Creation vs. Evolution

[sandjeep]

Hello MikeFerrara,

Glad to see that you have posted again!

 

[Warthaug]

The Bible (KJV) states God created life. (Other major religions have not been represented on this thread.) Since this fly’s in the face of what evolutionists believe, then the Bible must be incorrect.

Your are incorrect on this matter for a variety of reasons:

1) Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing - let me repeat that - absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life. The theories you're looking for are the theories of abiogenesis. Maybe before you start dictating what my personal beliefs must be you should actually try and learn what they are. This is high-school level science here, nothing complicated...

2) Neither the theory of evolution nor the theories of abiogenesis say anything - for or against - the existence of god. Whether or not god exists is far outside the purview of science.

3) Believing in evolution (or scientific theories of abiogenesis) does not mean you cannot also believe in god. Whether those processes occurred entirely through natural means, or was guided by a god, is not something science will ever be able to prove as science is not designed to answer philosophical questions.

I always have to shake my head when creationists make claims like the one you made above. I've made a career out of science, and I know literally dozens of scientists who believe in both god and evolution. I myself am (or at least was, I’ve lost a lot of “faith” in organized religion over the years) religious and do not see any conflict between my scientific and religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. Granted, some people use science as justification for their atheism, but they’re as far off the mark as biblical literalists are in trying to use the bible to disprove scientific theories.

The only people to whom the above claim can be said to be true is biblical literalists - they are pretty much the only people for whom evolution and their religious beliefs are incompatible. It is unfortunate that they think their beliefs somehow represent the beliefs of all Christians. At the world level they are a small minority.

Bryan

PS: Interesting link

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

 

[sandjeep]

Your are incorrect on this matter for a variety of reasons:

1) Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing - let me repeat that - absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life. The theories you're looking for are the theories of abiogenesis. Maybe before you start dictating what my personal beliefs must be you should actually try and learn what they are. This is high-school level science here, nothing complicated...

For the purpose of this thread, I have understood, and I believe others too, that the term evolution includes where life originated from as well. We have been talking about God, the Bible, and a host of other topics. Perhaps you have not had a chance to read completely the last 25 posts or so. In a general sense, the term evolution does provide the basis of where life began. Nuts, just look at the title of the thread.

Dictating your personal beliefs?? I use the term evolutionists to describe anyone who believes in evolution in a general way. Evolution v. Creation

2) Neither the theory of evolution nor the theories of abiogenesis say anything - for or against - the existence of god. Whether or not god exists is far outside the purview of science.

Not as it's taught in the United States. Evolution is taught as how life develops and how it began, at least when I was in school. Perhaps things have changed.

3) Believing in evolution (or scientific theories of abiogenesis) does not mean you cannot also believe in god. Whether those processes occurred entirely through natural means, or was guided by a god, is not something science will ever be able to prove as science is not designed to answer philosophical questions.

Not a philosophical question to many, including myself.

I always have to shake my head when creationists make claims like the one you made above. I've made a career out of science, and I know literally dozens of scientists who believe in both god and evolution. I myself am (or at least was, I’ve lost a lot of “faith” in organized religion over the years) religious and do not see any conflict between my scientific and religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. Granted, some people use science as justification for their atheism, but they’re as far off the mark as biblical literalists are in trying to use the bible to disprove scientific theories.

We're not talking about just any scientific belief on this thread. As far as making claims, I used a logical progression in order to build a foundation for the question I asked. (that prompted your post) As it stands, I think that we were talking about the Bible's 'Inerrancy'

The only people to whom the above claim can be said to be true is biblical literalists - they are pretty much the only people for whom evolution and their religious beliefs are incompatible. It is unfortunate that they think their beliefs somehow represent the beliefs of all Christians. At the world level they are a small minority.

I have never said that I was not a literalist. In fact, I've been called a fundamentalist a few times on this thread and described myself as such. I have no issue with saying that there is an extreme conflict here and ToE is incompatible for me.

I'm sorry that you have lost faith in organized religion. I'll agree that religion can be used for very evil purposes. In many cases it turns people away from what’s important. Churches must be able to show that the teachings of the Bible are as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago. Too many of them do a poor job of this IMHO. Too many churches demand that you dress a certain way, drive a certain type of car, be in a certain social circle ect. I call BS on all of that. I call BS on many denominations within the Christian community for some of the issues I've seen, but I will not debate about it on this thread as it serves no purpose.

For any one who is seeking the truth, it boils down to one question.

Who Jesus is and what did He say.

I hope that you will continue to explore this.

 

[agilis]

I find the claim that hundreds of scientists are both religious and followers oF Darwinian evolution interesting. I watched an amazing interview on public television a couple of weeks ago. Charlie Rose was interviewing two of America's premier scientists, E. O. Wilson, professor emeritus at Harvard and twice a Pulitzer Prize winner; and James Watson, Nobel Prize winner, one of the unravelers of DNA. Watson said that Darwin was, in his view, the most important scientist who ever lived. Both men recently published books about Darwin. I'm not easily impressed, but these two virtually glowed with brilliance. Even Rose was visibly humbled.

When asked by Rose if any of the world's first rate scientists were in any way religious, both thought for a few seconds, consulted with each other briefly, and answered that they knew of only one.

 

[Warthaug]

For the purpose of this thread, I have understood, and I believe others too, that the term evolution includes where life originated from as well.

And myself and others have been continually pointing out that this is incorrect. By my count this is the fifth time this thread alone that I've had to point this out. Evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the creation of life. Never has, never will.

ALL that evolutionary theory is concerned with is the adaptation of life in response to selective pressures. Any claims otherwise are both scientifically incorrect and demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory involves.

We have been talking about God, the Bible, and a host of other topics. Perhaps you have not had a chance to read completely the last 25 posts or so.

I've been involved since the beginning, and have read every post (give or take a few).

Dictating your personal beliefs?? I use the term evolutionists to describe anyone who believes in evolution in a general way. Evolution v. Creation

You stated: "The Bible (KJV) states God created life. (Other major religions have not been represented on this thread.) Since this fly’s in the face of what evolutionists believe, then the Bible must be incorrect."

Pretty much says it all - by your rational its either religion or evolution. So, by your rational, because I believe in evolution I therefore cannot be a Christian. Hence, dictating my beliefs.

Not as it's taught in the United States. Evolution is taught as how life develops and how it began, at least when I was in school. Perhaps things have changed.

I'm fairly certain you are wrong. One of my older books is a circa-1950's high school bio text (published in the US) which I picked up from a garage sale. In its evolution chapter the difference between evolution and abiogenesis are clearly delineated. If it is no longer being taught in this fashion then the book publishers and teachers need to be taken to task for teaching the theories incorrectly.

Edit: Forgot to add that while this 1950's book spent several chapters talking about evolution, and these chapters featured promenently at the beginning of the book. Many of the books I've seen today have delegated evolution to a small chapter in the back...

We're not talking about just any scientific belief on this thread.

But it is "just any" scientific theory. You just don't like this one, so you treat it differently. I hate to break it to you, but evolution isn't the only scientific theory which goes against biblical literalism - relativity, QED, cosmology, and some aspects of particle physics point to a universe much older then the one you imagine. Geology points towards a much older earth, with billions of years of rock and fossil formation.

About the only thing "special" about evolution, among that fairly lofty group of theories, is the increasable amount of evidence for evolution. Every biological fact discovered over the last 150 years supports evolution. There is, as far as I've ever seen demonstrated, no biological evidence speaking otherwise.

To quote my first post in this thread:

"Evolution is to biology what relativity & QED is to physics - it explains every biological phenomena we've ever encountered. Without evolution biology is just a collection of interesting facts; with evolution all of those facts become interlinked and form a single, concrete continuum of life."

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I find the claim that hundreds of scientists are both religious and followers oF Darwinian evolution interesting. I watched an amazing interview on public television a couple of weeks ago. Charlie Rose was interviewing two of America's premier scientists, E. O. Wilson, professor emeritus at Harvard and twice a Pulitzer Prize winner; and James Watson, Nobel Prize winner, one of the unravelers of DNA. Watson said that Darwin was, in his view, the most important scientist who ever lived. Both men recently published books about Darwin. I'm not easily impressed, but these two virtually glowed with brilliance. Even Rose was visibly humbled.

It would also be worth pointing out both of these men are well known for their "anti-religious" views. Wilson has long been a proponent of scientific humanism, a form of secular humanism, which is based on the rejection of religion in favor of reason.

Watson (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA) has long been an outspoken (militant even) atheist. He's also been known to propose rather controversial things, like aborting the stupidest 10% of people before birth.

So I wouldn't exactly look for an unbiased view of religion and science from those two. About the only scientist who is louder about atheism, and more anti-religious then those two, is Richard Dawkins.

When asked by Rose if any of the world's first rate scientists were in any way religious, both thought for a few seconds, consulted with each other briefly, and answered that they knew of only one.

I can think of a few, both alive and diseased:
1) Enstein (deceased)

2) Kenneth R. Miller, author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" (living)

3) Stephen J Gould (evolutionary scientist and author). I cannot remember if Gould has ever claimed to be religious himself, but he as written extensively about science and religion, and how there need be no conflict between the two. He was also a champion of the anti-intelligent design movement. (recently deceased)

4) Sir Robert Boyd, chemist. (living)

5) Charles Hard Townes, Nobel prize for physics (living, or recently deceased)

6) Francis Collins, head of National Human Genome Research Institute. (living)

7) John T. Houghton, reciently awarded a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society. (living)

8) A lot of the best-known (but dead) scientists were highly religious, including Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Hubble, Copernicus, Pasteur, etc. Some were even part of the clergy.

Darwin himself was religious for most of his life. Although he later lost faith in god (became an agnostic, by his own account), upon his death he was awarded one of the highest honors of his church - burial in Westminister Abby.

And I'm not claiming that all scientists are religious; in fact I'd be willing to bet that less than 10% are. But even if you ask the agnostics and atheists if they think that religion and science are mutually incompatible, I'd bet the majority would answer 'no'.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I have never said that I was not a literalist. In fact, I've been called a fundamentalist a few times on this thread and described myself as such.

Two questions for you about this - I've asked this of several others on your "side", and they've all failed to answer either one. I'm just curious how you can be a biblical literalist when:

1) The bible gives two conflicting accounts of creation - Genesis I, the whole 6 days "and then there was light" account, and Genesis II, the story of Adam, where both the order of creation and its timing are completely different.

I've always been curious about that. And why is it the literalists chose Genesis I, and not II, to take literally.

2) Why don't biblical literalists demand other things which the bible says we should have. My favorite example is slavery. Throughout the old testament guidelines are set out for the acquisition and treatment of slaves (Exodus 21:2-21, Deuteronomy 15:16-17, among others). Jesus, via 1 Corinthians 7:21, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, and 1 Peter 2:18, restates that slavery is OK and sets up some basic rules about it.

So why don't biblical literalists promote slavery? Why aren’t they out on the street demanding their biblical right to slaves? Why do they get so mad when I ask if they’re willing to sell me their children (which is their biblically-guaranteed right, BTW). After all, the bible is pretty explicit that slavery is A-OK. Why is it that these sections are not taken literally?

Bryan

 

[agilis]

Einstein was essentially an atheist. He made, during his long life, a few comments that have been construed as religious, but which really were made in the context of affirming and emphasizing the fact that he did not believe in life after death, or in the existence of a God that was in any way concerned about the affairs of humans. He sometimes made comments about the order and structure of the cosmos as being the only deity he could imagine, but again, these remarks were usually made while refuting any notion of the supernatural.

 

[H2Andy]

The theology of inerrancy is not based on any single book, chapter or verse. "Inerrancy" is, of course, not a Biblical term but rather a theological term we use to describe what the Bible teaches in regard to it's own inspired nature and truth.

you are correct. it is not a Biblical teaching, but a theological construct built on an amalgaman of verses that don't quite say "scripture is inerrant"

please show me a single verse in the Bible where it says "there are no errors in the Bible; the Bible is free of textual errors; the Bible is perfect" or anything along those lines

on the other hand, how about "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

no doubts there.

i think i mentioned this earlier, but i'll say it again. i think many, many Christians today don't know how to read the Bible for themselves. they read the Bible and "see" what they have been taught to find there. there are a lot of teachings in churches that have nothing to do with what the Bible really says.

 

[sandjeep]

warthaug,

I’ll answer your last post first quickly as I have some things to do tonight.

Two questions for you about this - I've asked this of several others on your "side", and they've all failed to answer either one. I'm just curious how you can be a biblical literalist when:

1) The bible gives two conflicting accounts of creation - Genesis I, the whole 6 days "and then there was light" account, and Genesis II, the story of Adam, where both the order of creation and its timing are completely different.

Mat 19:4
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh

The above is from Matthew Chapter 19 and as you can see, Jesus is talking about Creation in verse 4 (Overview) and the point in verse 5 (Specific) was Adam and Eve .

Jesus sees no contradiction in the so-called 2 accounts since He quotes from both. Its really the same account. I don’t really see the issue, as Jesus can not be wrong or lie.

2) Why don't biblical literalists demand other things which the bible says we should have. My favorite example is slavery.

After all, the bible is pretty explicit that slavery is A-OK. Why is it that these sections are not taken literally?

The word slavery means different things to different people and cultures. Was the slavery forced as in American history? Were they more indentured servants? Did they ever get the day off? If they ran away were they chased down and chained or automatically freed instead? Were they working off a debt and were all slaves (servants) freed after 6 years?

To tell you the truth, if you owed me money and could not pay, then your going to work off the debt somehow. Would I call you my slave and would you consider yourself a slave coming from our western culture?

Question, where is your avitar picture from?