer capable of breeding with each other...in other words, when the two species are genetically distinct.

We've seen adaptation and the emergence of subspecies in the wild, but AFAIK they've never achieved genetic separation and have always still been breedable with the parent species...IOW, they didn't meet the scientific definition of speciation. Outside of a laboratory, I don't believe that speciation has ever been observed.

I'm not a fundie and I'll accept it if I'm wrong and research has trumped this issue (please cite), but I do follow the issue closely enough to know that BOTH sides tend to gloss over facts that aren't friendly to their cause. My degree is in physics, not biology, so I like to deal in hard facts and not mushy maybe's. The facts, as far as I'm aware, are that true speciation has never been observed in the wild.

That makes the evo-crevo debate a war of probabilities.

[Siena]

80. True speciation has happened in the lab though, right?

There most certainly are more hard facts about evolution than there can possibly be about creationism.

[Xithras]

85. Yeah, "Un"intelligent Design...more commonly known as GM.

Humans have created all sorts of new species in the labs. The fact that we can do it implies nothing about whether or not it can occur naturally (in fact, I'm fairly sure that introducing octopus DNA into wheat is never going to happen naturally, but it did create a new species).

[Siena]

86. good point, definitely.

But I would still say that we are closer to hard facts when it comes to evolution over creationism!

[Sgent]

83. For simplicities sake

Here is the speciation faq at talk origins. Beyond being a fairly good source in its own right (peer reviewed, etc), it has a comprehensive bibliography.

Talk Origins Speciation FAQ

[Xithras]

87. Interesting.

The only problem I have with the references you produced is that the listed speciations are all either the result of hybridization, human experimentation, or random genetic drift. Even the flush-crash test, the closest analogy to natural selection methodologies cited on that page, failed to produce any permanent changes to the species.

While they are indeed all examples of human observed speciation, none of them support the theory of Natural Selection as a driver for evolution, and Natural Selection is the favored theory that's usually taught in our schools.

Based on those cites, the science appears to support a position arguing that random genetic drift and hybridization are drivers of evolution. Those cites indicate that mutation and hybrid speciation are scientific fact, so why do we still teach natural selection?

We teach them because of probabilities. While it's theoretically possible that random mutation could possibly produce our world, it's extremely unlikely. Natural selection, even without the science, is still the most probable answer. Not scientific, but probable.

[Sgent]

90. More references

including some in African lakes and other wild events

Addl Speciation Events

[Xithras]

91. Additional refutations.

I'm not trying to be hard headed here, just instead taking a critical look at these references.

Chris Stassen Examples:

#1 Describes a lab event
#2 Describes speciation following random genetic mutation, not Natural Selection
#3 & #4 are untested for speciation. It's highly debatable to say that a species is separate simply because size or mating habits, even genetically programmed ones, cause two groups of related animals to avoid each other. That's like saying that homosexual human males are a different species because they're biologically programmed to dislike sex with human females. The descriptions of these final two examples admit that inter-fertility tests have not been conducted, meaning that speciation is unconfirmed.

James Meritt Example:

Again we have a reference to speciation through hybridization. Nobody is debating the fact that we can create a hybrid of two related species, or even two different variants of the same species, and create a new, third species. Ligers and Mules are great examples of hybridized species, but no major scientific body, and very few scientists, suggest that hybridization drove evolution on Earth. It's interesting, but unrelated to the topic at hand.

The second Rhagoletis pomonella example didn't offer enough information to tell whether or not it was a speciation event. The cite would need to be looked up and read.

The rest of the examples are either cites to journal articles that I can't look up immediately, are only marginally related to the topic at hand (the geographic distribution of birds in the Pleistocene and Holocene periods doesn't sound like a scientific analysis of an observed speciation event by any stretch), or in one case again admit that the actual speciation status is unknown.

For what it's worth, I DO believe that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, but as a scientist I have to admit that the evidence simply is NOT there. Unlike the fundies, I don't believe that the lack of evidence implies a false answer, but instead implies something far simpler: Speciation due to natural selection is a slow process primarily driven by environmental change (environmental in the sense of all outside influences combined). It takes a substantial amount of change to induce adaptive genetic alteration and speciation in the natural world, and we simply haven't been around long enough, as scientists, to observe and record these types of divisions.

[tomg]

143. To Xithras and to Sgent

Thanks to both of you for a wonderful dialogue within what is an excellent thread.

[porphyrian]

114. Occam's Razor

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

"Intelligent" design requires you to believe, speaking of evolution in terms of replacing a lightbulb, that some undetectable entity spun the house to replace the bulb. It's most unlikely, and equivalent to believing that invisible miniature elephant fairies control the destiny of the universe, as it's equally "possible" and unable to be disproved.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. Acknowledging the possibility of something is not the same thing as

teaching it as science.

Furthermore, the mere fact that you can't DISPROVE an idea doesn't give it any kind of substantial validity.

A lot of things are "possible". Invisible 500 foot tall orangutans made entirely out of nearly massless neutrinos might live on top of my house, evading all means available to me to detect them. Ghosts might right now be living in my sock drawer. Does that mean we should teach 500 foot tall orangutanism, or sock-drawer ghostism, in public schools, because -hey- you have to acknowledge them as a potential possibility?

I doubt it. Usually there has to be evidence for something before it is taught as science. But for some reason, proponents of intelligent design via "God" (or whatever source, but usually it ends up being "God") seem to feel that THEIR ideas should get special treatment, because (to them, at least) it should be clearly obvious that the possibility of God-induced creation is head and shoulders above the infinite other unproveables that people could come up with.

[windlight]

60. Another way to look at it

from Babylon 5 series was we are all, the universe manifest consciousness, trying to figure itself out..

[whosinpower]

62. Let's not forget

That the same people that are touting intelligent design - refused to beleive that the earth was, in fact, round. They villified any who taught that the theory that the earth was round.

It took hundreds - HUNDREDS of years before the Catholic church finally accepted this - Pope John Paul was the one who admitted that Galileo was right after all.

Something to ponder.......

[manic expression]

64. Science should be taught in school, period

I think that there is meaning behind everything. The idea that some guy made the blueprint for everything is ridiculous. However, there is a higher meaning for creation, as there is for destruction. Could there be a force which created life? Yes, for the thrust of life itself is an idea, an abstract force if you will. This is the entity within and behind "creation", just as it is within us and around us.

Anyway, schools need to keep to science only.

[deadparrot]

81. I take the Biblical creation story for what it is...

a document that was written by someone thousands of years ago, gone through numerous translations, and is present today, for better or worse. Frankly, I don't take much of the Bible literally. My "religion" of sorts is based on how I interact with other people and the world around me. Going apeshit over an idea as, well, presposterous, as the theory that God created the world in seven days (as we know the word "days" to mean now), is, I think, missing the point of spirituality. Creationists say evolutionists have "no proof," (in itself false) yet they are the ones that lack proof.

The higher power I believe in (whether it be a god/goddess or something else) created science. That's how I see it.

And then I believe in evolution. Completely and fully. Being a good person isn't based on following an X,000 year old book to the letter. It's about treating other people and things well.

[sweetheart]

88. The evolution of consiousness

In every moment we are reborn, and the whole world is created anew.
Then, the evolution would be the simultaneous awakening of the
consciousness in every moment.

1. is born raw awareness, dreamless and lucid.
2. the awareness nurtures goodwill.
3. the awareness exerts power in this world noticing and observing
4. the awareness is self aware
5. the self aware creates its world of ideas, history and conceptions
6. that world then is set with the ego "me"
7. The ego "me" inquires in one form or another "what is knowledge".

These seven seals of awakening are born in every moment, however
damaged, yet beneath the play of life in any given moment, is the
awake individual, creating their own reality.

God is in one's heart, God is the raw origin, awareness, dreamless and
lucid, in every moment of every life. God is allah, jehovah, the earth,
this moment, nirvana, satori, tao, oneness, perfect luminous knowledge
or something between all these words, and whatever the principal
is that an recognize self knowledge is born in every person in
every moment. God creates the world in seven seals, seven metaphorical
days, every single moment of this life's creation.

:-)

[Igel]

89. You can't easily reconcile creationism and evolution.

Give it up.

Intelligent design (at least the serious, explicit bits I've run across) and evolution go together well. There's one little assumption that's changed between the two of them.

ID has post hoc analysis. Science is agnostic, for the time being.

If a certain mutation occurs in a certain way, and it determines a species survivability (or distinctness), it's the 'hand of God', for IDers. Leave aside that there was no way to predict that the mutation would occur in that way at that time. Before the mutation occurs, IDers would have to say, if they worked out the odds, that it was random.

For science, it's random. There's no post hoc analysis, no imputation of rational for it. It's random before the fact, it's random after the fact. "Random" isn't always well defined (and frequently just means "we don't have enough information to make a better prediction"); to my mind, this makes science vaguely agnostic on the matter. But to distance themselves from IDers, the idea that some things may be predictable in the future has to be, for the time being, denied. To the extent that evolution depends on quantum mechanical events, I'll let it stand as "random"; random processes and such can yield some truly phenomenal results.

The danger with IDers is they tend to read a conspiracy into evolution. (Here 'conspiracy' = a number of seemingly unrelated events or changes that work together, seemingly to produce a larger goal that isn't predictable from any of the smaller changes.) That's really about the only danger I see from IDers.

[Emendator]

92. No conflict

As a Catholic, I am continually perplexed about this supposed antagonism between faith and science. There are two spheres of knowledge, science, for this temporal world that we can perceive, and faith, for that which is beyond this world. Those who perceive a conflict are confused and in error.

[Emendator]

93. and furthermore

ID is just a weird attempt to read the mind of God. For it is inherently impossible to come up with scientific criteria defining "design". One person looks at a tree and sees randomness, another sees God's inherent design. Who's right? It's impossible to settle the argument in this life. Hence, we can only study what we see. Now, maybe the universe really is designed, but we are to small and imperfect to perceive and understand that design.

[Siena]

111. Isn't that exactly what the ID'ers think?

That the answer is just God so no need to look any further because we would never understand. That's exactly what is so non-scientific about ID. Science is about looking for the deeper answers.

[Emendator]

118. Not at all

I despise ID. How could you conclude that I would think there is no need to look any further for scientific answers? Nothing could be further from what I believe. But the IDers, on the other hand, do want scientific inquiry to be under the realm of religion. My position is that of the Catholic Church's, that there are two realms of knowledge, that science is not a threat to faith. That is why we see that the Church has been one of the most important patrons of science throughout history.

You and I seem to have a different definition of "deeper answers". In my view, science is not about finding the deeper answers. Science is about learning how this universe functions - and often that will lead to profound discoveries, technological advances, improvements in medicine, etc, etc.

But those aren't the deeper answers - those can only be answered from within. What is the meaning of life, is there a God, what is ethical, and so on. Science cannot and should not answer those.

[Siena]

146. Well I don't necessarily disagree with you.

I think the difference just comes in because you believe in a God and I don't. So I agree with you on what science is but eventually, you'll come to God as the answer at the end of the day and I won't. I'll keep looking. I don't mean to offend you at all - everyone feels differently. Trust me - I would want nothing more than to have faith.

[Emendator]

154. Don't worry

about offending me. People worry too much about offending others. My faith is OK but it's not that great. I don't go to mass enough like I should. Did you pick your screen name after the city in Italy or the color?

[Raiden]

94. I'm a Deist, so in a sense I am compelled to believe in it

but I also believe in evolution. The problem with (some) Christians is that they *FEAR* having any of their beliefs challenged. I thrive on it myself. If you have to constantly question your beliefs, that makes you stronger than if you just obstruct reason and intelligence.

[Siena]

112. Yes!

I don't understand this fear that many people have mentioned in this thread. Why would it ever be negative to accumulate more knowledge?

[Raiden]

121. That's a good question

I really can't give you an answer :shrug:

[Siena]

148. Well someone said - can't remember who?

That they are afraid that an accumulation of knowledge will weaken their faith.

[Prism]

115. I think Chris Rock said it best in Dogma

Paraphrasing: "It's better than to have an idea than a belief. At least you can change an idea. Beliefs are trickier."

At least, that's how I've always approached my deism. I have my personal ideas on how the universe works, but it's subject to change.

[Raiden]

120. I love that movie... It actually opened my eyes to a lot

of the hypocrisy in religion. I really took the line you're referring to to heart.


:toast:

[Siena]

149. And I love that God was a woman! EOM

[Kerrytravelers]

96. Science can be proven, religion takes faith that can't be proven.

What I mean is, personally, I don't have a hard time beliving a celesterial creator (in my case, God) created Evolution. It's just like Him to have such a wicked sense of humor... it explains the unexplained. It's a test of faith. If you believe in a creator, and believe with true faith, bit this fascist-faith that has taken America hostage, then Evolution will not only be completly non-threatening, but you wil embrace it as further prooof that this universe if far to complicarted for humans to understand.

I'm probably not making any sense in that I am tired and drinking a beer (probably not the smartest of combinations.) I guess what I'm attempting to convey is that understand and respecting science does not have to be opposing faith. They are two different concepts.

I am not a literaly believer in the Bible. I think it is a collection of stories, some based more in fact than others, that suggest a way to live that brings one peace. Unfortuatly, there are many objectional parts and additions that have found their way in over the centuries as the Bible was bring translated and rewritten by monks over and over again. That is my little opinion, anyway.

[Lerkfish]

97. actually, religion could at some point be conclusively proven.

it just hasn't been yet.
But there could be a time in the future when God breaks through the mortal veil in such a way as to prove his existence absolutely without doubt.

In fact, christians believe that will happen at some point. If true, then the argument that religion is unprovable will be proven incorrect.

[Kerrytravelers]

156. When that happends, then religion will become factual like science, until

thenm I look at religion as something that takes faith. I don't see science as something that requires faith since it worls omn facts (or beliefs that are based on conclusions that are fact-based.)

This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but that is how I can be religious and still have "faith" in evolution.

[Beam Me Up]

100. Why has no one nominated this for the GREATEST page?

Not political enough?

I would disagree. These fundamental questions are very important. How we answer them determines the way we see the world; and that shapes what social reality we have.

[Lerkfish]

105. dunno.

I think because this is a perennial question that constantly comes up, like abortion and gun control. Its hard to recommend the 175th iteration of "why should we control guns".

this is no reflection on the OP, but just saying, asking the question "how do religious people reconcile evolution and creationism" is not in and of itself worth nominating, since this is frequently covered ground.

IMHO.

[Siena]

113. I'm new here...

can someone explain to me what the greatest page is?

[Lerkfish]

116. greatest page is

when a thread is nominated at least by three seperate people (or maybe four, I forget) as a "great" thread, it makes it to a special page, which you can find in the link line across the top -- that says: Lobby/Latest/GREATEST -- General Discussion.

Like I said, I wasn't dissing you, just saying, this is kind of a covered ground question, so that was my theory why more people weren't recommending it. That might have changed by now, i have no idea.

[Siena]

117. no offense taken!

Thanks for explaining to me. and thanks beam me up for wanting to nominate my page!

[Prism]

108. I'm a Deist

So, I tend to believe in a Creator, but generally not in the anthropomorphic sense. Creator, some sort of Abstract Creative Force, etc.

I don't think believing in a Creator and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive things. If there is a god or god-like being, surely they could have set down the natural laws and began time, set the universe to spinning, etc.

I acknowledge I could be wrong. It's just what I believe based on how logic, reason, science, philosophy, etc. mesh in my mind. Evolution, yes. Creator, yes. That's where I am.

[Sequoia]

119. God created science

God said: "I'm going to get the ball rolling here but I don't need to just stand around and do all the work, that's where the stars come in, all that fire and power. I thought up how this should go and put it on auto-pilot. It's hard work being God, and I need a rest too now and then. Sometimes things go wrong, like Ardvarks and Unicorns, and brainless leaders who invoke my name for their own personal gain. But, I can't just stand around and hold the Universe's hand. Yeah, I knew ole Adam would blame Eve and I'd have to kick them out of the garden. They showed how smart they were, why should I support them, let them scramble on their own, it's more interesting that way. However, the animals won't be so nice to people anymore because they know the humans will want them for food and clothing. So, don't go out in the forset and think you're dealing with Smokey the Bear or he'll eat you up."

[Warren DeMontague]

130. Simple. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did everything.

http://venganza.org

And the fact that you can't find "evidence" to "prove" it only PROVES the ineffable complexity of his genius. Obviously, there are two- and only two- distinct and equally plausible alternatives:

EITHER the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and everything in it with his noodly appendage, or he didn't. Logically, those two propositions should be offered as the two competing explanations of reality to students, because, as Bush himself said, "people should be exposed to different ideas"

There is NO REASON why public schoolchildren shouldn't be given ALL THE FACTS about the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[Siena]

153. That is fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for giving me a good morning laugh.

:toast: :headbang: :yourock: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. Science tells what and how, not WHY

The "why" questions on the purview of philosophy and religion. That is the short answer about why Intelligent Design does not belong in a public school classroom.

I'm a liberal Christian (raised ELCA Lutheran, now Episcopalian) who believes that the universe is too complex to be fully apprehended by any human system. Science is gradually uncovering the "what" and "how," but it is not the purpose of science to answer the question of "why" or even IF there is a "why."

All religious systems are attempts to find the "why." All of them are imperfect approximations, and as such, we all choose our own most congenial way of acknowledging and getting in touch with the divine.

I see the Genesis account as the best guess of people who lived 3,000-4,000 years ago of where the world came from. There's some interesting stuff in Genesis, but it's definitely at odds with what we know of geology, cosmology, paleontology, and anthropology.

My own personal philosophy is close to Intelligent Design, but since it is not scientific, I don't want it taught in science class. Teaching Intelligent Design in science class is like teaching literature in math class.

BTW, as one who has read the Scientific American for the past five years, I consider myself more knowledgeable about science than the average American.

[JerseygirlCT]

147. A belief in God and a belief in science need not be

at all contradictory. The thing is, one requires faith, and one scientific testing. One ought to be taught at home and with the family, and one ought to be taught in school.

There is no scientific basis for a belief in God. That's rather the point of faith. So teaching "intelligent design" is wrong in a scientific context. It's not a provable or disprovable theory.

[Dorian Gray]

150. Easily....

Intelligent Design (which I believe in, though I don't advocate the teaching of in Science Class. It's much preferrable in a Philosophy or Theology class in the college/high school level to science class. In University we discussed the idea in both Philosophy and Theology classes. My Biology class did not touch it.) is NOT creationism. It enforces that God/and Architect created the earth's evolutionary process.

I personally, as a Catholic, have no problem with Evolution. It's science. It's what we should learn in science class. I do believe, however, that the evolutionary process was sparked by God's power. Creationism is NOT intelligent design. It's very different. And I do NOT believe in a literal translation of the creation stories in the Bible.