The Evolution Conflict - Page 13

Avinash · 05-25-2004, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeQuark

If you define evolution as "the process of creation," as I do, then why must there be any contradiction between evolution and the Biblical account of creation?

You are right, there is no true contradiction. Those early spiritual writers wrote their mythical account from the best of their intuition. So it may make some sense if you see it as a symbolic representation of what "really" happened. Similar representations can be found in the Hindu scriptures.

The problems arise when certain people take the views of scientific thought as being at odds with what "God tells us through His holy word". They then feel they have to chose one or the other and chose to reject the results of science. In Europe such people are a tiny minority but I believe in the US in some schools the whole idea of evolution has been declared a taboo, which strikes me as a sad thing in this day and age.

StrangeQuark · 05-25-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andreas

You are right, there is no true contradiction. Those early spiritual writers wrote their mythical account from the best of their intuition. So it may make some sense if you see it as a symbolic representation of what "really" happened. Similar representations can be found in the Hindu scriptures.

The problems arise when certain people take the views of scientific thought as being at odds with what "God tells us through His holy word". They then feel they have to chose one or the other and chose to reject the results of science. In Europe such people are a tiny minority but I believe in the US in some schools the whole idea of evolution has been declared a taboo, which strikes me as a sad thing in this day and age.

In schools I don't know, but there is a tendency to literally fight anything that doesn't fit with traditional concepts. Some people want to ban Holloween, for instance, because it is a "pagan" sabbat. It's completely unconstitutional if nothing else, but they still want to do it.

I have some friends who are either Catholic or Protestant who accept the evidence of evolutionary processes and little more. However, there are many that vehemently quote line after line of the Bible as "proof," not only that evolution is wrong but also that practictioners of any other belief are going to hell.

Here's another little tidbit:

Are you familiar with Pat Robertson? Of course, I have nothing against fundamentalist Christianity per say, yet sometimes I can't help but wonder about some of its followers' behavior. I have on occassion watched the 700 Club (I like to hear everyone's side of the story, even if I don't agree). After the war started, there was a guest on the show who was a converted Muslim. Together, he and Pat Robertson proceeded to rant about how the Qu'ran says something about "kill anyone who has a different religion."

I haven't read the Qu'ran, so I'm not sure of the accuracy of their claims. Yet, even if it's true, I couldn't help thinking "What of it?" The Bible says the same thing, in Exodus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." And that's not the only point it makes either!

I understand that there have been numerous translations of the Bible. The problem is that people like Pat Robertson apparently do not. All they see is "the True and Revealed Word of God."

juantoo3 · 05-25-2004, 02:25 PM

Kindest Regards, StrangeQuark!

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrangeQuark

In schools I don't know, but there is a tendency to literally fight anything that doesn't fit with traditional concepts. Some people want to ban Holloween, for instance, because it is a "pagan" sabbat. It's completely unconstitutional if nothing else, but they still want to do it.

I haven't read the Qu'ran, so I'm not sure of the accuracy of their claims. Yet, even if it's true, I couldn't help thinking "What of it?" The Bible says the same thing, in Exodus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." And that's not the only point it makes either!

I understand that there have been numerous translations of the Bible. The problem is that people like Pat Robertson apparently do not. All they see is "the True and Revealed Word of God."

I think I understand what you are saying, and I hear it an awful lot. The problem I see, is how pagan Christianity is in practice, and how Christian paganism is in practice. Just a thought, from my perspective.

StrangeQuark · 05-25-2004, 05:03 PM

Hmmm? Are you refering to the myriad of pagan traditions practiced within Christian churches? Or something else altogether?

juantoo3 · 05-25-2004, 09:30 PM

Kindest Regards, StrangeQuark!

Of course!

Since this is headed off topic, might I suggest taking this aspect to a separate thread if we desire to continue so we do not derail this one?

In the strictest sense, evolution is the morphology of life forms. In a more liberal sense it can include the morphology of society and culture, which includes history. I suspect where these comments were heading deals in the more liberal sense.

StrangeQuark · 05-25-2004, 10:32 PM

Thank you, juantoo3. Very sensible idea about the new thread--no problem!

My sincerest apologizes to all for leading the topic so far astray.

juantoo3 · 05-25-2004, 11:31 PM

We can continue this aspect of the conversation here:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...0442#post10442

juantoo3 · 01-28-2005, 04:36 AM

Just a bump to bring this thread back out of the vault.

Bandit · 01-28-2005, 05:41 AM

the thread is so long so I am just going off the last page here. yes I agree the majority of Christianity and most all religions -including the new ones- are in steep pagan myth without realizing it.

There is also the 'missing link (s)' in the evolution theory.
That is all I can say.

juantoo3 · 06-07-2005, 05:55 AM

Bump again since it is relative to another thread.

THUNK · 06-07-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mohsin

Evolution is nothing more then a theory and is totally unaccepted by the Quran.

For over 20 years 2 British scientists studied Finches on an island in the Galapagos starting 1975.

Following a volcano only 1 species existed on the island.

Due to a chance biological mutation a chick was born with a larger stronger beak. It did well as it was able to crack seeds the existing population couldnt. Its offspring had the same beak. This new species persisted and flourished alongside the other group.

A while later another 'mutant' was born. It had a longer beak which suited other plant food sources. That also lead to the establishment of a new colony alongside the others.

That is evolution and survival of the fittest in action.

Afterall, there are over 20000 species of Longhorn beetle in the UK and there are many other types of Beetle besides the Longhorn and Beetles are only one type of insect. Why would any God go to such trouble? Surely one type of Longhorn Beetle would have been fine?

path_of_one · 06-07-2005, 08:05 PM

Wow. This is a post so long that I just haven't the time or patience to read all of it. My contribution will simply be that in my experience most people who don't "believe" in evolution, or see a problem with evolution and creationism being held as compatible beliefs, 1. don't know what a theory is 2. don't know a lot about how science works and generates theories, and why creationism can't be a theory 3. don't know much about genetics, population genetics, and evolution itself and 4. have never read Darwin, and so they think he's against God and/or an atheist when he was actually a believer. Once you become educated in those four, the evolution/creationism argument generally becomes rather moot.

Finally, I just can't see how it matters. Unless you're a population biologist, or a person working on new antibiotics, or a paleontologist... it's kind of irrelevant. Interesting, but irrelevant. It is odd to me how much energy and time and money is wasted by Christian churches to fight against evolutionary theory when there's a lot more important and immediately relevant things to work on- like taking care of the poor (which was a big deal to Jesus). Imagine all that effort being put into educating people about the evils of materialism! Overall, the belief in the mechanism of how all these species came to be (not the cause of it all- evolutionary theory is about mechanism, not causal factors) seems like a minor point that for some reason has become this huge debate in the U.S. Very strange.

Faithfulservant · 06-07-2005, 09:03 PM

Throughout most of the last century, researchers developing the synthetic theory of evolution primarily focused on microevolution, which is slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. Until the 1970's, it was generally thought that these changes from generation to generation indicated that past species evolved gradually into other species over millions of years.This model of long term gradual change is usually referred to asgradualism or phyletic gradualism. It is essentially the 19th century Darwinian idea that species evolve slowly at a more or less steady rate. A natural consequence of this sort of macroevolution.

Random mutations provide variations that help a species survive. Muntations in regulator genes in particular can provide radically new variations in the organization of the body and its important structures. As a consequence changes in these genes can result in a greater likelihood that at least some individuals will have variations that will allow them to survive during times of extinction level events. In this situation, subsequent generations would be significantly changed from the generations before the period of severe natural selection. In other words, regulator genes probably play an important part in the rapid change phases of punctuated evolution.

THUNK I believe what you are speaking of is microevolution. A species changing to adapt in order to survive.

Quahom1 · 06-07-2005, 11:06 PM

Actually Faithful is correct. Not one "new" species of animal, plant or microbe has developed (that can be proven) in the past 10,000 years. Only modifications to existing species to help survive, while maintaining their base origins. However, 100s of thousand of species of life have gone extinct during that same time. The Galopagos finches are still finches, just like humans are still human, even though some are bigger, faster and live longer than before, which can be attributed to better health and diet behaviors.

v/r

Q

path_of_one · 06-07-2005, 11:31 PM

But, Q, "finch" is a folk category, not a species designation. There are many species of finches. Species, by definition, don't interbreed and produce viable offspring. So, any population of finches that no longer breeds with the parent population is, by definition, a new species. "Human" is both a folk category and a species, only because there is only one living species of human, H. sapiens sapiens. However, something like "pine tree," is only a folk category that corresponds roughly to a genus, not a species. People are awful at making specific and varietal distinctions if they aren't trained to do so (see Brent Berlin's famous "Ethnobiological Classification"), but it doesn't mean those species distinctions don't exist.

10,000 years is not enough time to see new genera, but I have no doubt there have since been new species; we've only really been catalogueing this stuff for the last couple hundred years. The end of the Ice Age saw the rise of at least thousands of new species as the rain forests of the Americas rose. We are currently in the middle of a major extinction event, caused primarily by humans, so we'll have to see in another long bit what comes of it. So far, though, we are getting rid of natural habitats faster than their inherent species can cope with. And sometimes we're just downright exterminating species, like the buffalo wolves and passenger pidgeons.