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. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Simple quantum effects can be uncaused. Intelligence cannot.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,784
    So the universe "might" have begun from no cause?
    I know that theory and always thought how convenient.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,784
    I meant it doesn't have a root cause to exist.
    Correction.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You are suggesting a similar thing when you claim that god is uncaused. Which is more likely, the spontaneous existence of a god with thoughts, feelings, purpose, and intelligence, or a sub-atomic particle?
     
  8. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,784
    In order to create an eternity, and not in the religious sense, something tangible (I don't think) could be the cause. (particle)
    You believe uncaused.
    I believe in a higher power.
    We I think can agree that eternity may exist?
    (scientific realm)
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    I don't believe the universe had to be uncaused, but it is one possibility. It's possible that the universe is eternal. It could also be eternal AND had a beginning.
    I believe in a lower power (interactions between particles), everything we know seems to emerge from this.
     
  10. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    All those big words Universe ,particles and so on .

    I have a female parrot she have not been among adult parrots only after hatching . Yet she is preparing herself to weave a nest to lay her eggs , What do you thing this inheritance come from . A bunch of enzymes got together and say lets program-me this DNA in the brain cell so this parrot will build a nest
    Can you tell me is this programmed or is it coincidental ?
     
  11. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    What happened is that parrots are born with variations in their DNA, some of which might result in nest building behavior, some might have resulted in non-nest building behavior. Those parrots who were not born with some idea to build a nest died (given environmental conditions that would result in non-nesting bird's eggs dying), and their DNA was lost. Those parrots who had DNA which resulted in an instinct to build a nest became successful parents, and their DNA went on to produce new variations and even stronger nest building behavior. So, no active decisions were ever made on the part of DNA or enzymes. Nest building probably began during dinosaur times with a shallow depression in the dirt, and evolved from there.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,943

    "Algerbra" and "grammer" are mandatory subjects in school. So yes they are forced on students. And the govt is in charge of that.



    Noone's lobbying congress to teach evolution in school because it's already being taught in school. The only ones lobbying congress to force their views on kids are religious nuts who want their creationist fairy tale taught as science. And that ain't gonna happen. The courts have ruled on this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
     
  13. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    You forgot to tell me those nest builders that survived how they become nest builders, and does a chick have to sit on the eggs for incubation , ( that is pretty uncomfortable )
     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    There is a gradation of improvement in nest building. You can imagine that the first behavior that was selected was laying eggs in a protected place (probably on the sea floor, since they were fish). Next would be building up some kind of structure to protect them.

    Eggs are smooth, they aren't uncomfortable to sit on.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    jan ardena:
    My posts are preceded by a dash.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

    Evolution is a matter of science. The controversy you are addressing is a matter of religion, esp. fundamentalism.

    I understood you meant 'fad' when you said 'trend'. If you mean many people tend to believe both, I agree.

    If by extrapolation you mean 'theory', then I agree. If you mean the science is flawed, I couldn't disagree more.

    In this case we would examine the history of attacks on science by Christian fundamentalists.

    You are advocating against the teaching of science, which is a vital part of the curriculum.

    Only a strict literal interpretation of the Islamic/Protestant* creation myths leads to that conclusion, hence Fundamentalism.

    *by population, the largest relevant groups

    Darwin's work is pure science.

    Every idea of God held by the believer to be true fits into that person's personal world view.

    You mean monotheism. Your remarks are advocating for Fundamentalism, which narrows the definition further.

    The surveys will not reach far from Fundamentalist strongholds, so you will gain some advantage from that.

    When I said "what you are advocating is the Fundamentalist position", it means you are advocating against evolution in favor the Fundamentalism, which can't reconcile science with the strict literal interpretation of the religion's myths, particularly their creation myths.

    Theism subdivides into many sects. Fundamentalism in Islam is primarily relegated to a portion of Shi’ism. In Christianity it's primarily a subgroup of Protestants, the Anabaptists, further subdivided into many sects. Here are some of them.

    In order to inquire about the underpinnings of cosmic machinery, an intelligent person would study science. It would entail the study of evolution. Monotheists can find such a program at an accredited seminary or college of Theology.

    Accredited seminaries offer exegesis, ancient history, physical science and life science to promote the student's study of the cosmic machinery.

    Modern science is traced to ancient polytheistic Greece. Christianity & Islam were born under the Greco-Roman cultures which already had some science.

    I glanced at a few surveys to test your statement that most religious people reject evolution.

    It says several things. The relevant part says
    ........"not even He" [knows] "when and how ... creation start[ed].
    and/or:
    ....... "perhaps not even He" [knows] [if he] [created the universe].
     
  17. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Well who is Santa Claus for you?
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,533
    Generally the people who accept evolution ARE smarter. Acceptance of evolution tracks both education level and IQ.

    Correct. Nor does it require its absence.

    In your opinion. I know a lot of theists who believe in God and who accept evolution. Heck, even the previous Pope accepted it.
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,427
    billvon;

    Yep, and so also are the chimps brougnt up under a certain controlled environment (a false world), compared to their real world counterparts.
    But try putting them back into their real world and see how long they last, and how much their ''smartness'' helps them.

    Intelligence leads to wisdom, smartness can lead to the disease Headupyourarseollitis, if it gets out of hand

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's because those that are fully emersed in it hath doth said in their heart, there is no God.

    How is this relevant to my point.

    How can you believe God to be the crreator, but has nothing to do with the origin of species. Especially when every scripture explains how he created the different speicies. Answer, you can't without diminishing God's sovereignty.

    jan.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,808
    I think you'll find that there's just one "l" in Headupyourarseolitis.
    Tsk! Does nobody know how to spell these days?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Deism does just that.
    And your scriptures are with regard a non-deistic god - I.e. the variety that does have something to do with the origin of the species.
    But not all flavours do.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,427
    Sarkus,

    Tsk! Does nobody know there is a difference be Deism, and, Theism these days? Aside from the different spelling, one believes in God, and one believes in nature whom they call God.

    jan.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,533
    Right. And people who live in our world (a false world) don't do well when confined to a valley in the middle of the Sahara Desert (i.e. the "real world.")

    No. Just because you cannot understand how there can be a God and still have evolution proceed does not mean that no one understands it.

    The Pope is perhaps the leading theist in the world. He understood evolution.

    Well, no. The answer is that YOU can't figure it out.
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,196
    Since when is micromanaging an indicator of sovereignty? I'd say it's more likely an indicator of insecurity.
     

Share This Page