Religion Evolution in Religion

[FortyTwo]

I see quite a bit of opposition to evolution in religion, so I figured I'd make a thread asking exactly why people deny evolution in their religion, and perhaps stir a bit of friendly debate.

What always bugs me about this - and remember, this is my opinion - is that the main opponents of evolution, the fundamentalist Christian groups, don't seem to understand that evolution and their God can both exist. They are not mutually exclusive.

My opinion is that Christians, and any others, who argue against evolution when it is so thoroughly proven to be common sense are blocking the progress of the human race and turning future generations against the simplest of scientific principles, and that this is needless as their beliefs can easily coexist with organic evolution as we understand it.

Thoughts?

 

[Music Platter]

I think that one somewhat common reason for opposing evolution might be the comparison of people to monkeys (and earlier ancestors, of course), which is basically a problem with speciesism, most likely one of the least often recognized types of discrimination.

Also, just because a bunch of scientists say that evolution is proven, does not mean that it is necessarily true. No one really knows what happened in the past, or if it even happened at all. The past is not really proven, more is just "discovered" (conjectured) about it, as we can not currently go back in time.

One more thing: Is firmly denying evolution really that much different than denying the existence of evolution?

 

[Blobbenstein]

It's not just christians anyway. I remember reading that some US fundamentalists were working with some muslim fundamentalists to promote creationism. I guess it would be other religions too, like judaism...I don't know about non-Abrahamic religions.

I suppose there is the thing about being created in the image of god.

I agree with Music Platter, that the past can never be proven, even with a time machine. With a time machine you could never be sure that you had gone to the same past anyway. We can only gather evidence about anything anyway.


eta: I suppose, as Music Platter said, that it is partly about how people feel about animals.
As being stupid and smelly etc...it's a shame.

 

[Amy SF]

Anything that seems inconsistent with a sacred creation myth is considered a danger to a particular religion, presumably because it would cause the religion's adherents to question the creation myth. Case in point: The original version of the movie Planet of the Apes has been banned in India since the 1970's because of its pro-evolution theme. So Hindus don't like evolution, either.

 

[FortyTwo]

I suppose I am referring mostly to the types of people I have seen in America; by far the most common opposition to evolution in the environments I've known is the Conservative Christian right. There is both religious and non-religious opposition elsewhere and even here, but it's hard to argue that any is more prevalent than the Judeo-Christian angle.

Also, just because a bunch of scientists say that evolution is proven, does not mean that it is necessarily true. No one really knows what happened in the past, or if it even happened at all. The past is not really proven, more is just "discovered" (conjectured) about it, as we can not currently go back in time.

Unless the extensive material evidence dating back billions of years to the dawn of life on our planet was somehow falsified or misinterpreted, which is extremely unlikely, evolution did occur.

It does not mean it played out exactly as our modern theories describe it, sure. Unless we observe it directly we can't know that it is 100% the course of events. But the fossil record indicates that these changes happened. Our laboratory experiments make the gradual (or relatively quickly) natural selection of organisms by inherited traits' interaction with environmental factors plain as day. Macrocosmically, the process of artificial selection and its effect on a range of organisms - dogs being the most prominent example, with the oft-ignored evolution of crops to benefit humanity being the second best - proves that natural selection on a large scale is not just probable, but almost impossible to not have occurred.

Whether it was through Darwin's theory of organic evolution or some other, better-fitting process that has yet to be discovered, and assuming (rightfully and reasonably) that the fossil record is not a lie or is not some deviation from natural law placed by a malevolent entity to mislead humankind, organisms did evolve over time.

 

[FortyTwo]

Oh and can I just say, I really don't like the whole "nothing can be proven" mindset. Sure, it makes perfect sense, you can't be totally sure that the rules you know won't just do one thing one minute and then flip-flop the next, but through the process of science we can come to terms with what we know, beyond reasonable doubt, will happen in a certain situation. In the scientific field it is important to keep an open mind considering that theories can change any second, but it is also important to recognize that science exists for the purpose of understanding how the Universe works and it's not beneficial to discovery if one has an existentialist crisis every time they think about the most tested and fundamental laws of nature.

Our Universe, beyond reasonable doubt, operates under a set of natural laws that we can and do demonstrate every time we test them. Simply because uncertainty exists does not mean that it should be assumed. When something is repeatedly shown to occur under certain reproducible circumstances it lapses into the expected event under those circumstances until proven otherwise through additional experimentation; hence, the fossil record is most likely not falsified because we observe the formation of fossils every day, and Darwin's evolution is the most likely candidate behind the change that guides us through that fossil record because we observe it on both a small, present-day scale and a large, historical scale. Also because it's mere common sense that something with the most adequate traits to continue existing under certain conditions will continue to exist with a better survival rate than something that does not have those traits.

I hate to be the typical logic-flaunter and resort to shouting "OCCAM'S RAZOR!" all over the place, but I end up coming to this time and time again.

 

[Blobbenstein]

The trouble with the 'it's proven' approach is that you might stop looking at what might be really going on.


I know some people feel forced into using the word and concept of 'proved' otherwise some people will shout 'AH, well you admit it, it's not proved!!!1!', but using the concept of 'proved' to combat those arguments seems like fighting fire with fire.

If someone wants to use the concept of 'proven' for how they feel about something, then that is ok, but for science as a whole, I'm sure all sorts of things have been declared as proven that turn out to have been wrong.

 

[SummerRain]

I see quite a bit of opposition to evolution in religion, so I figured I'd make a thread asking exactly why people deny evolution in their religion, and perhaps stir a bit of friendly debate.
What always bugs me about this - and remember, this is my opinion - is that the main opponents of evolution, the fundamentalist Christian groups, don't seem to understand that evolution and their God can both exist. They are not mutually exclusive.
My opinion is that Christians, and any others, who argue against evolution when it is so thoroughly proven to be common sense are blocking the progress of the human race and turning future generations against the simplest of scientific principles, and that this is needless as their beliefs can easily coexist with organic evolution as we understand it.
Thoughts?

Well, I'm not religious, I'll start with that. But I have a couple of thoughts:

1) For some people, evolution and their god are mutually exclusive. A lot of peoples have a core belief that God designed and created humans. For some people, they're happy to say that evolution was a tool God used to create humans, for other people that fundamentally goes against what they believe.

2) A lot of people fundamentally misunderstand evolution, and a lot of arguments against evolution display this. For example, I've heard it said "If humans evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?" etc. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and apes share a common ancestor. So I think that's a big part of it - it's easy to forget that it's only recently evolution was taught in schools, furthermore, a couple of generations ago a lot of women in particular weren't taught science at school, so there's a lot of people with a lot less education in science than younger generations. I also think younger generations hear the words "science" and just believe it to be true even if they don't understand it (and I'm sure a lot, maybe even most, people couldn't give a good scientific explanation of evolution if asked), older generations don't tend to do that (in my experience).

Oh and can I just say, I really don't like the whole "nothing can be proven" mindset. Sure, it makes perfect sense, you can't be totally sure that the rules you know won't just do one thing one minute and then flip-flop the next, but through the process of science we can come to terms with what we know, beyond reasonable doubt, will happen in a certain situation. In the scientific field it is important to keep an open mind considering that theories can change any second, but it is also important to recognize that science exists for the purpose of understanding how the Universe works and it's not beneficial to discovery if one has an existentialist crisis every time they think about the most tested and fundamental laws of nature.

Totally agree. In the real world, if you worked as a scientist with the belief that what is true today might flip on it's head tomorrow, you couldn't do any science. You need to work with assumptions, some of them as fundamental as "if today I drop a ball and it falls, if the exact same situation happens tomorrow, I expect the same result". Even in everyday life, if you lived by that assumption, you couldn't function: why eat today, how do I know it'll stop me feeling hungry just because it did in the past? Existentialism makes sense in the abstract but is completely useless in everyday life.

 

[Blobbenstein]

But I think it is good to acknowledge that we are making assumptions. I pilot makes the assumption that the plane he gets into is functioning correctly; he/she can make all the checks but at the end of the day they have to assume that the plane is working correctly, and they put their life in the hands of that assumption, but it doesn't always turn out to be right....of is that a crap analogy?

I personally like to acknowledge that I am making assumptions; it is just a way of thinking about the world that frees the mind a bit I think. It doesn't meant that I think those assumptions will be shown to be wrong most of the time.

If I were a scientist and I was testing some DNA, I would assume that the DNA would have the structure that I had learnt that it died; it might not have one day, but I would test it as if it did. I don't see the harm in acknowledging that that assumption is made.

The idea of proofs and things is used by anti-science people to say that science is a religion. The idea of not having a proof is used by anti-science people too, so I would choose to talk in the most accurate way, myself.

 

[FortyTwo]

The trouble with the 'it's proven' approach is that you might stop looking at what might be really going on.

This is correct; there have been plenty of cases where something is proven and it is soon after rendered completely obsolete by the realization of what was actually going on. The luminiferous ether, for example, was assumed to exist because light was a wave and it had to have a medium to travel through, when in reality light is both a particle and a wave and does not need a medium to travel through.

However, that doesn't mean we should stop trusting things that are proven simply because they could turn up false. In fact, continually exploring proven truths is what often leads to overhauling them. But for the most part if something is reproducible easily under given circumstances then it can be assumed that it will happen again under those circumstances.

I know some people feel forced into using the word and concept of 'proved' otherwise some people will shout 'AH, well you admit it, it's not proved!!!1!', but using the concept of 'proved' to combat those arguments seems like fighting fire with fire.

If someone wants to use the concept of 'proven' for how they feel about something, then that is ok, but for science as a whole, I'm sure all sorts of things have been declared as proven that turn out to have been wrong.

All the time! But what people often forget is that science is a process, not a body of knowledge. It is the same scientific process that helps us to find out the truths behind false assumptions that found those false assumptions in the first place.

 

[FortyTwo]

Well, I'm not religious, I'll start with that. But I have a couple of thoughts:

1) For some people, evolution and their god are mutually exclusive. A lot of peoples have a core belief that God designed and created humans. For some people, they're happy to say that evolution was a tool God used to create humans, for other people that fundamentally goes against what they believe.

2) A lot of people fundamentally misunderstand evolution, and a lot of arguments against evolution display this. For example, I've heard it said "If humans evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?" etc. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans and apes share a common ancestor. So I think that's a big part of it - it's easy to forget that it's only recently evolution was taught in schools, furthermore, a couple of generations ago a lot of women in particular weren't taught science at school, so there's a lot of people with a lot less education in science than younger generations. I also think younger generations hear the words "science" and just believe it to be true even if they don't understand it (and I'm sure a lot, maybe even most, people couldn't give a good scientific explanation of evolution if asked), older generations don't tend to do that (in my experience).

Yep. I meet people like this all the time. It always bothers me because people seem to assume that evolution is way more complicated than it actually is. If we were taught evolution in any meaningful manner in schools then it wouldn't bother me nearly as much as it does, but alas, most of what we learn is just "Darwin did some stuff, here are the finches he studied, also there was this one moth in the industrial age that changed to be pepper like the trees, any questions?"

Totally agree. In the real world, if you worked as a scientist with the belief that what is true today might flip on it's head tomorrow, you couldn't do any science. You need to work with assumptions, some of them as fundamental as "if today I drop a ball and it falls, if the exact same situation happens tomorrow, I expect the same result". Even in everyday life, if you lived by that assumption, you couldn't function: why eat today, how do I know it'll stop me feeling hungry just because it did in the past? Existentialism makes sense in the abstract but is completely useless in everyday life.

Thank you. Far more eloquently stated than I could.

 

[FortyTwo]

Sorry for three posts in a row but these are a bit too long to confine to one or two.

But I think it is good to acknowledge that we are making assumptions. I pilot makes the assumption that the plane he gets into is functioning correctly; he/she can make all the checks but at the end of the day they have to assume that the plane is working correctly, and they put their life in the hands of that assumption, but it doesn't always turn out to be right....of is that a crap analogy?

No, that's a good analogy, I suppose, although the laws of nature are a bit more predictable than an airplane. But if an airplane goes down then we can look into what made it go down and be sure that we don't make that same mistake again. It might surprise us, and we might learn a lot of new things about how to make airplanes safer, but that doesn't mean that airplanes that work well suddenly stop working well simply because this particular airplane exhibited more unexplained behavior than expected.

I personally like to acknowledge that I am making assumptions; it is just a way of thinking about the world that frees the mind a bit I think. It doesn't meant that I think those assumptions will be shown to be wrong most of the time.

If I were a scientist and I was testing some DNA, I would assume that the DNA would have the structure that I had learnt that it died; it might not have one day, but I would test it as if it did. I don't see the harm in acknowledging that that assumption is made.

Except for the fact that if the DNA had a different structure you'd know to test it differently because we've used science to discover quite a bit about differing DNA structures.

The idea of proofs and things is used by anti-science people to say that science is a religion. The idea of not having a proof is used by anti-science people too, so I would choose to talk in the most accurate way, myself.

I've never understood that mindset or the people that have it. Science is literally just doing something, looking at what happens, and going "okay, when I do this, that happens." It's just an extension of every problem-solving mechanism we use in our brains in everyday life.

 

[peacefulveglady]

I am a Christian and I believe in creation but, i am not ruling out evolution. Those Christians that oppose it is very strict and closed minded and these are the same people that wants to dictate how a person lives, I blame it on legalism....

 

[FortyTwo]

I'm not going to try and make anyone believe something they don't want to believe, but this is something I've always considered cool.

The account of Creation in Genesis is quite vague, it talks about the order things were made in but couldn't it be a metaphor? I've always thought the idea of a God who meticulously weaved this massive and complex ecosystem, starting from tiny little compounds and building up to greater and greater creations, coming up with his own natural laws and abiding by them for the sake of beauty, is a much more interesting and realistic idea than a God who just points and goes "poof" and suddenly there are animals.

That's what I mean when I say Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive. One can believe in God and believe that this god was responsible for life without ignoring the evidence and rather incorporating it into their spiritual life.

 

[beancounter]

I never understood people's desire to weave evolution and creation together. They are and will always be mutually exclusive.

 

[peacefulveglady]

In genesis you have to pay attention because Gods days are 1,000 days or so, its different then here, I believe each day they speak about while he made things its every 1,000 years. However, that is my belief but, I am just saying..

 

[beancounter]

In genesis you have to pay attention because Gods days are 1,000 days or so, its different then here, I believe each day they speak about while he made things its every 1,000 years. However, that is my belief but, I am just saying..

I realize this isn't the debate forum, but how do you come to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old when scientific methods have shown it to be billions of years old?

 

[FortyTwo]

I never understood people's desire to weave evolution and creation together. They are and will always be mutually exclusive.

I believe 100% that there was no creation event and there is no God. Let me just get that out of the way.

That being said, you have to consider two things:

• People will always believe in a creation event and a god/gods. In 1,000,000 years, if we still exist, most likely there will be people on other planets preaching the Lord's word the same as today.
• Many religious people are obstructing the advance of science by refusing to believe in evolution.

So, if the two can logically be woven together, and presented in a way that makes sense to Creationists, why shouldn't they? Simply because it's unconventional? There are more benefits than flaws to the idea, and many people would accept it that refused to before because it was "off-limits science."

 

[Blobbenstein]

Where do Adam and Eve fit into that weaving together of two ideas, FortyTwo?

That is quite important part of the story.

I've sort of got my own take on Adam and Eve, and my version has whatever beings they were existing before the creation of the Universe, and in fact what happened to them created the Universe, well chain of universes.....but that's just my take.

 

[FortyTwo]

Where do Adam and Eve fit into that weaving together of two ideas, FortyTwo?

That is quite important part of the story.

I've sort of got my own take on Adam and Eve, and my version has whatever beings they were existing before the creation of the Universe, and in fact what happened to them created the Universe, well chain of universes.....but that's just my take.

Adam and Eve could be the first two humans, the biological ancestors of all of us, the first two "true" humans recognized after their biological line had evolved to a point God considered satisfactory.

It's a stretch, I won't lie, and it's much more of a pain to try and make sense than just plain "Adam and Eve never happened," but it makes more sense than "evolution never happened."