Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Jul 24, 2013.

  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I didn't say that.
    Can you take it down please?
    Thanks.

    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    It's a fact, not a claim. Unlike belief, this is knowledge. That is, there are facts and evidence which require it.

    That's correct.

    By being informed by their knowledge of the actual facts and evidence taken from the study of fossils. In other words, any other conclusion is false because it collides with nature.

    In that era the tables were turned. The churches claimed ownership of the explanation for all origins and retaliated against questions of this kind. In any case, no, the example you've chosen is not comparable to the science that classifies fossils and builds the phylogenetic trees from which we know that whales evolved from ungulates.

    Knowledge disturbs false beliefs. Education oppresses the perpetuation of ignorance and myth. But that should only please you. You'd have to say why it doesn't.

    Project Steve puts that in perspective.

    It's a repudiation of science when the decision rests on belief that contradicts knowledge.

    You don't see how one species can branch from another, and how, by tracing these branches, you see an ungulate evolve into a whale?

    Once you've decided that there is a division between a mainstream and a dissenting side, you've already stepped away from the evidence. Remember, it's not scientists who are saying what is so, it's the fossils themselves. If you trace the branches from ungulates to whales, you're back on track.

    Maybe the key is to find out how scientists have come to understand the issue, and to walk through the same information they used.

    Here you are saying that you can see a fact of science when told through the lens of religion, but that you can't see the fact when given as raw data.

    I have never seen an ID claim that is not easily defeated by the raw data which is readily available online.

    I just Googled, and the first sites I got were PBS, Berkeley, and Wikipedia, National Geographic, Smithsonian, a couple of learning sites, and the American Museum of Natural History. The PBS site introduces you to Phil Gingerich, who discovered the critter you were calling a dog. It goes from there to give you the names of the intermediate fossils with embedded links for more info etc. All of these are great resources. If that doesn't get you where you want to go you might want to search for some specific detail. Of course you need to avoid the Creationist sites. They have gotten pretty sneaky about modeling their sites after real science sites, so the casual reader has to have their baloney detector turned on to realize what mess they've just stepped into.

    However, Gingerich is a very good place to start. If I search for "whale evolution gingerich" I get this page which is a great place to start:

    Research on the Origin and Early Evolution of Whales (Cetacea)

    Check that last link and tell me what part is foregone.

    Here is the first video I pulled up. What is absurd about it?

    It's chock full of science. It's just the beginning. Wait til you get to the details. That's where you want to go, if you're looking for more specific facts. That will inevitably lead you to the journals, which is what you may ultimately be looking for.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    iceaura,

    Dogs turning into whales is no more absurd than pakicetus turning into whales.

    So if you don't accept darwinian evolution (pakicetus turning into whales), you don't understand evolution?
    So one has to accept it to understand it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    At least you wouldn't have to make up absurd stories. Pakicetus lived at a certain time, and became extinct. That is the actual truth of the matter.

    I'm not interested in the religious aspect of this quote, but otherwise, good, they're forcing people to think about the net they are currently being swept up in, opening up some room for contemplation. The evolutionary ideas have to constantly come with ideas and explanations to keep them on their toes, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give.

    It doesn't matter whether it's dogs, cats, or pakiceti, the whole idea is absurd. It's almost as if you can't see it.

    My eyes and ears are fully open. If you like I can link you some movies of how this whale evolution occurred, and they are ridiculous.

    jan.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jayleew Who Cares Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    How does any of this rhetoric matter? We all believe what we believe. I'd like to think most of us are listening and reevaluating their beliefs, but how can we call any belief ridiculous that we cannot prove is not? We are here discussing the reason and philosophy of what we all believe, but how can we ever reject any belief when we ourselves probably believe something that someone else would say is equally ridiculous?

    To answer the OP, some people believe that Evolution was God's tool to create man. So, since there are people who believe that, then the answer is "yes."
     
  8. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You've missed what's really going on here though. What the OP is arguing is that anyone who says they accept the fact of evolution, and believe in God, doesn't really believe in God at all. The justification for this is that a person who really believes in God necessarily sees the process of evolution as being incompatible with that belief.

    So, if God merely created a universe in which intelligent life would evolve as an inevitable consequence of the physical parameters He put in place, He's not really God at all, and therefore believing in Him constitutes believing in nothing more than an idea concocted by man. If fact even if God directly authoured abiogenesis, and perhaps even actively guided the resulting processes at a few critical points here and there, He's still not really God at all, and therefore believing in Him still constitutes believing in nothing more than an idea concocted by man.

    (the manner in which I elected to phrase the paragraph above was decidedly premeditated)
     
  9. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Also of particular relevance is the Catholic doctrine of "special creation" where, in the context of theistic evolution, evolving hominids were eventually endowed with souls by God at which point they became properly human.

    But alas, no matter how devout a catholic may be, they are not true theists either.
     
  10. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Hmmm. The Pope? Not a true theist!
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    We are pitting the rhetoric of the Creation Myth against the rhetoric of all of science. That matters to anyone who cares about truth.

    And we know what we know. Now we need only put what we believe to the test of what we know in order to discover if the belief is true or not.

    By winnowing the deceptions out of our beliefs. By learning.

    And know.

    How? By applying what we learned in geometry (the systematic application of logic).

    Alas, that's one sad way folks handle the truth.

    Only as belief. But never as truth.
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    One of the silliest faces of fundamentalism is its disdain of Catholicism and the Pope. Beside the fact their entire belief system was created by the ancient Catholics, their own "pope" was Henry VIII (in that he took ownership of the Church of England) - the perfect Machievellian and emblem of the corruption they attribute to the papacy. Of course I'm excluding all of European Protestantism from the ones I'm calling "fundies" but in fact this movement - the one that is so zealous about denying science - is evidently entirely rooted in the groups that descended from the original English Anabaptists.

    Just a little bit of trivia. But it does speak to the duplicity of fundamentalism. I mean, if they really wanted to make a clean break they should have disavowed any document the Catholics ever had in their possession, on grounds that it had to be contaminated. And to think the Popes (esp Damasus I who sent Jerome off to create the modern Bible) controlled what went into the Bible . . . Blasphemy !! And how did the English Protestants react? By removing the Apocrypha, the Jewish texts! It's all ridiculous. Worst of all they have no sense of their history, of all the fallacies they built their rejection of the other fallacies on.
     
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    So, the question for me is ...why is it incompatible to believe in God and evolution from the POV of the OP?

    Just when u think you know what's going on in a thread...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Jan, I sensed you don't believe in evolution but didn't think you feel that to believe in it, means one shouldn't claim to be a theist?
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I already asked you the questions that matter. Who and what is God? But you declined to answer.

    You're right, I don't believe IN evolution, and what's more I shouldn't have to believe in it anymore than I have to believe IN any natural phenomena. If I am left
    having to believe in something, then it is something that falls outside of mine or anyones sensual perception and/or outside of nature, but that thing has to make sense, and necessarily follow on from something that I do know or can percieve in some way.

    jan.
     
  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Didn't really get a straight answer there did you wegs? Here, from page 1:

     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That's incorrect. Animals don't turn into anything. They descend from one another. Descendency is genetic. Over generations genes drift and mutate, introducing gradual changes to the individuals who carry them. The word is evolve. Animals don't evolve into other animals. They simply evolve. There is no endpoint or destination, just whatever works for the survival of that population in that particular set of circumstances. Further, they evolve as populations. Any new genetic traits have to be so successful that they take root in the entire population.

    Pakicetus did not "evolve into" a whale. The evidence and current science on this places Pakicetus in common ancestry with modern whales. The fact of having "cetus" in its name tells you it's a primitive whale. One with legs.

    If you say "animal X turns into animal Y" you likely don't understand evolution. If you can't pass a college entrance exam covering the subject of evolution, then same thing. I think there are some objective ways to measure that.

    What we mean is, denial of evolution is hard evidence that the person does not understand it.

    That's only a minimum of the truth. You need to say when it lived, and how it originated. Then you're getting closer to the truth.

    Quite the reverse, jan.

    The truth is stranger than fiction. But not absurd.
     
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Not really. Just about everyone posts here for fun, and arguing can be entertaining. So the arguments can go on and on endlessly, aimlessly and often in circles.

    Of course. I agree with Jayleew. Countless millions of theists believe in biological evolution, so obviously it's possible.

    The only way that an incompatibility would seem to arise would be if the theist believed not only in the existence of a 'God' (however that word is defined), but also in a second special-creationist premise that has this God creating all the various 'kinds' of life initially at creation, with the 'kinds' continuing on essentially unchanged ever since.

    That suggests that it isn't really theism itself that's incompatible with "Darwinism", but rather the second creationist premise.
     
  18. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You make me laugh sometimes. And I mean actually laugh. In this case it's the nature of the subject matter itself that is inherently funny of course, but you have a knack for succinctly conveying the essence of it.

    In fact I'd say you have a knack for succinctly conveying the essence of many things.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Jan, I do remember you asking and I had no definitive answer then and don't now. I don't know "what" God is or isn't...but I have a faith, a belief, that we have a Creator. To guess that God would somehow be less omniscient simply because he may have chosen evolution as the catalyst for everything to exist, makes us create a god that fits into our way of thinking. I don't know what I don't know.

    Having said that... I ask questions here not to change minds or to spar, even. I honestly want to understand the views being presented. I do think it's fundamentally wrong however, to say that a theist can't "have it both ways."

    See, to me...I'm not having it both ways. I believe evolution stemmed from a Creator. Not, two separate thoughts and I'm trying to connect the spiritual dots to science. Hope that better clarifies my point. And thx for yours...
    Grazie!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I'm not interested in religious affiliation as being a member of any organisation does nothing to show if you believe in God or not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  21. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Also I'm wondering if jan has God creating Pakicetus 50 MYA out of thin air. Added up to include all speciation events ever, it's pretty frenetic version of special creation.
     
  22. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    For a lot of religious people it doesn't really matter. Historical considerations, and even theological ones beyond their own brand of faith, or sometimes even any considerations at all, are secondary to the reality of their own convictions. Hence, fideism. Most theists (although perhaps not all, depending on exactly how you want to define the word) engage in this to varying degrees.

    Although to be fair the same sort of behaviour can certainly manifest outside of the context of theism as well.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    wegs,

    If you're prepared to accept that God could choose the darwinian evolutionary process to kick start existence, why can't you accept that He created in the way it says in scriptures?

    I didn't say it was wrong, I said I don't it is possible to accept both realities.

    Like Yazata said, just have fun with this, try not to take it seriously, and if you can add anything to your outlook it is a bonus.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     

Share This Page