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. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Particularly curious is this piece from the article >> ''Additionally, the board voted to add or amend various standards in a way that encourages the presentation of creationist claims about the complexity of the cell, the completeness of the fossil record, and the origin of life.''

    That's pretty wild, eh? A ....a....compromise?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My only qualm is for kids who don't believe in God, I don't believe that creationism should be introduced in this way to them. Public schools should never teach or promote faith teachings. world religion courses, ok. But not as "part" of a science course. But we will see how it plays out, I guess. That isn't to just protect kids who are atheists but it is to protect kids of varying faiths. Public school teachers don't need to be teaching about faith or spirituality at all...yikes, now thinking it through, could this cause a slippery slope?

    You can't talk creationism without talking God. So...

    Wars are won, one battle at a time. Overall, this is very encouraging. I'm so glad you posted it for us.

    (My other thought too is...if you don't wish for your child to learn about evolution have the option of private school (but it's pricey) or home schooling (not cost effective for many families) But, don't come into the public school system, and try to water down science to suit your ideals. Science is science, and I have always felt strongly about this, despite my faith views.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Intriguing. I must admit I don't quite understand your experience, but that's fine. I spent time seeking too, but I was looking into Christianity and I had read Jesus say "seek and ye shall find". So it was from that I asked you if after your seeking if you found something and I suppose you did in a way.
    I was shown a book in a vision which I was allowed to read just a couple of sentences.

    "Mary the Mother of Jesus had twins. Jesus the firstborn and John (St.John) the other, whom they abandoned (adopted)."

    Now that gave me something to research.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Jesus is known to have a brother.

    "Seek and you shall find" has a double meaning. It could mean that there's something to find, and it's out there if you look for it. It also means that perhaps the mind fulfills it's own expectations, and that seeking is inherently deceiving.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Belief in a God is one thing - but jumping from that to quoting from some book as if you were quoting God, is jumping a pretty big shark.

    This, say
    is kind of silly. Why would we think some God ever said anything like that? - that's from stories people made up.

    And since too naive an acceptance of those stories seems to be the major obstacle to believing in God and recognizing physical reality (evolution etc) at the same time, the difficulty can be handled in any of a variety of ways.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Tell me, Why would the Catholic Church recognise both the BB/Inflationary theory of Universal evolution, and the mainstream theory of Evolution of life then?

    The situation is like this.....
    The Bible is full of metaphores, analogies and we even have some doubt as to who actually wrote all of it....Even the Gospel is full of similaries put on paper by the thoughts and observations of 12 obscure men.
    The BB itself was first proposed as a theory of the coming into being of the Universe by a Jesuit priest....George La-Maitre.
    The Catholic church though are not dumb. They also realise that although well supported by mountains of evidence, scientists cannot as yet tell us the whys and hows of the BB or evolution of life.
    So they put that down to the work of God.
    An explanation I might add, that is as good as any other forms of speculation.
    So yes, someone can be religious and also accept two of science's most supported theories, that being the BB and Darwinian Evolution of life.
    Not only that, but two people can be married for 40 years, with one being a true Christian in every sense of the word, and her hubby being someone who follows scientific mainstream thinking.
    That by the way is me and the Mrs.
  9. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Luckily, the publishers of textbooks don't appear to have taken that bait.

    Unfortunately, many Christians down here in the buckle of the bible belt aren't as open minded as you are. At least the vocal ones aren't. Unfortunately, the more liberal "live and let live" variety tend to remain quiet.
  10. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    What about a twin brother? History knows about Jesus' other brothers by Joseph's other wife.
    Mary's children how many? Was there anything in the scripture that forbid Mary having twins? Its natural at times.
  11. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Throws up a few curly questions doesn't it?
    Twins - does that mean there were two eggs that got fertilized, and does that mean either of the two embryos could have been the Christ? It is hard for me too, not just for you!
    For Jesus to be the Saviour we need a "New Genesis Story" to make sense of it. If St. Paul says something like "Adam sinned hence all have sinned", Christianity becomes dependent on the Genesis story. Or are those verses just not discussed anymore?
    Can a "New Genesis Story" based on evolution still require a sinless blood sacrifice to bring peace between man and God? There are some difficult questions to answer but the answers are there waiting to be read, for we believe that Jesus is the Lord. He could tell us the truth now can't he?
    Who's going to help me? Who can accept that Mary had twins? Anyone out there? Motor Daddy?
  12. Independence1977 Registered Member

    Darwinism is a theory based on the evidence one would have researched. Believing in god would be more like tapping into a deeper connection with ones own self. Did Man evolve? Well if so God would be the cause of this as an attempt to heighten his experience. I myself do not believe in Evolution but there was a prehistoric Man. But can you believe in Aliens and God at the same time. The question really relies on interpretation. Many interpret the God from the bible as a supreme being that created Man. But without the Bible what would our interpretation be? Pre Christianity belief system was based on many Gods and based on their cosmic experience. But the underlying message of Jesus was Love not believing in God but the connection one could have "him."
    As long as you have a relationship with "God" it should not matter what you believe, as long as you have faith in the message that he has instilled in your heart.
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    You can believe in God and be a drunk.
    So why not a Darwinist?
  14. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Obviously a joke should be treated as a joke, but this isn't a joke. OK belief in God and being a Darwinist at the same time is fine but can you be a Christian and a Darwinist at the same time? Not from the story of Christ in the Gospels you can't.

    That is why I think Genesis is wrong and there must be another meaning to the whole thing. Its like there was a riddle and Jesus solved the riddle by doing something as silly as allowing himself to be crucified. But for some other reason it worked. In fact it was not the riddle or the solution to the riddle but something far deeper than that.
    Like an old wives tale really having some scientific basis to it. Look at the title of this webpage >
    " 8 Old Wives Tales that are Actually True" (as an example whether it is good article or not, I haven't got the time to check it).
  15. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Which part of the story of Christ in the Gospels refers, even obliquely, to Darwinism?
    The gospels are about religion, not science.

    Plus, those old wives' tales aren't fair representations of the average old wives' tales, which are mainly nonsense.
  16. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Hi Mate,
    Why did you ask the first question? Do you think it is in there? I know St. Paul uses a statement that sounds a bit like evolution, ( find it below), but we tend to call that section by a different name, the Gospels are restricted to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
    To me the Gospels if true should have some scientific basis to them, like firstly being based on an historical event.

    As I said I hadn't checked those old wives tales but just used the title as an example. I'd agree most old wives tales are probably nonsense, but you only need one that isn't nonsense to act as the example.

    I said earlier today that the Book of Genesis speaks of evolution, is that what you were referring to?

    Romans 8:18-25
    "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." is the birth process leading to survival of the fittest. The whole purpose of evolution was the "expectation of the [evolving] creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God" . Not just for the Son of God but the Sons of God.

    Like if God wanted Sons of God why go through all this drama? The way it happens is by evolution creatures evolve , and it tells of what was going to happen in the future, for we are a lot more like the Sons of God today than they were back then. Still got some way to go yet!
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Genesis is a creation myth.
    Yes the Jews in the gospel probably believed it was true.
    But not as science.
    They had no conception of science.
    For a Christian today to believe in Genesis as science,
    they need to be either ignorant or fanatics.
    Usually fanatics.

    re The historical basis of the events in the Bible.
    Some of it is like modern History, some of it is literature with a moral or spiritual message.
    I don't know enough to have an opinion on which is which.
  18. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    That is it. How do you take the myth out of Christianity? How do we remove all references to Adam/Eve, Serpents and the original sin etc out of the Christian story?
    The Greeks had concepts of science earlier than the time of Christ. There is technological references throughout, ones that I notice were grafting trees, and use of fertilisers, armory, the wheel had been invented and sailing boats, money was around too. Many others also.
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The Greeks.
    Yes, they gave us tools for art, politics, maths, drama, philosophy and science.
    They were quite a people.
  20. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    You can't. Without original sin and a "fall from grace" there is no need for a blood sacrifice to obtain redemption.
  21. Robittybob1 Banned Banned

    Well then we are stuck in the past. Christianity will just fade away if that is the case.
  22. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    I don't know. Fade away or evolve into something else. What's the difference?

    You see it right here. People "believe" Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesied, while rejecting/ignoring the so-called "prophesies" and reasoning behind them.
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    I'm not ''trying'' to claim, I am claiming that it is your misunderstanding, and if you represent the entire Christian world, then my claim extends to that world (whatever it is).

    Yes they did. They claim that Jesus and God are one and the same person, this is wrong. The scripture does not support that claim. It clearly states that Jesus and God are different persons.
    What the Romans did was to compile the books in such a way that (they think) supports their notion of what they represent. and/or what they regard as suitable for the masses. But they didn't account that the truth will always prevail. They went around the world silencing other theologies, and histories that show the nonsense of their religion.

    I don't say it's wrong, I just say that what you're proposing is nonsensical, and doesn't match with any scripture.

    And that's another reason why I'm not interested in bringing religion into this discussion, the do not accept any other scripture or theology. Why should I subject my theological analasys to the Bible only, when there are other scriptures which God is also the subject matter of.

    Who are they to tell me or anyone that those scriptures aren't scriptures?
    What authority do they have?

    Wrong. My arguments are very strong because I can back them up with not only the said scripture by any other scripture you put in front of me. Your argument is supported only by the late Roman Empire,s version of spirituality, namely Christianity.

    Here you go again with your ''Roman Empire'' mentality.. you will accept my position providing I adhere to your level understanding, because if you don't understand it, it aint worth shit.

    Great! So can we move on now?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wrong! It categorically states that Jesus is the same nature as God, but is a different personality to God, and it say's nothing of placing himself into a human body.. rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
    , to say he was a human being would be a mistake. He was in his nature, but exhibited a form that looked like a human.
    His whole point IMO, is that he came to show that the human flesh is not a reality.

    Errr, no human being could say this without being killed or sectioned.

    Use your brain man. It wasn't flesh like we know flesh, it was made to look like flesh, but it's nature was different.

    Are you really this dumb? You quote the Philipeans text, and the John 1 text, and you still think that Jesus was a physical flesh and blood man that was born through sex, and would die like any other man? Now because this verse mentions ''flesh'' you automatically resort back to your Christian brainwashing?

    But ''Jesus'' didn't inhabit a physical body, you only think he did, so for you it follows that God can die.
    It's becoming quite clear that you cannot really discriminate between matter and spirit, your just going back and forth, using them in a way that you think they mean when used in scripture.

    According to the Qur'an, no he didn't and it doesn't matter which interpretation is used, and that is the actual point.

    I haven't changed my mind either. According to scripture Jesus was not crucified, nor was he killed. Why should I, you, or anybody who has some kind of interest in this believe otherwise. The scriptures have spoken.

    The scriptures also say that Jesus was born, but we know that isn't what actually happened, it only appeared as though he was born. Also we know that Jesus can't die, but he can give the appearance of having been killed. This corresponds with the other scripture which states that he didn't die and wasn't crucified, but it appeared like he was. This corresponds with alot of Jesus' teaching, but obviously that level of teaching is not for everyone, so his teaching can be understood on every level of consciousness, even the gross material.

    ''God'' is the valid concept, and it is good that we talk about Him because it keeps Him in our mind.
    As for being ''real theists'' (a term you've coined), you need to answer my question. Can you tell if someone actually believes in God? If you're a theist, you're a theist, whether you want to be or not. It's just the way you're made. I'm just questioning how it is that one can be a theist, and accept darwinian evolution, that's all.

    Okay, I can see that you really need this to bolster your position, so I'm going to say... Okay! So what?
    If they believe that God is a man, and he died and was raised from the dead so that we can write off our spiritually transgressed debt, and every other scripture or God based religion on the face of the earth is plain wrong, and if you send just $20 some guy will pray for you from, the otherside of the world......

    Is this stuff in the Bible?

    And the Qur'an which came after the Bible explains that it was made to look like he died.
    Now a Christian would argue that the Qur'an isn't a bona-fide scripture. NOT MY PROBLEM.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No I haven't inaccurately characterized, I have used the scriptures to back up my points, such as the nature of Christ, and his relationship to God, a different personality. That's correct. The idea of Jesus and God being the same person is ludicrous, and needs to brought up and debated without appeal to fuzzy-wuzzy ideologies that render discussions moot. The words are there in black and white, and can be compared to any other scripture regardles of whether or not the Christian agrees with them. It's time to stop the nonsense.

    It's not a different idea. Jesus said ''i and my father are one'', and he came to remind his people that the ''I'' is the reality, and that God IS ''I Am'', and we also, like Jesus, is a part of ''I Am''. You have to draw that conclusion yourself, and it doesn't matter if we get some of the detail wrong, what matters is that we begin the journey to this self realisation. The Roman Empire version of Christ consciousness hides these gems (as you clearly demonstrate) keeping everyone focused on the physical plain, and confused about their identity. Scaring people in thinking they will burn in hell fire for ever and ever if they don't follow their brand of Christ's religion.

    God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

    Wrong. Not all of them do.

    Nonsense. Jesus is the real deal. But as Jesus say's...

    Taken from


Share This Page