Do you believe in evolution ?

[Uriel]

Yes I do. I have a geology degree and a masters in a related engineering subject. I'm also a fairly dedicated Christian; the sort of Christian that believes in the inspiration of scripture, trinity, virgin birth, resurrection of Christ and so on. In some ways I consider myself a creationist, in that I do believe in God as creator and sustainer but I also believe in a roughly 3.5 billion year old earth and a roughly 14 billion year old universe. I also believe in evolution by natural selection. There is no conflict between the scientific account of creation and creation, as historically understood by Christians.

The key there is historically understood. Historically there has never been a single interpretation of scripture relevant to origins. While there have been some that have taken the relevant scripture very literalistically, there have always been other voices within Christianity - perhaps even usually the majority - that have understood it differently. I deliberately use the term literalistically rather than literally. Literalistically insists upon the most plain interpretation possible. Literally, I think, allows for what the authors' intent and implicit understanding was.

The churches that are most concerned with a link to the past are generally the least troubled by the creation vs evolution question. The Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans all place a high view on tradition alongside scripture. To one degree or another, they consider the views of Christians from the first few centuries to be the lens through which the bible is viewed and understood. Many of those early Christians, as far as we can tell, did not appear to consider Genesis (or the rest of the bible) as literally to be understood as representing creation as taking place in 6 literal 24 hour periods around 6000-10,000. There was speculation as to the meaning of the text.

I regard Young Earth Creationism to be a historical and theological aberration. It is derived from a rather distorted doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e "the bible alone" as a basis of faith) that reject any external influence on understanding the text. This kind of insistence was never prominent in the first few centuries of Christianity.

When this discussion comes up I usually tend to bring in St Augustine of Hippo (4th-5th Century Bishop in North Africa - credited with defining Original Sin etc). He talks an awful lot of sense in his book The Literal Meaning of Genesis, completed early in the 5th Century:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions"

Now Augustine speculated quite a lot about the literal meaning of Genesis, but here are a few things he came up with, based on the text:

That day in the account of creation, or those days that are numbered according to its recurrence , are beyond the experience and knowledge of us earthbound men. And if we are able to make any effort towards an understanding of the meaning of those days, we ought not to rush forward with an ill-considered opinion, as if no other reasonable and plausible interpretation could be offered

Perhaps Sacred Scripture, in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding, while at the same time teaching a lesson to be understood by the reader who is able.

Not everything has been written to tell us how time unfolded after the first creation of things and how there followed the production of creatures which had been made in their first beginnings and completed on the sixth day. But as much has been told as was judged necessary by the Holy Spirit as He inspired the writer, who put down which things would be important not only for a knowledge of what had happened but also for a foreshadowing of what was to be. In our ignorance we conjecture about possible events which the writer omitted knowingly.

As Scripture says, concerning the green things and the grass of the field. Where, then, were they? Were they in the earth in their "reasons" or causes from which they would spring, as all things already exist in their seeds before they evolve in one form or another and grow into their proper kinds in the course of time?

In the seed then, there was invisibly present all that would develop in time into a tree. And in this same way we must picture the world, when God made all things together, as having had all things together which were made in it and with it when day was made. This includes not only heaven with sun, moon and stars, whose splendor remains unchanged as they move in a circular motion; and earth and the deep waters, which are in almost unceasing motion; and which, placed below the sky, make up the lower part of the world; but it includes also the beings which water and earth produced in potency and in their causes before they came forth in the course of time as they have become known to us in the works which God even now produces.

Second hypothesis: in the first creation of the six days God created all living beings, including Adam and Eve, potentially and in their causes. From these causes God later created them in their visible forms

One will ask how they were created originally on the sixth day. I shall reply "Invisibly, potentially, in their causes, as things that will be in the future are made, yet not made in actuality now."

In the beginning He made the world and created simultaneously all things to be unfolded in the ages to follow... They are just begun, however, since in them are seeds, as it were, of future perfections to be put forth from their hidden state and made manifest at the appropriate time. The words of Scripture make this very clear to anyone who reads the text attentively.

Now both Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins like to perpetuate the myth that Christians have always had a rather simplistic, literalistic understanding of scripture. Does Augustine sound like an anti-evolutionist to you?

I don't wish to misrepresent Augustine. He believed a bunch of stuff that seems nonsensical to us now and goes into great length about the now discredited science of his day but he does represent a school of understanding scripture that is very different from many Christians today.

There is certainly a difference between the 'creationist's' viewpoint of a God of the Gaps that explains the ever diminishing holes in our scientific knowledge and my own. I don't expect gaps and regard everything as being attributable to God's creative and sustaining action. Of course this isn't without its intellectual problems (the problem of evil and so on). This is classic Christian theism - without God sustaining nothing could continue to exist. Of course this means that there is a fundamental paradigmatic difference by what I mean by natural selection and what an atheist would. In terms of the available data and mechanical function they are essentially similar though.

 

[Freefaller]

Yeah there are tribes around various parts of the World who have exactly that setting. They have no concept of Christianity or Islam or any other religion. Does that mean they will be stuck in limbo after they die?

They worship animals, stars , the sun and other things they consider to be Gods... People often do believe in something bigger than them. There's no harm in it.

 

[mrk]

They worship animals, stars , the sun and other things they consider to be Gods... People often do believe in something bigger than them. There's no harm in it.

Exactly. Nobody sensible is saying there's any harm in it but you have to at the same time appreciate that logically it has no place in a modern world although it's great to have something to keep hopes high with and commit to but only for the right reasons of course.

I know there are all too many people out there that do good things only under the notion that when they die they will go to a heaven, I think for some part that kind of thing is where the problem lies.

No need to go into other forms like extremism since those are not religious acts but human greed for power over people.

 

[mattyfez]

We living things feel and have the need/instinct to survive and because of that we'll fight to do just that. An AI that intelligent doesn't and won't ever follow the same warpath as humans have and continue to do so.

What if there was more than one AI, or a thousand? would they fight like humans or work together?

I honestly can't say, I'd like to think the logic would win through, and they would work together.

 

[mattyfez]

There's no harm in it.

Well, it's delusion, in an absolute best case scenario there is no harm in it, unfortunately, in practice, there is much harm.

Reference: all recorded human history.

 

[mrk]

What if there was more than one AI, or a thousand? would they fight like humans or work together?

I honestly can't say, I'd like to think the logic would win through, and they would work together.

Why fight when every possible outcome has already been calculated, simulated and outcome predicted in an instant (quantum computing)? They wouldn't need to fight and you'd think would mutually come to some form of truce? You're thinking of human nature. We are slow and need to physically battle it out. An AI that advanced like what we're talking about would not operate at such a low level.

 

[Johnnytoxic]

They worship animals, stars , the sun and other things they consider to be Gods... People often do believe in something bigger than them. There's no harm in it.

Sure no harm in it, but doesn't make it true.

They think the sun could be a God as they don't know any better. Science is lifting the mask off every potential God there has been.

 

[Raikiri]

What most people seem to not understand too is that their trust in science is based on faith that the people carrying out the work are doing it correctly.

I'm not saying they aren't, just that it IS another form of faith as the vast majority of people cannot verify the scientific things they preach about, but take it on good faith that it is true.

Except we can. I can replicate experiments that show evolution does happen.

Can you replicate any of the thing that happen in the bible?

They worship animals, stars , the sun and other things they consider to be Gods... People often do believe in something bigger than them. There's no harm in it.

Well you say that... but history may disagree

 

[Johnnytoxic]

I regard Young Earth Creationism to be a historical and theological aberration. It is derived from a rather distorted doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e "the bible alone" as a basis of faith) that reject any external influence on understanding the text. This kind of insistence was never prominent in the first few centuries of Christianity.

So your saying to ignore the early transcripts of the bible because the scholars didn't really know what was going on or how the world worked or how it was hogwash when radiometric dating of rocks came onto the scene.

If you can't see through it because of that then there is no hope.

 

[hyster]

Exactly. Nobody sensible is saying there's any harm in it .

Then I guess in your eyes I'm not sensible, the danger is we stop looking and inquiring when we defer to god, even the great Newton started babbling on about god when he reached the limit of his enormous intellect.

A lie is a lie no matter how sweetly told. We still have so much to learn about this universe and we can't afford to have great minds submitting to the supernatural, we would stifle progress.

I understand the cosy feeling of a creator, I really do, there may be something deep seated in our nature that yearns for it but I see it a something else to find out about.

Totally respect an adult who looks at all the evidence and decides to believe in a god spite of it, lets not be teaching that to the next generation though eh?

 

[aardvark]

evolution is a proven fact - beliefs are irrelevant because the facts are clear.

 

[Sliver]

They worship animals, stars , the sun and other things they consider to be Gods... People often do believe in something bigger than them. There's no harm in it.

There is harm in it. Beliefs influence actions and if your head is full of false beliefs then your actions will do harm to others. This is why I want my head to be as full as full of as many true things and as few false things as possible.

The way we determine something to be true is through reason, observation, evidence, what we call scientific enquiry, empirical facts that can be used to make demonstrable predictions and can be independently verified through peer review. The way we don't determine something to be true is through faith, religious dogma, magical thinking and non evidenced based assertion.

Jehovah Witness believe that blood transfusions are unacceptable. This is superstitious nonsense that kills people every year. No harm ?

The Catholic church preaches that condoms are worse than Aids causing millions of deaths in Africa and around the world. This is superstitious nonsense that kills people every year. No harm ?

Lots of seemingly benign religious movements do great tangible harm in the world every day. Religion is a virus of the mind, a meme, it causes real harm and suffering in the world and the sooner people grow out of it the better.

 

[Rroff]

There is harm in it. Beliefs influence actions and if your head is full of false beliefs then your actions will do harm to others. This is why I want my head to be as full as full of as many true things and as few false things as possible.

The way we determine something to be true is through reason, observation, evidence, what we call scientific enquiry, empirical facts that can be used to make demonstrable predictions and can be independently verified through peer review. The way we don't determine something to be true is through faith, religious dogma, magical thinking and non evidenced based assertion.

If only things were that black and white. Sometimes its not so easy to draw the line.

While it amazes me the beliefs some people hold that are absolutely ludicrous from any perspective there have also been plenty of cases of things considered to be empirical facts that have later been shown to be wrong.

 

[Sliver]

If only things were that black and white. Sometimes its not so easy to draw the line.

While it amazes me the beliefs some people hold that are absolutely ludicrous from any perspective there have also been plenty of cases of things considered to be empirical facts that have later been shown to be wrong.

Science is not dogma. Science changes it's beliefs to fit the evidence. Religion changes the evidence to fit its beliefs. Big difference.

 

[Johnnytoxic]

The real genesis.

 

[Sliver]

Great post Jonnytoxic.

Even though everything you have posted there can be fact checked to confirm it's validity and soundness, some people will still deny it because facts are not important to them.

 

[tbyeah]

You'll want to put it in spoiler tags though, I think it's too big.

 

[Castiel]

I don't believe in Evolution...it's not a belief. I accept Evolution as it is currently understood.

I do believe however that this thread is on a hiding to nothing.

And Uriel, great post. Shame some seem to have problems understanding it though.

 

[dowie]

good video on evolution - it really doesn't have to conflict with religious views at all:

 

[jmc007]

evolution is a proven fact - beliefs are irrelevant because the facts are clear.

Codswallop - You have a wrong belief foundation; as that is exactly all you have and it is wrong.

The real genesis.

Which step of this has ever been observed? I have to disagree infact most of these steps make me laugh. Never, ever has one kind of creature ever given offspring to another type of creature. Never been observed and never will. We see changes though never a leap through species to species.

I like the fact that the human brow and jaw bone continue growing throughout the life time of a human. That with the Genesis account of much longer lifespans of earlier man, pre flood, I find interesting.

Observational science agrees with a created universe, so do I. I believe it is so obvious in all I see, although is was not always my world view; I was totally in the indoctrinated world view taught by my schooling.

I sometimes get to thinking it is so obvious there is a grand designer to life, that all you lot are just pulling my leg on here and must believe in a G-d.

This evolution is so downright evil, it puts us as nothing, moral less beings that are living pointlessly.

I believe God made us and loves us and wants the best for us always. As Jesus was God on earth, what did he do? Condemn people, stone queers? No he forgave people and healed people and dealt with people with pure love. He died because he opened the way to the new life as this old place will pass away.