Evolution...

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Promethply

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I assumed (which I suppose is always a bad thing to do) that we were talking about the Theory as the Fact isn't really in contention.

If the Fact isn't really in contention, then there'd be no need to fear the Theory so much.

Really - the fact of evolution isn't in question at all. The theory that evolution is primarily responsible for the development of diverse and complex life forms is the issue that people can legitimately question.

Currently, the best scientific evidence is consistent with evolution, and the timelines involved are long enough to allow a great deal of evolution and complexity. (Edit - all we can really talk about is 'orders of magnitude' here, all we know is evolution is slow, and life on earth appears to be ancient, in terms of this slow speed).

Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, which face very long odds if you want this origin to occur spontaneously, and that is the strongest position from which to argue for a creator.

Of course we have no imformation about the 'sample size' involved, and statistical arguments against spontaneous synthesis of life on earth are pretty much meaningless; we don't have access to the number of similar planets that did not develop life, nor do we know exactly the conditions under which it *could* develop spontaneously.

But once again, synthesis of life, spontaneous, created, or otherwise is a prerequisite for evolution, not an 'explained variable' in the theory of evolution.

 

[MonkeyK]

I can see the problem from a religious person's point of view.

If we evolved from some primate, when did we get souls? What would cause a soul to evolve? Furthermore, if the soul existed from the start of the line, then other decscenants of the same primate line may have souls.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that evolution fits evidence that I have observed to dat better than anything else. In fact I have no reason to find any other theory very interesting (except maybe the planet builders described in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy")

All I am saying is that evolution draws some seriously undesireable conclusions for those who believe in a soul granted to us exclusively by a creator.

 

[Zebo]

Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life,

Exactly. Unless you're a "young earth creationist", beleving earth is 6000 yrs old, there is absolutly nothing to disprove God created life or contradicts evolution at all.. My religion is roman catholic, been that way since bascially birth, I also hold a BS in Biochem and MS in materials science which would seem at odds? Not at all since I and most people with faith and understanding of evolution/science view evolution as the means or the method god used for creating man.

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Promethply

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

I assumed (which I suppose is always a bad thing to do) that we were talking about the Theory as the Fact isn't really in contention.

If the Fact isn't really in contention, then there'd be no need to fear the Theory so much.

Really - the fact of evolution isn't in question at all. The theory that evolution is primarily responsible for the development of diverse and complex life forms is the issue that people can legitimately question.

Currently, the best scientific evidence is consistent with evolution, and the timelines involved are long enough to allow a great deal of evolution and complexity. (Edit - all we can really talk about is 'orders of magnitude' here, all we know is evolution is slow, and life on earth appears to be ancient, in terms of this slow speed).

Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, which face very long odds if you want this origin to occur spontaneously, and that is the strongest position from which to argue for a creator.

Of course we have no imformation about the 'sample size' involved, and statistical arguments against spontaneous synthesis of life on earth are pretty much meaningless; we don't have access to the number of similar planets that did not develop life, nor do we know exactly the conditions under which it *could* develop spontaneously.

But once again, synthesis of life, spontaneous, created, or otherwise is a prerequisite for evolution, not an 'explained variable' in the theory of evolution.

As we know, science is work in progress, and as such, there's so much more data out in our universe yet to be discovered, and scientists aren't foolish enough to claim to know about how life originated.

They have some ideas on how life might have been created, but unless they can accurately simulate the earth's early environment and atmosphere prior to life's appearance on it, they would not claim to know how life was "created".

 

[Promethply]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I can see the problem from a religious person's point of view.

If we evolved from some primate, when did we get souls? What would cause a soul to evolve? Furthermore, if the soul existed from the start of the line, then other decscenants of the same primate line may have souls.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that evolution fits evidence that I have observed to dat better than anything else. In fact I have no reason to find any other theory very interesting (except maybe the planet builders described in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy")

All I am saying is that evolution draws some seriously undesireable conclusions for those who believe in a soul granted to us exclusively by a creator.

Just wondering whether we need souls to behave the way we do, for example:

Being a political creature,

Being inquisitive,

Being able to create tools, etc, etc

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

 

[artikk]

Originally posted by: Gravity
I believe in creation as designed by a Creator.

Me too.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

Again, where in evolution did your soul appear? Before we branched off of the same line that resulted in something else? If so, could apes have souls? After we became homo sapiens? If so, could some races not have souls?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

Again, where in evolution did your soul appear? Before we branched off of the same line that resulted in something else? If so, could apes have souls? After we became homo sapiens? If so, could some races not have souls?

This is why the division between science and religion is necessary; you're begging the question by assuming that humans have some sort of unique spiritual quality, called a 'soul'. While this could be true, there is no reason to believe that it in fact is true, except through faith.

Assuming the existence of a soul through faith, then bringing this out as an argument in a scientific setting contaminates science by forcing the inclusion of unsupported premises.

Edit - I don't think you were necessarily trying to attack bamacre's statement; there is nothing inconsistent with believing in creation through faith, and evolution through science, and seeing that they do not necessarily conflict, but if you were trying to argue against such a synthesis of beliefs, then what I said about begging the question is very important.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

Again, where in evolution did your soul appear? Before we branched off of the same line that resulted in something else? If so, could apes have souls? After we became homo sapiens? If so, could some races not have souls?

This is why the division between science and religion is necessary; you're begging the question by assuming that humans have some sort of unique spiritual quality, called a 'soul'. While this could be true, there is no reason to believe that it in fact is true, except through faith.

Assuming the existence of a soul through faith, then bringing this out as an argument in a scientific setting contaminates science by forcing the inclusion of unsupported premises.

Edit - I don't think you were necessarily trying to attack bamacre's statement; there is nothing inconsistent with believing in creation through faith, and evolution through science, and seeing that they do not necessarily conflict, but if you were trying to argue against such a synthesis of beliefs, then what I said about begging the question is very important.

I am merely pointing out why the views are mutually exclusive.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

3chordcharlie makes a very relevant point. Souls, by definition, are supernatural, and therefore, fall outside the realm of science (which is limited to the natural world). Evolutionary theories (and science in general) have nothing to say about souls. That's what your faith is for.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

Again, where in evolution did your soul appear? Before we branched off of the same line that resulted in something else? If so, could apes have souls? After we became homo sapiens? If so, could some races not have souls?

This is why the division between science and religion is necessary; you're begging the question by assuming that humans have some sort of unique spiritual quality, called a 'soul'. While this could be true, there is no reason to believe that it in fact is true, except through faith.

Assuming the existence of a soul through faith, then bringing this out as an argument in a scientific setting contaminates science by forcing the inclusion of unsupported premises.

Edit - I don't think you were necessarily trying to attack bamacre's statement; there is nothing inconsistent with believing in creation through faith, and evolution through science, and seeing that they do not necessarily conflict, but if you were trying to argue against such a synthesis of beliefs, then what I said about begging the question is very important.

I am merely pointing out why the views are mutually exclusive.

Um... no you aren't. You're making a weak argument that the views are mutually exclusive.

I'm skipping over the whole part about why it couldn't have evolved as people evolved closer to God's image, and all other useless hypotheticals; this is the key one:

Why, exactly could God not add a soul to homo sapiens, at his/her pleasure?

For the record, I have no opinion on whether humans have a soul above and beyond what might exist elsewhere in nature; I certainly think we have a well-developed sense of empathy, for the most part though.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
3chordcharlie makes a very relevant point. Souls, by definition, are supernatural, and therefore, fall outside the realm of science (which is limited to the natural world). Evolutionary theories (and science in general) have nothing to say about souls. That's what your faith is for.

So you are saying that creationism only descibes the supernatural?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
3chordcharlie makes a very relevant point. Souls, by definition, are supernatural, and therefore, fall outside the realm of science (which is limited to the natural world). Evolutionary theories (and science in general) have nothing to say about souls. That's what your faith is for.

So you are saying that creationism only descibes the supernatural?

Nope, at the moment, science has little, if anything to say about the actual origins of life; this doesn't make 'creationism' scientific, but it certainly allows that belief to coexist with a belief in scientific exploration and explanation.

It isn't necessary to believe in creationism, but it is certainly compatible with evolution.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Not at all. Creationism is a theory that attempts to explain the natural world with the supernatural (religion). It is as wrong to explain real world phenomena with faith as it is to explain the supernatural with science.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Not at all. Creationism is a theory that attempts to explain the natural world with the supernatural (religion). It is as wrong to explain real world phenomena with faith as it is to explain the supernatural with science.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you remain aware that it has a predictive power of zero; it's not science, it's not a theory, it's a belief. In the absence of evidence, it's a perfectly valid, but still unsupported position.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: conjur
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


If people would just read and understand we wouldn't need these discussions. Also, if certain people wouldn't distort the meaning of evolution to mean the beginning of life or even the universe, we'd be much better off.

:thumbsup:

Exactly. I have never heard a single reason why Creationism and Evolution cannot coexist. There should not be a division between science and religion. Science is a tool on God's belt .

Again, where in evolution did your soul appear? Before we branched off of the same line that resulted in something else? If so, could apes have souls? After we became homo sapiens? If so, could some races not have souls?

This is why the division between science and religion is necessary; you're begging the question by assuming that humans have some sort of unique spiritual quality, called a 'soul'. While this could be true, there is no reason to believe that it in fact is true, except through faith.

Assuming the existence of a soul through faith, then bringing this out as an argument in a scientific setting contaminates science by forcing the inclusion of unsupported premises.

Edit - I don't think you were necessarily trying to attack bamacre's statement; there is nothing inconsistent with believing in creation through faith, and evolution through science, and seeing that they do not necessarily conflict, but if you were trying to argue against such a synthesis of beliefs, then what I said about begging the question is very important.

I am merely pointing out why the views are mutually exclusive.

Um... no you aren't. You're making a weak argument that the views are mutually exclusive.

I'm skipping over the whole part about why it couldn't have evolved as people evolved closer to God's image, and all other useless hypotheticals; this is the key one:

Why, exactly could God not add a soul to homo sapiens, at his/her pleasure?

For the record, I have no opinion on whether humans have a soul above and beyond what might exist elsewhere in nature; I certainly think we have a well-developed sense of empathy, for the most part though.

I do not claim that some God could "not add a soul to homo sapiens, at his/her pleasure". Yes the argument is weak, I will agree with that, but
1) By saying that some god could "add a soul to homo sapiens, at his/her pleasure" you are allowing for an intervention in the now "evolutionary process"
2) Perhaps my argument should be better descibed as why people fundamentally would not be able to synthesize the two.
3) Accepting that a soul was added somewhere in the process of evolution should call into question it's uniqueness, this is an unpalletable thought for many.

 

[Moonbeam]

There can be no doubt about evolution. All you have to do is look at yourself impartially for a few seconds to see that you are a chimpanzee.

It is also obvious that the only people who question evolution are religious fundamentalists who were sold a religious bunch of bananas before the age when they could reason and had that capacity thereby turned off.

There is the fact of evolution and the religious fear that the fact of evolution disproves religion leaving the comfortable notion that one is going to heaven when one dies in doubt.

That is why every intelligent religion, and we can include the Catholic church here on this issue, teaches that God and science can co-exist.

The fact of evolution does not disprove God.

Unfortunately, religion, especially fundamentalist religion, is a way for preachers to make a living off the ignorant and they do everything in their power to keep them that way.

This is best done by making the faithful proud of their ignorance, "I am especially gifted and important because, against the weight of the evil secular world, I believe in Divine Creation. Don't I impress ya?"

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not at all since I and most people with faith and understanding of evolution/science view evolution as the means or the method god used for creating man.

I will never believe anyone created man as some divine manifestation of himself. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Not at all. Creationism is a theory that attempts to explain the natural world with the supernatural (religion). It is as wrong to explain real world phenomena with faith as it is to explain the supernatural with science.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you remain aware that it has a predictive power of zero; it's not science, it's not a theory, it's a belief. In the absence of evidence, it's a perfectly valid, but still unsupported position.

Well, I agree with you until the last point. Creationism does indeed have its evidence, however, it is not scientific evidence. You're referring to the great paradigm divide that is the source of the eternal science vs. religion debate.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not at all since I and most people with faith and understanding of evolution/science view evolution as the means or the method god used for creating man.

I will never believe anyone created man as some divine manifestation of himself. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

There's no information available to help answer this question.

<---- Does not believe that man is particularly special.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Zebo
Not at all since I and most people with faith and understanding of evolution/science view evolution as the means or the method god used for creating man.

I will never believe anyone created man as some divine manifestation of himself. In the vastness of the universe, how can anyone believe we are somehow "special"?

When i contemplate the Universe my heart jumps for joy. I'll take that for what you call special.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Not at all. Creationism is a theory that attempts to explain the natural world with the supernatural (religion). It is as wrong to explain real world phenomena with faith as it is to explain the supernatural with science.

Nothing wrong with it as long as you remain aware that it has a predictive power of zero; it's not science, it's not a theory, it's a belief. In the absence of evidence, it's a perfectly valid, but still unsupported position.

Well, I agree with you until the last point. Creationism does indeed have its evidence, however, it is not scientific evidence. You're referring to the great paradigm divide that is the source of the eternal science vs. religion debate.

The way I see it, Creationism does not have evidence, it has claims, which are themselves completely unsupported.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jhu
i believe that you are all figments of my imagination so whatever i do has absolutely no repercussion because none of you really exist.

Solipsism, a not entirely invalid metaphysical belief.

Originally posted by: Zebo

Evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life,

Exactly. Unless you're a "young earth creationist", beleving earth is 6000 yrs old, there is absolutly nothing to disprove God created life or contradicts evolution at all.. My religion is roman catholic, been that way since bascially birth, I also hold a BS in Biochem and MS in materials science which would seem at odds? Not at all since I and most people with faith and understanding of evolution/science view evolution as the means or the method god used for creating man.

:thumbsup:


What disturbs me most about this thread is the OP's contention that evolution is a "belief", that people should believe in evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory, and should not be treated as kind of a religious faith. And certainly nothing that is incompatible with theism, because evolution is completely compatible with a belief in God, even the most fundamentalist Christianity.
In fact, what is contrary to the theory of evolution is to treat it as a kind of religious faith, as something that people either believe or don't believe in, as such thinking is entirely contradictory to science itself.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When i contemplate the Universe my heart jumps for joy. I'll take that for what you call special.

It has the opposite effect on me. I feel small and insignificant...hopelessly born a few thousand years too early.