Are evolution and the Bible mutually exclusive?

[Anmon]

=Winter wind;498550]gee, I actually (somewhat) agree with you for a change.

How delightful, you might want to think then, if you agree on the above example, that the 'mark' in Revelation may also be symbolism for a microchip implant, such as an RFID.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: HelioPrime Depends on the church I guess. My grade school and above were all spent in catholic schools yet we were taught evolution. I guess the difference is we were taught its as just another subject matter, not focused on it or highlighting it compared to the creation biblical story.

Catholic schools tend to leave religion seperate from science class, I remember my biology teacher vividly telling us that evolution was the current scientific explanation and that it was perfectly compatible with catholicism and that creationism was not to be debated in a science class.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Catholic schools tend to leave religion seperate from science class, I remember my biology teacher vividly telling us that evolution was the current scientific explanation and that it was perfectly compatible with catholicism and that creationism was not to be debated in a science class.

We were never taught creationism. Not in one class in 12 years of school was Genesis ever brought up and studied.

For the best probably. There is no conflict with creation unless you bring it to the front and discuss it as a possible explanation. At the same time you leave evolution as the explanation for life and don't bring it over as anything more than that.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I studied Genesis, but as a religious or literary work, not a science book.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my mustache that no one has pointed out the fact that the bible was written by human beings who were absolutely clueless about the natural world.

Because I hadn't gotten a chance to point that out yet. It doesn't, however, negate Christianity or evolution (or cause a conflict between the two).

It's disingenuous to believe that were implying evolution in the chapters of genesis the way they were implying ship building in the fairy tale of the flood.

Who knows what they were implying? I think they were taking their best guess at where they came from - they guessed that god did it a certain way, they guessed wrong.

Furthermore, this line of reasoning falls apart when we look at how most Christians treat the rest of the bible because you're establishing a dangerously honest precedent. What you're effectively saying is "a passage in the bible that science has determined to be impossible is likely figurative and doesn't literally mean what it says."

Where is the problem with this? Once again you show that your hatred of religion is premised on your misunderstanding of it.

Even the most atheistic historians agree that the Bible is not a single work but a collection of writings that span thousands of years and many, many different authors. There is no reason to think that because one small part of a canon of works is false that the entire thing is false (unless, of course, your argument has its foundation in sweeping generalizations, cough cough). You are making the same argument that creationists do using Piltdown man - one small misrepresentation disproves the entire canon of thought. No doubt when they make that argument you rail against their "intellectual dishonesty", and I'm sure I could find quotes here where you do exactly that.

However, you still need many critical bits of the bible to be literal for Christianity to work. If you have a figurative fall of man then why do you need a literal savior to sacrifice himself.

Because the "figurative" fall of man is a story to represent the personal sin we all face, which is what the savior delivers us from. This is the message contained in many of the Epistles - following Jesus to save yourself from personal sin. Even as soon as the time of the apostle Paul the creation story in Genesis was being ignored (at least by him).

For that matter, how can you claim that Jesus came back from the dead? Isn't coming back from the dead every bit as impossible as the Earth forming in a day or Noah building an entire ark with his bare hands?

Care to share the logic upon which you base this?
A =/= B
A = false, therefore B = false ???

[Technosoul]

Quote by: stevemckay First a background on me. I was raised as a “Christian” (meaning my folks said they believed in God/Jesus but we NEVER went to church) then I embraced the faith wholeheartedly in my late teens (I became a bible thumper). However I have always believed in the scientific explanation of how the universe was formed and how evolution was the driving force behind mankind’s current form. About 11 years ago I was told by an elder that I could not believe in evolution and God and I was asked to either stop talking about evolution in our Bible studies about Genesis or leave the church. That started a faith crisis that took me down a path to becoming an atheist for about 10 years up to my current agnostic state. Now my question: Can you really believe in evolution AND the God that is represented in the bible? I think you can. For example: Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground… Gen 8:20 Then Noah made an altar to the Lord…. No one, I assume, believes Noah magically created an altar but, rather, had to gather stone, pile them up, etc... He had to build it in stages. The Bible does not specifically mention those steps but we should assume they were there. So why do many Judeo-Christians assume the creation of man happened in one step and not in stages from basic organic molecules all the way up to a modern human? From what I understand the word used in the original Hebrew for “Day” actually means “an indeterminate period of time” so saying he had to do it in one 24 hour day does not fly.

Yes, for example the "day of the Lord" can be interpreted as the whole time for which the presence of the Lord, one way or another, is evident.

The 6 days of the Lord God could establish a base of 6 in the understanding of math where 12 would be a completed unit. As in a dozen eggs or the 12 month calendar.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Anmon This is how I see it too, but explaining stuff scientifically was beyond most peoples comprehension then so storys were used instead. For instance, Gen 2.7 could be interpreted for extremely small- 'dust' like molecules DNA, and we are know that human beings broken down to the solids are actually just a lot of minerals including iron, just like dust which is from the earth.

Yes, and it is odd that no one has written a new Bible using our more modern terms or words, that would be an interesting "read" if someone got around to doing that.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez on the other hand of what? Religion? Religion can explain how wonderful creation really is? Carefully crafted trail of design and intent implies there is a designer. In order to know something is designed you need the blueprints as well as the information about the designer. So far we know that order does not need order, we know that randomness can create order. And yet you forget that you are a bunch of h2o, being contained in a 3 foot ditch. ALthough you think the ditch was perfectly made for you, you forget to realize you, the h2o, simply just fits itself into whatever ditch it randomly falls into.

Creation can be controled by attraction rather then as forced pushing from behind. Random events can only be substained because they find order, if they do not find order then they would not survive and would vanish as part of the momentum being developed.

Seeking order is the biblical message and also one that fits the evolutionary evidence.

The fact that we can talk on phones would be supernatural in the eyes of primitive people who did not know about such advanced technology, science is always doing supernatural things that are not common in nature. How do we know that the box Noah had in his boat was not a two way radio?

The ditch anology works because the Lord said "I go to prepare a place for you".

Who is to say that the ditch is not designed as a place to be fullfilled?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Halofan48 The burden of proof lies on those who say it didn't happen by chance. It's as if i said that there are invisible flying elves all over the world. It wouldn't be on you to prove they didn't exist. It would be on me to prove they did exist. understand?

The concept of intelligent design is proof but denied by science, because proof is in the eye of the beholder.

[Morality Games]

I would be incredibly disappointed if the religious couldn't somehow make evolution work into their faith, and yet I don't like that they do.

The concept of intelligent design is proof but denied by science, because proof is in the eye of the beholder.

In a way. Every being has their own "standard of truth", a set of logical rules sensory information must be consistent with in order to be considered actual by each individual person. Nonetheless, science operates by its own "standard of truth" -- a set of logical rules which came before Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design doesn't stack with the conditions of the scientific method, so it is widely considered pseudo-science.

The institution of science has a more refined eye for truth than the average person. It is a tougher critic.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. Not without sacrificing any and all intellectual honesty. I haven't read the thread yet, but I'm willing to bet my mustache that no one has pointed out the fact that the bible was written by human beings who were absolutely clueless about the natural world. It's disingenuous to believe that were implying evolution in the chapters of genesis the way they were implying ship building in the fairy tale of the flood. Furthermore, this line of reasoning falls apart when we look at how most Christians treat the rest of the bible because you're establishing a dangerously honest precedent. What you're effectively saying is "a passage in the bible that science has determined to be impossible is likely figurative and doesn't literally mean what it says." However, you still need many critical bits of the bible to be literal for Christianity to work. If you have a figurative fall of man then why do you need a literal savior to sacrifice himself. For that matter, how can you claim that Jesus came back from the dead? Isn't coming back from the dead every bit as impossible as the Earth forming in a day or Noah building an entire ark with his bare hands? You're better off embracing intellectual honesty and discarding the whole mess.

The literal savior was not saving people from sins, but fullfilling the Golden Rule (do unto others). Allowing God to suffer via the person of Jesus all the hardships that creation suffered. Therefore God is not above his own golden rule. For God suffered sickness, judgement, and death as in that story via and through Jesus, along with a number of other things that I did not mention, such as rejection and temptation, and speaking but not being comprehended such as what happened to the people at the tower of Babylon. The story is not fully understood yet, by some relgions.

The Noah story has it's symbolic messages that are used to eplain a number of things.

Now Mary M. had a vision of Jesus after he was put to death, that he returned. Many people feel the presence of a loved one after they die, and some might even vision a ghostly image of that person, or see them in the faces of other people. That is not uncommon. It was a vision simular to the dream that a diciple had about Jesus walking on water. Dreams and visions are all a important part of any religion. Daniel had a lot of them. For such visionary dreams are the terminology of symbolisms that can be interpreted once one knows how to do that with success. And that is part of how things work relaitive to the human phyic.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: stevemckay Now my question : Can you really believe in evolution AND the God that is represented in the bible ?

#1
Yes
#2
Yes
(God <---> Aliens, in many cases ; see Genesis, Exodus, Ezekiel, for refference purposes)

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind For you, believing in God by itself sacrifices any and all intellectual honesty.

For me? As in you have your own set of logical rules that lets you believe in something without evidence? Thank you for helping to prove my earlier point.

This isn't really the purpose of the thread.

Of course it is. The issue at hand is whether or not the bible and evolution are mutually exclusive. What this implies is that science invalidates part of the bible. It's quite obvious science invalidates the first chapter of genesis (as well as many other parts). My comment is germane to this discussion because Christians (and most theists) are inconsistant when it comes to this concept. Some will allow for evolution to invalidate Genesis. Well, why not let modern biology invalidate the resurrection?

Extreme Atheists and Extreme Christians share an alarming number of view points.

LOL Not this again. I'm sick to death of this hollow and asinine accusation. Get some facts behind what you state or I'll just assume that you're speaking out of desperation rather than any truth.

Islam was based off of the the teachings of Mohammad (mostly), and you tell me what his goal was. I think it may have been hope.

It doesn't matter what Islam was based off. It's disingenuous to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that Islam is used to control people. Especially women.

Scientology isn't a religion by itself Zhavric.

Why not? Because you say so? Because you haven'tbeen indoctrinated from birth to believe it to be one? Because it hasn't had 1600 years to institutionalize itself in Western culture?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Technosoul The literal savior was not ...

The literal savior didn't exist, TS.

[tommy5x]

Quote by: Zhavric For me? As in you have your own set of logical rules that lets you believe in something without evidence? Thank you for helping to prove my earlier point.

It unreasonable and illogical to deny that categorically, which cannot be disproven.

Quote by: Zhavric Some will allow for evolution to invalidate Genesis. Well, why not let modern biology invalidate the resurrection?

Some does not imply all. You cannot invalidate an entire belief ssytem based on a single interpretation. For all we know, this is the seventh day.

Quote by: Zhavric It doesn't matter what Islam was based off. It's disingenuous to ignore the glaringly obvious fact that Islam is used to control people. Especially women.

Morality varies between cultures. "Women cannot speak in church," to use a literalist interpreation of Corinthians.

Quote by: Zhavric Why not? Because you say so? Because you haven'tbeen indoctrinated from birth to believe it to be one? Because it hasn't had 1600 years to institutionalize itself in Western culture?

The Co$ is a cult, put simply. The only thing it's reasonable to based your opinion of it so far are its non-religious (though in order to be a true religion, I feel it has to have established a firm moral grouning in society) practises.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Who knows what they were implying?

We know that they had no clue about evolution. We're talking about a people who thought the entire animal kingdom lived within walking distance of Noah's ark. We're talking about people who were too busy murdering non-believers to study organisms enough to know that life evolves into other life. No. I don't know specifically what they were thinking, but if you think that evolution is an option then you're too far gone to be arguing here. Maybe you think they knew who would win the 18th world series, too?

Where is the problem with this? Even the most atheistic historians agree that the Bible is not a single work but a collection of writings that span thousands of

That's about as far as I made it into your asinine red herring. The issue isn't who wrote the bible or how many people had a hand in it. The issue is modern people deciding "Well, science has proven that this part of the bible is impossible (genesis), but even though science proves this other bit impossible (the resurrection) I'm going to believe in it anyway." That's a double standard which is a fallacy.

Because the "figurative" fall of man is a story to represent the personal sin we all face, which is what the savior delivers us from.

Then, clearly you're okay with a figurative Jesus who didn't literally exist, right?

Care to share the logic upon which you base this?

Already have. I guess I can clarify it. Just for you.

The following is invalid/false logic:

Category X contains things which are impossible (including coming back from the dead and the earth forming in a day).
X1 is possible.

I love how you theists always try (and fail) to redefine what's "possible".

Now, would you care to argue honestly or are you going to continue your Fonceai impression?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games The institution of science has a more refined eye for truth than the average person. It is a tougher critic.

The institution of science only hold any degree of power if you allow it too.

If people refuse to consider a scientific explanation as the only consideration then science holds no power or authority over them.

The only thing left then is the attempts to enforce science as the only acceptable source of authority.

In the end scientific explanations in some way are still a indoctrinated answer. You have to be taught to accept natural explanations as the only valid consideration.

[rez]

Quote by: stevemckay It seems to me religion exists to give hope.

Anybody can give anybody hope at no cost whatsoever.

False hope maybe but hope nonetheless. Hope that there is a reason to things. Hope that deceased loved ones live on. Hope that we will live on, Hope that the universe is not some thoughtless reality.

And yet personal hope and wishes have nothing to do with how reality actually operates. It is unhealthy to not be able to distinguish personal hope and wishes with reality.

To be sure people in power or people who want to have power will exploit that hope… but that is true with many systems that appeal to the masses such as Communism or Nazism.

And yet nobody approves of exploiting hope, so why should people be ok with religion?

I do agree that coming to the conclusion that God is not completely controlling every aspect of the universe and our lives makes “giving humans power” through religion harder… but not impossible. Scientology is a great example of that.

It is a great example of how "beliefs" are a problem.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime In the end scientific explanations in some way are still a indoctrinated answer. You have to be taught to accept natural explanations as the only valid consideration.

If you didn't teach a kid or tell a kid that angels exist, they would never think they existed. They would have no reason to because they don't interact with their daily lives. What would happen is they would maybe imagine they existed, but they would never really think they actually existed. They could also ask "where did the universe come from", but since they were not taught at a very early age that god created the universe, they would investigate the only way they can to try and find the answer.

You also don't have to teach a kid that the Theory of Evolution exists. They can find out themselves. They would naturally ask questions like "Where do babies come from?" and "how do I have arms and legs?" and "why do people die from AIDS?"

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Technosoul Scientology isn't a religion by itself Zhavric.

Quote by: Zhavric Why not ?

Because, Scientology's goal is to take over the reigns of power, while using religious elements as a cover for that purpose.
As the result, the U.S. governing body is monitoring Scientology's activity, closely. It would not surprise me that Scientology is banned officially, what is into effect in Germany, already.