Religion = Evolution???

[misterreplicant]

I am posting this on Lit Network because the roads are slick and church is not in session, but I know if I could ask my pastor, he would give me the answer I want to hear and back it up with something like 4 or 5 legit examples. I am a Lutheran and strongly believe in God as the ultimate creator.

In my Philosophical Questions group on FB, one of the members posted, "Religion or evolution?" (Religion in this case = Christianity). Then, a person after him commented saying, "Religion is evolution." Along with the next person after him agreeing with him.

How can this be true? I looked up on it and people say that Christianity doesn't exactly disagree with evolutionism on all factors? Does that mean that people believe that God created very very primitive beings, like some sort of water like organism, to later evolve into a (present day) homo sapien? I THOUGHT God created us in HIS image.

Anyone know exactly what this person was talking about when he said, "Religion is evolution."??

[OrphanPip]

The official stance of the Catholic Church is that evolution is fact, but that God set it in motion and may have intervened along the way.

As a biologist, my personal opinion is that religions only have two options. Adapt to the overwhelming evidence, like the Catholic Church has, or remain blissfully ignorant and deliberately delude yourself, like some fundamentalist Christians.

[Cunninglinguist]

Theistic thinkers far before Darwin have entertained the idea of biological evolution, e.g. Aristotle and John Milton. Yet their versions of evolution usually involve some sort of divine direction to it. In other words, evolution happens under the direction of God. Darwinism fundamentally differs in that evolution happens, essentially, by chance and selection pressures alone. God does not fit into it.

To say that religion does not necessarily disagree with [Darwinian] evolution on all counts seems like an erroneous generalization. Religion and religious belief are highly variable and personal. In any case, Darwinism is not incompatible with many allegorical or figurative interpretations of the Bible; it mostly contradicts literal exegesis.

At any rate, from what you've told, if that's all that's been said, I would've probably dismissed the statement as ambiguous nonsense.

[misterreplicant]

Well, OK, never though of God proceeding evolution for humans... I was always taught there were Creationism vs Evolutionism..

[YesNo]

I was reading some books about post-modernism related to a different thread and found a book by Heath White, Postmodernism 101: A First Course for the Curious Christian, which you might find interesting.

White argues that a literal interpretation of the bible, including creationism, is something a "modern" rather than a "pre-modern" Christian would be interested in. Also he argues this from a Christian perspective.

He also does a good job of explaining the differences between pre-modern, modern and post-modern ways of thinking.

[BienvenuJDC]

Don't believe that just because evolutionists say that there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. I myself, will take God at His word. Evolution has no evidence. It is just as faith based as any other religion.

[NikolaiI]

Well, OK, never thought of God proceeding evolution for humans...

Why not?

[Alexander III]

Don't believe that just because evolutionists say that there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. I myself, will take God at His word. Evolution has no evidence. It is just as faith based as any other religion.

You are mistaken, there is concrete proof for evolution.

Many experiments have been done with fruit flys (as they spawn a new generation ever couple of days) So in one year you have hundreds of generations. It has been found that evolution takes place with the fruit flys.

Also look up at the stars at night, they are all millions of light years away...meaning the image you see is millions of year old...hence the universe is older than 6,000 years.

[MarkBastable]

Arguments for and against evolution apart, I'd say that the important thing to consider is that you're not obliged to agonise over every unsupported statement uttered in your presence.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also look up at the stars at night, they are all millions of light years away...meaning the image you see is millions of year old...hence the universe is older than 6,000 years.

That is a false conclusion. If that is evidence in your mind, then I see the problem here.

[Alexander III]

That is a false conclusion. If that is evidence in your mind, then I see the problem here.

Do tell, how is it a false conclusion ?

[MarkBastable]

Do tell, how is it a false conclusion ?


Fair question.

I'd say there are three possible answers.

1. Light travels faster than Einstein thought.
2. The furthest stars are closer than most people believe - in fact, 6,000 light years, max.
3. When God created the universe 6,000 years ago, he put the stars millions of light years away, but he also created their emitted light in transit - so the light was already most of the way here when he made it.

[Dodo25]

@OP,
As far as I know, Lutherans believe in sola scriptura, and when you read the texts there's nothing whatsoever in Genesis that hints to evolution. Even the order in which things supposedly appeared is very wrong.

So most Lutherans I know are creationists, and the ones that aren't are 'moderate' on many other issues as well and generally don't go to church very often.

Now, evolution did happen. Here's a thread summarizing the evidence and explaining some basic terms that are very often misunderstood by creationists. I strongly suggest you read it: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54322

@BienvenuJD, you're welcome to join the above thread and refute the arguments given if you still think that evolution is wrong.

Back to topic:
While a literal interpretation of the Bible rules out evolution, many denominations, or individuals, have come to reconcile it with their faith -- simply because the evidence for it is so overwhelming. In Europe for instance, the majority of 'Christians' accept evolution (but then again, religion is practised differently here, less strictly). The view is called 'theistic evolution', and people believe that God created the first replicating macromolecue / life form (as you correctly suggested), and then let evolution take over to 'finish his work'.

One example for the support of 'theistic evolution' is the ‘Clergy Letter Project’. The project had its origin in 2004 in Wisconsin, when biology professor Michael Zimmerman, in order to combat creationism, decided to prepare a statement expressing the clergy’s support for evolution. The idea had resounding success and turned into a nationwide project. Here an excerpt from the statement letter:

“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.”

As of December 2009, the statement has been signed by 12’119 clergymen of different denominations.

Obviously, accepting evolution leads to some difficult questions: When did the soul jump in? Why only in humans and not in other great apes? Why let 3.5 billion years of evolution go by, then homo sapiens finally appears, and in the last 2000 years of the species existence (after about 148'000 years without) send 'Jesus' finally as savior? What about the dinosaurs, first plan them then randomly wipe them out with a meteor so some mammals can prosper and eventually evolve into 'his image'? If complexity can come from simplicity, why should we still accept the ontological argument? etc... you get the picture..

Anyway, here a book suggestion: Kenneth Miller, a biologist who testified for evolution in the Dover trial (which ruled 'Intelligent Design' unconstitutional because it is basically creationism dressed up) and who happens to be a devout Christian, wrote the book 'Finding Darwin's God'. In it, he tries to convince Christians that evolution happened. He uses both scientific facts and theological arguments (basically saying that a creationist god would be deceptive and a cheat). In the end, he presents his own view of how evolution and Christianity can coexist.

I suggest you look at the evidence and talk to some people whose opinion you value. Don't give too much credence to pastors though, it really depends on who you talk to and I have experienced some Lutheran pastors who were extremely bigoted and completely ignorant about science. Good luck with making up your mind, it's an interesting subject. You're welcome to PM me btw if you have further questions.

[togre]

Science is useful within the limits of its presuppositions. Science assumes a universe that functions just as it does now stretching out forever into the past and forever into the future. It has to do that to make observational evidence meaningful. The existence of an all-powerful God that is beyond the laws of nature--worse who intercedes in the universe in ways that supersede the laws of nature--can no be accounted for by science.

Therefore, every scientific conclusion has the unspoken assumption "Assuming there isn't a God who will intervene or has intervened." Could God revoke or suspend the laws of gravity, even though we have observational evidence that things always fall (or are attracted to objects of mass)? By definition an all-powerful God could. Do we expect him to? A Christian sees no indication that he will in the Bible.

Is there scientific evidence that suggests gradual change and mutation account for the existence and diversity of life we currently experience? Maybe (that's a different discussion). But that's assuming God didn't get involved in the creation of life in a special way. As a Christian I then turn to the Bible to see what God tells me there and I learn that in six normal days (with evening and morning) God brought the world and all life into existence.

[Dodo25]

Science is useful within the limits of its presuppositions. Science assumes a universe that functions just as it does now stretching out forever into the past and forever into the future. It has to do that to make observational evidence meaningful. The existence of an all-powerful God that is beyond the laws of nature--worse who intercedes in the universe in ways that supersede the laws of nature--can no be accounted for by science.

Therefore, every scientific conclusion has the unspoken assumption "Assuming there isn't a God who will intervene or has intervened."

Science doesn't a priori rule out the supernatural. It only couldn't explain it if it were encountered.

That's a fundamental difference to 'science dogmatically postulates materialism'! If God existed, we should still be able to find evidence for something uncanny going on. We would however never be able to 'explain him'.

[MarkBastable]

Science is useful within the limits of its presuppositions. Science assumes a universe that functions just as it does now stretching out forever into the past and forever into the future. It has to do that to make observational evidence meaningful.....

It's not a presupposition. The idea that certain laws are constant doesn't precede the scientific approach - it's a conclusion of the scientific approach - and one that's re-examined from time to time, by the way.

So science starts from the basis of knowing nothing, collects and tests evidence that offers ways of understanding stuff, and arrives at views that are supported by that collected evidence. And the evidence suggests that the universe works in ways that are consistent.

In other words, if you start from assuming nothing at all, you end up with what we generally call scientific knowledge.


I then turn to the Bible to see what God tells me there and I learn that in six normal days (with evening and morning) God brought the world and all life into existence.

So, the question to be asked there, then, is what did you start off by assuming? On what evidence do you base your knowledge that the Bible's right?

[Rores28]

Well, OK, never though of God proceeding evolution for humans... I was always taught there were Creationism vs Evolutionism..

Right which is just the point. You were taught this, someone else was taught that, but if you go to the church next door they kinda say this. Also if you travel around your town, city, state you will probably find some Muslims and Jews, maybe a few Buddhists, if you travel all over the world you might run into... well just scroll down the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

So you have been granted the perfect religion, the perfect country, state, town, and the pastor who views religion through the perfectly correct lens. The "right" lens. Too bad for those other people... or maybe just your pastor.. it sounds as if he's got a lot of work to do.

In fact he's got some really tough work to do. What about the ancient Greeks and Norse religions and pre-Christian religions. How do these non-people (dead) procure the correct answers?

Ultimately what you are taught at church is simply what you are "taught." When you are building a philosophy for your life remember that it is your philosophy and your life, and guidance should be taken as such, and not as dogmatic fetters to your personal/spiritual growth.

If you want to learn, if you seriously want truth/enlightenment or whatever term you may substitute you need to go outside of your current conventions.

Read a book on evolution (The Selfish Gene?), take a biology class, or an evolutionary biology class, read a book Buddhism (Siddhartha might be a baby step), read a book on Intelligent Design (Darwin's Black Box), read a book on religion in general (A History of God), read a book on Atheism (The God Delusion)

[kenholmz]

@misterreplicant I offer you this web site: http://www.reasons.org/
Hugh Ross takes hits from all sides. His area of study and career is in astrophysics.
He is also a theist, a Christian.

For the young universe adherents he is seen as wrong because he accepts the evidence of an old, a very old universe.

For some atheists, Dr. Ross' science and conclusions are viewed as junk science (well, one anyway, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham stated that Hugh Ross and company are involved in junk science).

I recommend Hugh Ross and his team members without reservation.

[Rores28]

Do tell, how is it a false conclusion ?

Basically it comes down to the all-powerful God explication.

No matter what "evidence" there is, God being "all-powerful" and "working in mysterious ways" could have made whatever material illusions he wanted, such as star distances, fossil evidence, carbon dating, geological blah blah blah. You can't confront a christian theist (or any other theology that holds these positions) solely on those grounds, though you might point out that these two assumptions are awfully convenient.

I think things like this should still always be pointed out in a religious debate, but always make sure that you know and immediately respond to this counterpoint, because in a debate this ends up looking like (though fallaciously so) a dialectical victory.

Evolution to me doesn't seem at odds with Christian religion for this very reason. God could have made all things look exactly as they look. The question isn't whether Christianity is at odds with evolution, it is whether its invocation, furthers our explanation of reality, and whether the aggregate human experience is better off because of it.

To the first question I think this is a pretty resounding no. I think the second question is a little more unclear. But I do think at the very least the most egregious manifestations need to be immunized, things like the discouragement if not flagrant prohibition of contraceptives, as well as the issues surrounding abortion. But things like whether or not there would be less war without religion is a little hazy. I'd say I'm on the side that less religion would result in less net violence but I wouldn't be strongly in that camp.

[Rores28]

You are mistaken, there is concrete proof for evolution.

Many experiments have been done with fruit flys (as they spawn a new generation ever couple of days) So in one year you have hundreds of generations. It has been found that evolution takes place with the fruit flys.


Here is a semantic point that always gets confused in this debate. In its strictest sense evolution is simply an allelic shift over a generation. Whether most evolution opponents know it or not, they are not arguing over this point. Nor are they arguing over whether new manifest characteristics can develop over time, as in the fruit fly experiments.

What they are arguing (typically) is over whether or not speciation can occur. Can the characteristic changes be drastic enough to produce things as diverse as planarians and humans.

It's been said if someone is truly an opponent of evolution, they shouldn't ever get vaccinated...:)

[Dodo25]

Never mind.

[Cunninglinguist]

Well, OK, never though of God proceeding evolution for humans... I was always taught there were Creationism vs Evolutionism..

We humans would never make things that simple. Where there is no clear difference to cut, and no clear side to argue, we nuance things so that we might then have a means of proving our intellectual superiority.


That is a false conclusion. If that is evidence in your mind, then I see the problem here.

Although this is a tangent, in the end, our emotions are what guide us. You accept religion because it has been emotionally becoming; likewise for the people who accept the scientific method and evolution. The only way a man has convinced another to his side is by persuading him with emotional promises.


Fair question.

I'd say there are three possible answers.

1. Light travels faster than Einstein thought.
2. The furthest stars are closer than most people believe - in fact, 6,000 light years, max.
3. When God created the universe 6,000 years ago, he put the stars millions of light years away, but he also created their emitted light in transit - so the light was already most of the way here when he made it.

To add to this list, we simply might be brains in a vat, the possibility whereof (and infinite others like it) crushes any claim to “proof” a conclusion reached by inductive inference might have. Moreover, the universe could be 2 minutes old, all our memories implanted. Is it not possible that God planted all the [misleading] “evidence” for evolution in the first place? Any rational thinker has to admit the possibilities, and by doing so, admit that the criteria for real proof have not been satisfied, and probably never will be. Notwithstanding, we might want accept evolution on pragmatic grounds; for, given all the empirical evidence, it requires us to make the least number of new assumptions about how the world operates.


It's not a presupposition. The idea that certain laws are constant doesn't precede the scientific approach - it's a conclusion of the scientific approach - and one that's re-examined from time to time, by the way.

So science starts from the basis of knowing nothing, collects and tests evidence that offers ways of understanding stuff, and arrives at views that are supported by that collected evidence. And the evidence suggests that the universe works in ways that are consistent.

In other words, if you start from assuming nothing at all, you end up with what we generally call scientific knowledge.

It’s both preceded and concluded by the approach and quite undertones it in every facet. In that we assume empirical evidence carries significance beyond itself (can tell us something general about the world), we’re presuming that there are universal laws that are consistent. If we assumed that experience could not give us any knowledge beyond the experience itself, then we would never carry out the scientific induction, dismissing the experience as a meaningless caprice. Without any assumption at all we grant both possibilities about experience—that it might be able to give us knowledge beyond itself, or it might not—; yet, in making no metaphysical assumptions, we find that both possibilities are equally probable, and thus we have no strictly logical basis to accept one over the other. Of course, any good scientist admits that we cannot be for certain if all events aren’t capricious, yet the only way science can move forward is by assuming that they are not. Therefore, it precedes it in the sense that if it did not exist then the scientific approach would be meaningless; there would be no consistent basis by which we could judge the meaning of any piece of empirical evidence. We make the assumption, I would argue, simply because it’s empirically shown beneficial, not because it has any a priori, logical, more sound basis than any other possible assumption. Science concludes the assumption in that it positively affirms its possibility. I hope this has been sufficiently clear.

[MarkBastable]

I'd say there are three possible answers.

1. Light travels faster than Einstein thought.
2. The furthest stars are closer than most people believe - in fact, 6,000 light years, max.
3. When God created the universe 6,000 years ago, he put the stars millions of light years away, but he also created their emitted light in transit - so the light was already most of the way here when he made it.



To add to this list, we simply might be brains in a vat, the possibility whereof (and infinite others like it) crushes any claim to “proof” a conclusion reached by inductive inference might have. Moreover, the universe could be 2 minutes old, all our memories implanted.

Facetious though this response is (I hope), it's more than we're going to get back from Bienvenue.