Crosswords1 min ago
Religion & Evolution
15 Answers
I have been watching a fascinating documentary called "Prehistoric Autopsy" which has been centred around creating life size and accurate models of prehistoric man from bones found and dating back to 2.5 million years ago.
It also showed that most Europeans have a 2-10% DNA marker that shows we are also descended from Neandertal man. ie, homoerectus and neandertals mated.
How does this fit in with religion?
Do Christians actually believe in Genesis with regard to Adam & Eve, despite all the evidence of evolution ....and wouldn't this be enough for any person of intelligence to question the rest of The Bible? Or not?
It also showed that most Europeans have a 2-10% DNA marker that shows we are also descended from Neandertal man. ie, homoerectus and neandertals mated.
How does this fit in with religion?
Do Christians actually believe in Genesis with regard to Adam & Eve, despite all the evidence of evolution ....and wouldn't this be enough for any person of intelligence to question the rest of The Bible? Or not?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Le Chat. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Consider the "fact" that the Earth and man were created between 6000 and 7000 years ago, and all these "so called" fossils have been either misinterpreted by the scientists, or have been planted by the Devil to confuse us, and you will realise there is nothing can be done to divert the "believers" from their path.
I'm not a Christian, but a colleague who is, and who also happens to have a scientific background, likes to point out that events in the course of evolution happened in the same order as described in the Bible. His viewpoint is that the word 'day' in Genesis is used to describe a unit of time (millenia) rather than 24 hours, and that the stories aren't literal but symbolic.
Of course, he has some quite 'lively' arguments with fellow Christians on the subject! But an interesting viewpoint, I think
Of course, he has some quite 'lively' arguments with fellow Christians on the subject! But an interesting viewpoint, I think
I have also seen the argument that each day of the creation myth represented an as yet unspecified but extremely long time period. The suggestion though that the events as listed in the creation myth is mirrored by the progression of life as suggested by evolution is not correct though.
Most scientists I know who are also religious ( and there are a few) tend to take the view that stories from the bible are mostly allegorical. They have no problem with evolution, seeing evolution as being gods method for the dvelopment and diversification of life.
And I have no problem with theists who take this view, although i still cannot see why they feel the need to invoke a deity at all :)
Given the (current) impossibility of either proving or disproving the existence of god, such a position can be considered intellectually consistent with empirical fact.
Most scientists I know who are also religious ( and there are a few) tend to take the view that stories from the bible are mostly allegorical. They have no problem with evolution, seeing evolution as being gods method for the dvelopment and diversification of life.
And I have no problem with theists who take this view, although i still cannot see why they feel the need to invoke a deity at all :)
Given the (current) impossibility of either proving or disproving the existence of god, such a position can be considered intellectually consistent with empirical fact.
Religion is based on the ancient presupposition of a divine creator and overseer of existence, thereby, departing from objectivity at the onset. It's pointless to attempt to make any sense of it or anything else for that matter, following from such a presumed and unestablished baseless premise. Who, (being of sound mind), would attempt to build a skyscraper by beginning at the thirteenth floor, having ignored the need for a foundation altogether.
To know is to understand the means and process by which knowledge is obtained and verified. Perception, consciousness, intelligence and purposeful creativity are all emergent qualities of an extended complex process of evolution where each step follows from and is made possible by the step/s which preceded it. The end is facilitated and made possible by the means. Religion simply ignores the means and process presuming the end as the starting point of and justification for its assertions.
The existence of 'God' and all that follows from it (religion) is merely a presumption of the facts, 'proof' devoid of any meaningful definition for or understanding of what it is one is offering 'proof' of, an imaginary heaven in violation of the Earth from which such an imagination springs, suspended conveniently, unavoidably and permanently beyond ones understanding in the hope of avoiding and circumventing everything one does know and understand that stands in contradiction to such impossibilities.
To know is to understand the means and process by which knowledge is obtained and verified. Perception, consciousness, intelligence and purposeful creativity are all emergent qualities of an extended complex process of evolution where each step follows from and is made possible by the step/s which preceded it. The end is facilitated and made possible by the means. Religion simply ignores the means and process presuming the end as the starting point of and justification for its assertions.
The existence of 'God' and all that follows from it (religion) is merely a presumption of the facts, 'proof' devoid of any meaningful definition for or understanding of what it is one is offering 'proof' of, an imaginary heaven in violation of the Earth from which such an imagination springs, suspended conveniently, unavoidably and permanently beyond ones understanding in the hope of avoiding and circumventing everything one does know and understand that stands in contradiction to such impossibilities.
Not sure if it is 'most' Europeans, but certainly a good proportion of them. It is an expensive and slow progress to test everyone for NM markers. Many religions alter their teachings to co-coincide with modern scientific discoveries, except the muslims of course. If you don't believe their way, you are condemned to death as an infidel.
It is interesting that science has incontestable proof of evolution and material existence in many forms, yet none of the ecclesiastical codes has one iota.
It is interesting that science has incontestable proof of evolution and material existence in many forms, yet none of the ecclesiastical codes has one iota.
Theists try to explain that the word Day actually means a thousand years or more.
OK ! but if we are to accept that explanation then it needs to be consistant throughout Genesis. :
Genesis 1:3 describes the first day as consisting of day,morning ,evening and night, which describes our 24 hr day so each part would need to be about 250 years long.
Gen 7:17 Noahs flood. it rained for 40 days which would mean 40 thousand
years and the world was flooded for 150 days Gen7:24 which is 150 thousand years. How's that for longevity for Noah and the animals.
They claim Adam lived for 800 years. Which is nonsense as it stands but using their reckoning that would be 292 million.
All this nonsense is in the first 5 pages of the bible and the bible has more than a 1000 pages of it.
OK ! but if we are to accept that explanation then it needs to be consistant throughout Genesis. :
Genesis 1:3 describes the first day as consisting of day,morning ,evening and night, which describes our 24 hr day so each part would need to be about 250 years long.
Gen 7:17 Noahs flood. it rained for 40 days which would mean 40 thousand
years and the world was flooded for 150 days Gen7:24 which is 150 thousand years. How's that for longevity for Noah and the animals.
They claim Adam lived for 800 years. Which is nonsense as it stands but using their reckoning that would be 292 million.
All this nonsense is in the first 5 pages of the bible and the bible has more than a 1000 pages of it.
The argument that the bible is not meant to be taken literally but is rather symbolic or allegorical doesn't make sense when it has been preached as historical facts . It was written presumably to explain the unknown world to the ignorant masses . So why wrap it up in mumbo jumbo so that today thousands of years later it is still interpretated in hundreds of different ways.
The answer is simple it was written and interpretated by men who wanted power . Some of this power may be benign , but much of it was evil.
The answer is simple it was written and interpretated by men who wanted power . Some of this power may be benign , but much of it was evil.
Even if we take a day as one thousand years the Biblical creation is still way off. Between the dawn of time and the arrival of Man is 13.8 billion years so they are still out by a factor of over two million.
If we represent that in terms of the right answer as hitting a the bullseye on a dartboard then the shot missed the planet.
Yet the believers staunchly claim the scientific accuracy of their books is evidence for their veracity.
If we represent that in terms of the right answer as hitting a the bullseye on a dartboard then the shot missed the planet.
Yet the believers staunchly claim the scientific accuracy of their books is evidence for their veracity.
There are two competely divergent views of life, the universe and everything which can never be reconciled because they proceed from completely different premises. There i no point in trying to explain one to the other; they will never undertand each other nor admit the possibility that the other has a point. The fundamentalist (Chritian or otherwise) sees the literal truth of Genesis et al as a given. Every "fact" which seems to call this into question must be ignored or rubbished ar claimed as the work of the devil. At the other extreme Richard Dawkins and his disciples (and they are unthinking disciples at that) work inexorably closer to the big bang, microsecond by microsecond and because this "progress" fails to reveal any evidence of causality, see this as "proof" that causality does not exist. Simple ouls like myself who sit happily in the middle are denounce by one group and pitied by the other. I find no conflict whatever between Genesis and Darwin. One is a description of why we exist and the other of how. In the words of Paul Simon, "Disagreements, work them out."
There may very well be 2 divergent views of life and its creation - but that does not mean that these divergent views have equal weight or validity.
On the one hand you have the view formed by creation myth and legend - A creation myth largely copied wholesale from mesopotamian ( is that how you spell it?) legend.
On the other you have the scientific worldview - imperfect and subject to change as the evidence and observation comes in - but a view backed by empirical evidence.
To stubbornly cling to a belief wholly divergent from reality and evidence and science is to relegate your almighty to an ever- decreasing "god of the gaps" entity. This is the god that all fundamentalist and literalists believe in - and paradoxically their fundamentalism demeans and cheapens their god.
As far as the development of life on earth is concerned, there is no other serious alternative to evolution.Its about time that young and old earth creationists, JWs, all the other barmpots grow up and recognise this. Far better would be to acknowledge the science, accept that the holy books are largely well meaning oral tales designed to elicit good behaviour through parable, and embrace the real- world, scientifically tested, evidence -rich consensus as the means by which god achieves their goal, if you must believe in some sort of ethereal,pervasive god-creator being.
On the one hand you have the view formed by creation myth and legend - A creation myth largely copied wholesale from mesopotamian ( is that how you spell it?) legend.
On the other you have the scientific worldview - imperfect and subject to change as the evidence and observation comes in - but a view backed by empirical evidence.
To stubbornly cling to a belief wholly divergent from reality and evidence and science is to relegate your almighty to an ever- decreasing "god of the gaps" entity. This is the god that all fundamentalist and literalists believe in - and paradoxically their fundamentalism demeans and cheapens their god.
As far as the development of life on earth is concerned, there is no other serious alternative to evolution.Its about time that young and old earth creationists, JWs, all the other barmpots grow up and recognise this. Far better would be to acknowledge the science, accept that the holy books are largely well meaning oral tales designed to elicit good behaviour through parable, and embrace the real- world, scientifically tested, evidence -rich consensus as the means by which god achieves their goal, if you must believe in some sort of ethereal,pervasive god-creator being.
1 to 15 of 15
