the two ideas can coexist

[readinlots]

the theory of evolution is not contrary to religion. those who take the bible too literaly are bound to find more errors in these new science movements but if you approach the bible as you would the asope fables or such things and think of it as a morale guidline then you see they dont contridict. the fact of the matter is during dinosaur time humans did not exist. the fossils we have prove as much. no sign of human life were found until much later. i am a firm catholic but have no problem seeing the 2 coexist. we must have evolved. if not from primates from something else. we must learn to be more flexible and these brilliant ideas would come faster to us! another thought to concider is that while darwin was far ahead of his time he was wrong on many accounts and theories. the evolution theory happens to remain a theory. here is one of my most favored quotes of charles darwin in the origin of species:

"when i view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

i love the evolution theory and these types of debates. just thought id say what my opinion was and id love to have replies!:D

[Drkshadow03]

You can also view the Bible or religious text as divinely inspired but written by humans (my own views) rather than in the same light as Aesop's Fables (though they might serve that purpose as well). This raises them to a higher status I think than mere moral tales.

I agree that science and religion are compatible. I argued that in a post on my blog (http://beyondassumptions.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheists-vs-faith-round-1-ding-ding.html) among other things (warning: link may cause atheists to explode into bile-spewing rage. It should be noted that in the post I am specifically referring to "extreme" atheists who denigrate religion and not ALL atheists who just want to go about their business not believing in God).

I'm going to post the link rather than copy-and-paste because it's a really long post.

[Jilvin]

The one thing that I become amused and slightly frustrated by in these debates is the misunderstanding of the term "theory" in the colliqual sense, and in a scientific sense. In the colliqual sense (meaning just normal, every day use of language) people will say it to mean a conjecture or guess about something. The usage of the term in this way is actually incorrect if meant to be used precisely.

In a scientific sense, the term simply means an explanatory system which has a large range of explanation. A "fact", usually erroniously percieved as contrary to a theory, is merely a piece of data or a single observation.

It is important to note that no theory (Evolution, Atomic Theory, Gravitational Theory*, etc.) can attain the status of proven (with the exception of mathematical and logarithmic theorems). If the definition of "proven" is given a more intuitive association, such as "is supported by compelling evidence", then the theory of evolution can be considered proven. (As it is by the vast majority of biologists in the United States, and even more so around the world)

*Some may object to the proposition that gravity is a theory. Gravity is a fact in the sense that every observer cannot deny that objects deviate towards the center of the earth (the ground), but this simple observation is not what I am referring to. The Newtonian theory of gravity makes many anti-intuitive connections, namely, that the orbits of planets are caused by the same entity that makes objects deviate to the center of earth; as well as precise predictions about the strength and activity of gravity. The precision of the predictions are furthered by Einsteins own specific theory of gravity.

EDIT: After a more thorough read-through of Drkshadow03's post, I find it absurd that all atheists should "go about their business not believing in God" as if atheists are preemptively and automatically resigned to their "proper" positions of not criticizing religion at all.

This is frankly absurd.

[AuntShecky]

The writings of Teilhard de Chardin present strong arguments for a reconciliation between science and faith. I really don't understand how some believe that the two disciplines contradict each other.

There are Americans of great faith who find themselves unable to accept concepts such as evolution because they wish to take scripture literally. Certainly they have the right to think that way; in fact freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. I respect their beliefs, but I also have the right to believe that evolution is true.

I don't believe that fundamentalists are "stupid" or uneducated, but I strongly disagree with them, since I can't deny evidence corroborated by centuries of scientific research. In my oh-so-evidently-humble opinion, I believe that Whoever or Whatever created us gave us brains with the expectation that we would use them.

[Virgil]

the theory of evolution is not contrary to religion. those who take the bible too literaly are bound to find more errors in these new science movements but if you approach the bible as you would the asope fables or such things and think of it as a morale guidline then you see they dont contridict. the fact of the matter is during dinosaur time humans did not exist. the fossils we have prove as much. no sign of human life were found until much later. i am a firm catholic but have no problem seeing the 2 coexist. we must have evolved. if not from primates from something else. we must learn to be more flexible and these brilliant ideas would come faster to us! another thought to concider is that while darwin was far ahead of his time he was wrong on many accounts and theories. the evolution theory happens to remain a theory. here is one of my most favored quotes of charles darwin in the origin of species:

"when i view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled."

i love the evolution theory and these types of debates. just thought id say what my opinion was and id love to have replies!:D

Well neither does the Catholic church have a problem with evolution. It supports the concept.

[JCamilo]

Well, for once, if we read the bible as we read Aesop, we certainly would not have an entire metaphysical concept build after it.

But, it is not only the concept of theory that is mislead, Evolution is not the name that Darwin Baptized his theory, it was Natural Selection. Evolution is pretty much a fact and there was several theories to explain it before Darwin, but the use transformed the name of the theory, so people confud both things.

[Jilvin]

Very true.

The first person to actually coin evolution was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who proposed a two mechanism theory. The first mechanism was an arcane and empircally unsupported orthogenesis based on internalist chemistry, and the second mechanism was simply adaptation which was (erroneously) attributed to what is now shown to be "Lamarckism" : Inheritance of acquired characteristics and the principle of use and disuse.

It is sad to see even the erroneous theory of Lamarckism so vividly characaturized by asserting that if you cut off rats tails, they will produce rats without tails according to Lamarck. Lamarckism never entails that sudden, accidental amputations will be passed down, only changes in habit.

*Please note that I am defending only one part of Lamarckism. The theory is completely falsified*