Evolution vs. Creation

You can see the fruitfly adapting to changes in its environment. How come virus's get more and more resistant to anti-biotics?

Adelheid: In my humble opinion.......Evolution is an incremental process taking place over an infitestimally lengthy time continuum. Scientific study of this process is neccessarily limited by the relative 'blink-of-an-eye' existence that is the individual human lifespan. But current accumulated scientific evidence indicates the hypothesis/theory of evolution of life forms seems to concretely answer many questions concerning the ongoing wonder that is life. Only continued study and a penchant for the truth will eventually solve the debate surrounding evolution. Man, as well as being many other things, is a logical animal, considerate enought to weigh many factors in arriving at a plausable explanation for any given phenomenon. But I am suspicious this thread is trying to compare supposed diametrically opposed theories when in fact evolution vs. creation theories are not diametrically opposed, but totally disconnected from each other, and are not limited to having relatively little in common, but have nothing at all in common and yet both equally share the possibility of truth.

Spiritual aspects of life, if they exist for one's self, can be compared to the physical/concrete world. And yes, a screwdriver can be used to peel potato...... but why bother? Personally I find a theory that allows for both possibilities (a spiritual existence seperate from the physical) intellectually pleasing and infinitely wonderous.........

Several comments regarding various matters:


I occured to me just now, as I read this thread, that we do live in a caring universe. The caring part of the universe is that very part which complains so bitterly that the universe is uncaring. A truly uncaring universe would be devoid of such sentimental rhetoric.

The great rabbi of the 12th century, Moses Maimonides (Rambam) who wrote "The Guide for the Perplexed" in Arabic, in Spain, often mentions the Muslim sect of the Mutakallimum, who advocated the use of philosophical reason in theological matters. Maimonides spends much time arguing against the literal interpretation of verses which suggest that God has some form.

Even in the New Testament, there is one verse in which Christ explicitly says, "No man as seen the Father at any time" (but then Jesus adds, "He who sees me sees the Father.")

There are Greek Orthodox who censure the Russian iconographers who portray God the Father in Icons as an old man with a beard. The Russians argue that the "Ancient of Days" in the vision of Prophet Daniel is God the Father, seated upon a throne, but the Greeks argue that it is Christ as the pre-eternal Logos.

I once asked a very strict, conservative Greek monastic, of the Athonite tradition, what Eastern Orthodoxy believes about evolution. He explained that there was no conflict in thinking that God used evolutionary means to create mankind. He pointed out that Basil the Great, theologian of the 4th century, who wrote "The Six Day Creation" (Exemeron), concedes that a day could be metaphorical for an eon of time. For the Psalms say, in one verse "With the Lord, a day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years is as a day."


There IS some dispute, between various Islamic sects, regarding the attributes of Allah. Here are some links on the matter:




http://ahmadjibril.com/students/tawheednames.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Throne of Allah

For this reason ,when asked about the manner in which Allah is seated on the throne the Salaf said: “The sitting (istiwa’) is known, the manner is unknown, believing in it is an obligation, and inquiring about it is a heresy.” (ar rawdah an niddiyyah p 29) If someone were to ask: “How does Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, descend to the lower heavens?”, We would reply by asking: “What is His nature?” If the questioner says, “ I do not know Allah’s nature. “, We say: “And we know not how He descends! To determine how an attribute is manifested, we should know the nature of He whose attribute it is: the attribute is but an aspect of its owner, dependent upon Him. How could you expect us to explain the manner in which Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, descends, hears, sees, speaks, or sits upon the Throne, when you do not know what His nature is? If you attest that Allah, subhana wa ta'ala, is a constant, absolute reality, incorporating all the attributes of perfection, dissimilar from any other existing thing or being, you must accept that His hearing, seeing, speaking, descending, sitting and others are perpetual and real, and that He is characterized by the attributes of perfection which are not like the hearing, seeing, speaking, descending and sitting of beings.” (ar rawdah an niddiyyah p.34) Tawheed of names and attributes is damaged by the following:

1. Tashbeeh/ Comparison: This means comparing the attributes of the creator to the attributes of the created as the Christians, Jews and some sects in Islam compare the face of Allah with the human face, Allah’s hand to the human hand and so on. (al asilah wal ajwibah al usuliyyah p. 35)

---

http://www.ghazali.org/works/gz-itiqad.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Fingers of Allah

I have even heard one of his followers say that [Ahmad ibn *Hanbal] forbade the allegorical interpretation of all but three traditions, namely the words of the Prophet when he said, “The Black Stone (al-Hajar al-Aswad) is the right hand of Allah in the earth;” and, “The heart of the believer lies between two of the fingers of the Merciful [Allah];” and “Verily I shall find the soul of the Merciful [Allah coming] from the direction of al-Yaman.” [Even here] the literalists have been inclined to forbid any allegorical interpretation. It is assumed, however, that Ahmad ibn-Hanbal knew that ascending (istiwa‘) is not fixity of location (istiqrar), and descending (nuznl) is not change of location (intiqal); nevertheless he forbade allegorical interpretation for the good and' welfare of people, since whenever it is allowed matters become worse and go out of control, overstepping the limits of moderation. Things which go beyond the limits of moderation are beyond control. Therefore there is no harm done by such a prohibition which is also attested by the lives of the Fathers who used to say, [when discussing verses and traditions], “Take them literally as they have been .[revealed and) handed down.” Thus Malik, on being asked about ascending (istiwa‘), went so far as to say, “The fact of ascending (istiwa‘) is known but its manner is not; to believe in it is an obligation, to inquire about its manner: is a heresy.”

---

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/oth...religion.islam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Hand of Allah

One person said:
To deny, however, that Allah has a hand is to deny one of His attributes.

But I reply:
No, we should say Allah has the attribute of 'yad' which is not a 'jariha'.
It is not an organ. We should believe in this attribute, and we should believe that the word 'yad' does not mean the 'jariha'.

---

===================

The way I see it, evolution and change spells survival through adaptation.

Languages are constantly changing and evolving, which is why Chaucer and Shakespeare sound so different from our everyday speech.

The universe itself seems to be changing and evolving, from the big bang, and continual expansion, with occasional supernovas, and baby stars.

I think that religions and philosophies which have the capacity for change are preferable to religions and philosophies which are frozen in time.

You know, it wasn't until the 1846 that general anesthesia was first used at Mass General Hospital

http://www.ehistory.com/world/amit/d...m?amit_id=2234

Islam speaks against intoxication. Anesthesia is definitely a form of intoxication. Also Islam is very much in favor of imitating the Prophet Muhammed in every aspect of his life, grooming, attire, cuisine, etc. Now, I am quite certain that Muhammed never had a surgical or dental procedure. But if he DID happen to have an operation, I am quite certain that he had to suffer through it without the aid of local or general anesthesia. Now the world has changed, since then. So, if someone were really sincere about Islam, and avoiding intoxication, and imitating the Prophet Mohammed, then I would expect them to refuse any sort of anesthesia. Yet, I am quite certain that all Muslims, up to the most respected Imams and Ayatollahs, hasten to have surgical and dental procedures when the need arises, and do so with the aid of local and general anesthesia.

This seems to me a bit of a "sticky wicket".

By the way, did you know that George Washington had major surgery, without anesthesia, and that it possibly extended his life by an additional 10 years?

http://www.founderspatriots.org/articles_wash_med.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carbuncle

In 1787 Washington had a severe bout with what is described as a rheumatic like condition in that he could not raise his arms above his shoulders and spent much time in bed. This may have been due to a type of arthritis arising from an inflammatory condition of the blood vessels surrounding the bony joints. In 1789 approximately six months after his inauguration as our first president, he developed cramps, fever and chills and was found to have a carbuncle (inflamed mass under the skin) near the thigh bone which was crudely removed by surgery without anesthesia. During this time he also developed conjunctivitis and pneumonia and was unable to perform his presidential duties for 109 days! As far as is recorded General Washington continued his presidency without medical problems thereafter.

---

Both Judaism and Islam forbid lending on interest, which is deemed usury.

No one in the times of either Moses or Mohammed could possibly foresee this world of modern economy and medicine. In our world, it becomes essential to use banking of some sort, as well as stocks and bonds, which automatically involves us in the loan business, indirectly. Islamic countries have devised institutions which allow religious Muslims to borrow and repay without any involvement in usury. Jewish Talmudic scholars have devised rules which allow an observant Jew to invest in the stock market, and yet not feel guilty for having the investment labor on the Sabbath day.

But all of this legalism is a struggle to force something static and frozen to evolve with changing times.

If God/Allah is all-wise and creates humans in the image and likeness of God, then why is there some necessity for male circumcision (or female circumcision in some cultures, though this practice is disputed)? Why are we created with something which ought not to be there, and requires removal?

There is a verse in the Psalms which explicitly states that "the years allotted to a human being are three score and 10 (70) or perhaps four score (80) and what is beyond this is toil and travail." Suppose medical science reaches a point where it is possible to extend an individual's life to 150 or 200 years. Does this mean that God did not have the foresight to realize that one day such longevity might be possible? Would it be sinful in the eyes of a fundamentalist to avail ourselves of a technology which permits such longevity?

(continuation of post above).
Why were swine created, if they are unclean and haram (forbidden)? Each year, many animal and plant species become extinct. Why are pigs not cast into extinction by the divine will of the Almighty?

http://www.world-destiny.org/a44com.htm

Pig is one of the most curious of all words. It is in Old English as pigga, but its origins are unknown. The Hebrew word piggool (Strongs number 6269 )means "fetid," "unclean," and "to stink!"

(end of continuation)
==================================
Let us compare the 96th Surah of the Qu'ran with the Biblical account of creation in Chapter 2 of Genesis:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/096.qmt.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dust and Clots

AL-ALAQ (THE CLOT, READ)
YUSUFALI: Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:

Genesis 2:7- "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

---

Neither account precludes the concept of evolution. God/Allah is a Fashioner who fashions man out of something which is pre-existing. These accounts may scarcely be called creation "ex nihil" (out of nothing), a presto-chango wave of a magician-Deity's wand.

And where did the blood come from? Or where did the dust come from?

I, just now, searched google.com on : scientists evolution "a proven fact"

Most of the links returned were religious organizations arguing against evolution. The following link seems to be a useful summary of the scientific arguments in favor of evolution

http://rwor.org/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5.htm

I wonder why a perfect and unchanging Deity would take the trouble to create an imperfect and changing universe (or universes).

There is an old conundrum which poses the same question in this manner:

"IF we assume that God is perfect, lacking in no respect, and also all-wise, doing nothing without a reason, then we may deduce one of the two following conclusions: either act of creation on the part of the Deity serves no purpose since the Deity is perfect and lacks nothing (making the creation extraneous and superfluous), and hence the Deity is not all-wise, having done something which serves no purpose; OR the act of creation WAS necessary, since something WAS lacking, which would imply that, prior to the creation the Deity was somehow lacking and incomplete, and therefore, not perfect."

We cannot have a Deity who is both perfect and all-wise and who also creates. One or the other must go. Perfection or Wisdom, which shall it be?

Sitaram feels that wood is at the heart of all these problems. Everyone has a chip on their shoulder, the theists, the atheists, the scientists, the theologians.

The origin of 'chip on someone's shoulder' is from an early American schoolboy ritual before fights. One boy would place a woodchip on his shoulder and dare the other boy to knock it off. If the other boy knocked the chip of wood off of the first boy's shoulder then a fight would occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mud and Stars

Two men look out from the same bars:
One sees mud and the other sees stars.

---

It all depends upon your point of view.

Keep in mind that Evolution is still a theory. Theories cannot be proven. In spite of all supporting evidence, we can never say that evolution is fact. If one case arises which contradicts the theory, the theory becomes void.

Conversely, it takes an enormous amount of faith to believe in something like Creationism. I'm a Catholic but that doesnt mean I have to believe God created the universe in a week. Technically, if He lit the fuse on the Big Bang, it only took a fraction of a second :)

Evolution takes faith, just as creationism does...it's just a more logical answer so it's easier to believe in. If you want to know a little about the theories around the start of the universe etc I recomend "a brief history of time" - Stephen Hawking. It won't give you a definitive answer but it might shed some light on personal beliefs, whatever they may be. It isnt really a partisen work and its a fairly easy read, considering the subject matter.

To me at least, Evolution takes MORE faith than Creation. More faith in chance, fate and time. To those who believe in Evolution- those are your gods. Still atheists?

And Evolution, the theory bit, makes no sense to me...like I said it takes more faith to believe that time, fate and Chance (such are your gods and goddesses) came together at exactly the same precise moment, randomly, and that's how the big bang happened. Time monitered her work, and little atoms began to form, and with Fate's help, put together to form cells. And all three gods put their heads together to form the simplest life form on earth. Time improved the form, chance put it in earth, and fate provided air, oxygen, water and food for that masterpiece to live.... and time went on...... insects were formed, fish were formed, birds were formed, animals were formed, humans were formed..... and time, chance and fate decided to stop, for they were happy with progress.....

Come, come! Surely you must own that the simple believe which states that God created everything in six days on unquestionable authority and evidence is by FAR easier to believe compared to everything happening at the EXACT SAME split second in order to form what no MAN or scientists or Professor of science has ever done? Create something out of nothing, life out of stillness, and the equivalent of sunshine, food, water and air to nourish it....as well as the cycle which ensures that the sunshine, food, water and air never fades away?

Can you presume to say that? None has done such a thing! And yet your faith is so strong in Time, Fate and Chance as to say that they did it??? Out of the thousands of years to meet, they all chose the SAME moment to??? :brow:

Wouldn't you say the same thing about Virgin Mary as well? That it hadn't before and hasn't happened since then? Or the Jesus' coming back alive?

Aberration,

Evolution is a theory, like Quantum Theory. Without Quantum Theory, you wouldn't have been able to post to the LNF. Like Quantum Theory, Evolution is one of the best explanations the human mind has created to explain the way the world works. It is to the credit of science that it maintains that these explanations are theories. One can't imagine many theologians talking about the theory of God.

I suspect that the 'Evolution is only a theory' brigade are really trying to say that scientific theory is no better than religious theory. Of course, that is complete rubbish. The theory of God is a poor explanation of the way the world works in comparison to Evolution or Quantum Theory

Regarding scientific theory, i suggest you read this http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...1alabama.shtml

Correct, I think there is nothing to add.

except that i was trying not to take i side in my little post there :)

I BELIEVE in evolution, gravity (which is still theory) and two-for-one icecreams on thursday. I also believe in God but I dont believe that He created the world in six days, nor in heaven, hell, or divine intervention. Philosophical debates like this arise when people read too much into texts like the bible, which is merely a moral guideline. A few of my teachers at school (catholic school) hated me because I refused to listen to their dogmatic doo doo. For a while I thought of becoming an aetheist but I didnt much feel like gaining 30kgs and I dont really like Star Trek.

I see no reason that scientific theory cannot co-exist with a divine presence.

You are from Brisbane.
Robbie MacEwen is from there, isn't he.
He has just won his third stage at the Tour, great!

Thus, from your last sentence, everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers.

Scientific theories do not contradict God's existence, anyway a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality, he must read the world in physical terms, since the two languages, of Sciences and Religion, CANNOT have the same ends, means, power, meaning, as Galileo first understood and demonstrated.
Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge.

You CANNOT believe in scientific theories, they are ways to put some oder in our universe of feelings, the problem with this is that you don't actually know on what set of events the theory will apply, that's why Physics change: they aim at magnifying the application-field of a theory.

"everyone can see how yours is a fantastic country for cyclists, a bit less for thinkers."
Probably right, though. But that might have something to do with our country being a nation of drinkers.

Im curious as to why you think I can't believe in scientific theories when I've already stated that I do. I don't believe in any Christian mythology except for the presence of a divine power.

Religion no longer attempts to explain the world. It is there to guide you through it. You accuse me of having antiquated ideas about science without having the remotest understanding of my knowledge in the field. On the other hand, I know that you have antiquated ideas about religion.

"Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world" - You have grossly missinterpreted the reasons for having religion in the first place. This faux pas is typical of the "piously preaching aethesist" of whom I have encountered many.

Who's to say that in the beginning (the Big Bang) God thought of all the rules that would govern the universe, whipped out a little thunderbolt and blew everything accross the cosmos, then left it to its own devices.

I find it a little disconcerting to think that human beings could be the highest intelligence in our humble little universe (I also believe in life on other planets). Of course, we may be and if you can disprove the existance of God I'll happily eat my words. You dont have to agree in the existance of God but I think that you should perhaps explain your argument instead of repeating such sanctimonious dribble as - "a single man who wants to understand Science, CANNOT, today, accept this mithological way of approaching reality"

I said: "Religion is nowadays useless to explain the world, if you are a man of some knowledge."

If you refer to common people, you are right, religion is a way like others (EG advertisement) to guide you through the choices of your life, I was referring to "men of knowledge" (Notice, I haven't said "Culture")

If you are not a Physicist, you can actually believe in scientific theories.

The problem of christian mithology lies in the fact that you live in an anglo-saxon country, I live in old europe, in poor older catholic Italy, you are more similar to ancient oriental countries, really monotheist, we are still pagan and politheist, ours is a mithology of the past, yours is a mithology of the present, it is modern, changing along with society, so it doesn't seem a real mithology (businessmen, terror, nation, ecc...).

I wonder why it has to be an either/or debate? Not that it's a simple matter to pull evolution and creation together, but is it really so important? The world exists--what does it matter if people differ in how they think it got here? I would argue that the problem is forcing others to choose one or the other... it is your deal what you choose to support, believe or accept for yourself.

Well Karanae at this point it appears to be more of an education v. disagreement sort of "debate" in the world over evolution's place. A lot of folks only disagree with the concept because they don't fully understand it, though there are quite a few that are certainly valid in their disagreements after learning all about it.

Most people I've ever met that don't believe in evolution tend to ask: "Where's the evidence?" More often than not, and that's what I'm basing the thought above on. There's plenty of it and most are more than willing to dispense it when asked in the form of fossil records and gene records. Guess all I'm saying is: Nobody expects to change someone else's mind, really, but sometimes we would like to be the one that pushes someone a little closer to that line of acceptance.

Besides, what else are people to do on message boards if we can't argue? :P