Theistic Evolution & Cosmology ?

Posted:
in PoliticalOutsider edited January 2014
NOW BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS THREAD, THESE ARE FROM THE POSTED RULES FROM THE MODS:



"Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion. Yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other."



My intent is to avoid two things that have troubled us:



1) Personal Attacks.

2) Vapid cartoons and ridicule.



If it starts, I will ask the message to BE DELETED, let's not get this thread locked.



Here is my question: Is there anyone here that is BOTH a person that believes in God, prays, and practices his/her religon AND accepts the standard scientific accounts of the universe's creation and evolution? Is it possible?
«1345678

Comments

  • fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    To answer your question very simply No, not with myself that is.



    I believe there is intelligent design evident within creation which random mutations fail to impress upon me a basis for creation and the balance, harmony and order thereof.



    No childish remarks needed to answer your question.



    Respectfully,



    Fellows
  • not unlike myselfnot unlike myself Posts: 2,037member
    To answer your specific question. Yes. There is someone here. Me.

    To answer your implied (or second) question. Yes, it is possible.

    (and after great thought and unanswered prayer on this....it was also the only acceptable answer)

    Was that all?



    Respectfully,



    NUM
  • dmzdmz Posts: 5,775member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Is there anyone here that is BOTH a person that believes in God, prays, and practices his/her religon AND accepts the standard scientific accounts of the universe's creation and evolution? Is it possible?



    No on #1.

    There is no "standard scientific account" -- there are many differing accounts on the universe's origins, and many of those are misunderstood. Since Evolution doesn't work in the realm of experimental science, and any attempts to make it work on any known observational scientific level have remained elusive ....No.



    No on #2.

    As something of a literalist, I can't cram an untestable, self-contradictory hypothesis into the first several chapters of Genesis.
  • brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Essentially all Americans believe in God, according to polls like this one. Not all of them go to church regularly, but almost all are religious at a basic level. It's about as close to a universal belief as there is, in the US anyway, and probably over most of the world.



    On the other hand, about half of Americans believe in evolution, and half are true creationists, according to polls like this.



    My point is that there must be a lot of religious people who accept biological evolution.



    I've talked to my church's pastor - a liberal Presbyterian - about this, and he most definitely does accept biological evolution fully. All the churches that have official positions on evolution/creationism have stated that biological evolution is not incompatible with their religion, including Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics.



    I'd like to see an official church position that makes the claim that biological evolution is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. I've never seen one. Creationism seems to be a "grassroots" belief rather than official church doctrine.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    To answer your specific question. Yes. There is someone here. Me.

    To answer your implied (or second) question. Yes, it is possible.

    (and after great thought and unanswered prayer on this....it was also the only acceptable answer)

    Was that all?



    Respectfully,



    NUM




    Well, I wanted to ask this question because it seems that the conflict between evolution and anti-evolution often leaves the impression it is believer vs non-believer.



    I'm not a believer (yet), but I do accept the standard scientific accounts as the most likely answers to the scientific questions.



    Moreover, it is often stated that one cannot be a real christian without taking the Genesis account literally.
  • not unlike myselfnot unlike myself Posts: 2,037member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Moreover, it is often stated that one cannot be a real christian without taking the Genesis account literally.



    My parents taught me not to associate with these type of people. Bad role models.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dmz

    No on #1.

    There is no "standard scientific account" -- there are many differing accounts on the universe's origins, and many of those are misunderstood. Since Evolution doesn't work in the realm of experimental science, and any attempts to make it work on any known observational scientific level have remained elusive ....No.



    No on #2.

    As something of a literalist, I can't cram an untestable, self-contradictory hypothesis into the first several chapters of Genesis.




    When I said accounts (plural) I was trying to allow for sub theories of the standard models. To be more direct:



    1) The standard Cosmological Model is 'The Big Bang'.

    2) The standard Biological Model is "The Modern Synthesis"



    Some Christians seem to believe in both.

    Some believe 1 but not 2

    Some don't believe either 1 or 2.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fellowship

    To answer your question very simply No, not with myself that is.



    I believe there is intelligent design evident within creation which random mutations fail to impress upon me a basis for creation and the balance, harmony and order thereof.



    No childish remarks needed to answer your question.



    Respectfully,



    Fellows




    Perhaps you could clarify (see my reply to DMZ)...do you believe in the Big Bang, Do you belive in evolution guided by I.D. ?
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Essentially all Americans believe in God, according to polls like this one. Not all of them go to church regularly, but almost all are religious at a basic level. It's about as close to a universal belief as there is, in the US anyway, and probably over most of the world.



    On the other hand, about half of Americans believe in evolution, and half are true creationists, according to polls like this.



    My point is that there must be a lot of religious people who accept biological evolution.



    I've talked to my church's pastor - a liberal Presbyterian - about this, and he most definitely does accept biological evolution fully. All the churches that have official positions on evolution/creationism have stated that biological evolution is not incompatible with their religion, including Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Catholics.



    I'd like to see an official church position that makes the claim that biological evolution is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. I've never seen one. Creationism seems to be a "grassroots" belief rather than official church doctrine.




    I wonder what the Baptist doctrine(s) is/are on this issue?
  • johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Do I believe in (a) god/gods? No. There is no god. There are only causes that produce good, bad or harmless effects. We're born into a sea of them and all we can do is learn to swim and help others. Or, others can choose to kill and be killed.



    Do I pray? I meditate/contemplate on the illusions of phenomena in life. But there is nothing to pray to. I think "appreciate" and "experience" is as close to I come to praying.



    Do I practice my religion? I have no religion, although I am learning my mind, the nature of reality and try to increase my compassion for others - natural human curiosity and states of mind that have been co-opted by religions. Buddhism at it's core is not a religion, if you step back from the localizations it's gone through.



    Do I accept the standard scientific accounts of the universe's creation and evolution? Do scientists? Science is ever changing. But yes, given science's open nature and willingness to admit it's errors, I far prefer it over dogmatic religions like the big three destructive, coercive and divisive Abrahamic ones. Science is mostly going in the right directions, whereas religions are in stasis or even regressing. Science's biggest problem is it being susceptible to getting co-opted for violent, selfish or political/religious uses. I cannot swallow an Abrahamic religion's explanation for reality when they are clearly political power structures only interested in controlling masses of people, serving as supra-nations.



    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum and Planck Time/Length are just three insurmountable limits (forever possibly? or maybe solved next year) I can think of, and I'm sure many more exist. So science isn't even close to being a religion or a god, in that it is not perfect, nor does it presume itself to be. But good scientists will be the first to tell you that. But you don't stop questioning just because you can't figure something out right away. The Abrahamic religions would have you sit silently in ignorance and fear while those in the various hierarchies (in power) would rule over you.



    I far prefer Punctuated Equilibrium over YAWEH...thanks.
  • objra10objra10 Posts: 679member, moderator
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    NOW BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS THREAD, THESE ARE FROM THE POSTED RULES FROM THE MODS:



    "Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion. Yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other."



    My intent is to avoid two things that have troubled us:



    1) Personal Attacks.

    2) Vapid cartoons and ridicule.



    If it starts, I will ask the message to BE DELETED, let's not get this thread locked.



    Here is my question: Is there anyone here that is BOTH a person that believes in God, prays, and practices his/her religon AND accepts the standard scientific accounts of the universe's creation and evolution? Is it possible?




    You missed one.

    Quote:

    Do not start any more threads regarding this topic



  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    You missed one.



    Sorry, thought there has been enough time.
  • objra10objra10 Posts: 679member, moderator
    Since the actual quote is...

    Quote:

    Do not start any more threads regarding this topic since it doesn't appear to be possible to do so in a civil manner.



    ...I will give you the courtesy of demonstrating that it is in fact possible to do in a civil manner.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    To answer your specific question. Yes. There is someone here. Me.

    To answer your implied (or second) question. Yes, it is possible.

    (and after great thought and unanswered prayer on this....it was also the only acceptable answer)

    Was that all?



    Respectfully,



    NUM




    I ran across this statement, seems like you are not alone:





    An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science



    Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible ? the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark ? convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.



    We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as ?one theory among others? is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God?s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God?s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.



    Check this link to see all of the people that have signed the letter:



    http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/...llaboration.htm



    Note that many of them are "Rev."
  • aquamacaquamac Posts: 585member
    Yes, I'm a liberal Catholic and scientist. Any respectiful questions are welcome.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by AquaMac

    Yes, I'm a liberal Catholic and scientist. Any respectiful questions are welcome.



    What area of science ? Ever met a creationist in your area ?
  • carson o'geniccarson o'genic Posts: 1,277member
    I'm an atheist (one of the few in the US?). I believe that Humans created god(s).



    I don't pray, but I think and at times hope luck finds its way to me.



    I beleive science hasn't answered everything regarding the beginnings of life and the origin of the universe, but I think what research has discovered is pointing us in the right direction.



    edit: i beleive i cant spel,
  • carson o'geniccarson o'genic Posts: 1,277member
    In regards to the topics main question:



    My zoology professor was a Christian. I always found that to be somewhat of an oxymoron, but I think his beleifs represented the feelings of many people. The way he put it was that he believed in evolution (good since that was what he was teaching-quite well I may add), but the whole beginning of life part gave him trouble, as it does for many.



    He would bring out this box with all the parts of a watch and would ask how long we would have to shake the box before the watch would assemble itself. It is an interesting example of the complexity of life and how some many parts have to work together to make it work.. The problem is that we really don't know that much about the steps that led to life, and it is quite possible that the watch in a box metaphor is just not very accurate.



    Observation and experiments have shown that many of the basic molecules of life are quite readily available. How the first life looked we have no idea, so whether it was an incredable unlikely occurance or something that was bound to happen we just don't know. The first life was most certainly not as soffisticated as what lives around us today. Thus, even teh ancient primitive life of today, is still teh product of billions of years of adaptation. Best we can do is go check out Mars, Europa etc, maybe there will be some answers there.



    My point is that science can draw a pretty detailed picture of many aspects of the history of life on this planet, but the very beginnings are a harder nut to crack. That mystery provides enough doubt for many to see the hand of god at work seeding the beginings of life and then letting nature take its course. As for me, I find believeing in god harder than believeing that life developed on its own.
  • maxparrishmaxparrish Posts: 840member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

    In regards to the topics main question:



    My zoology professor was a Christian. I always found that to be somewhat of an oxymoron, but I think his beleifs represented the feelings of many people. The way he put it was that he believed in evolution (good since that was what he was teaching-quite well I may add), but the whole beginning of life part gave him trouble, as it does for many.



    He would bring out this box with all the parts of a watch and would ask how long we would have to shake the box before the watch would assemble itself. It is an interesting example of the complexity of life and how some many parts have to work together to make it work.. The problem is that we really don't know that much about the steps that led to life, and it is quite possible that the watch in a box metaphor is just not very accurate....



    My point is that science can draw a pretty detailed picture of many aspects of the history of life on this planet, but the very beginnings are a harder nut to crack. That mystery provides enough doubt for many to see the hand of god at work seeding the beginings of life and then letting nature take its course. As for me, I find believeing in god harder than believeing that life developed on its own.




    The origin of life is the least understood, far less than the process and history of evolution. The origin, abiogensis, has 5 or 6 hypothesis (with one of them currently favored) regarding a natural origin on earth, and their are a few (e.g. Hoyle) who thought life came from an extra terristeral (non creationist) source.



    My gut feeling after reading Drake's equation is that life in the galaxy might be more common than I thought, perhaps a planet every 5 to 20 light years. However, 'intelligent' life is probably rare...no more than a dozen in a galaxy...maybe only one planet in the Milky Way.



    Still, there are 100,000,000,000 galaxys...so chances are good there are others.
  • johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carson O'Genic

    He would bring out this box with all the parts of a watch and would ask how long we would have to shake the box before the watch would assemble itself. It is an interesting example of the complexity of life and how some many parts have to work together to make it work.. The problem is that we really don't know that much about the steps that led to life, and it is quite possible that the watch in a box metaphor is just not very accurate.



    The watch in a box metaphor is in fact, quite horrendous. It isn't at all close to an accurate metaphor for evolution.



    Since it is inherently silly no one will believe it. But since it is offered as a pseudo-argument for evolution (a mockery of it, really) the typical result is to flee to it's opposite, which is creation or ID.



    That is, rather than explain evolution properly (even if in some mostly-accurate form of metaphor), this overtly silly metaphor is used instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.