Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Evolution and religion

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Just started reading 'The Selfless Gene' by Charles Foster, it's on this very subject... will tell you more when I know. May be an interesting read for you?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    ...
    As to the original question, of which I didn't actually read all of, so excuse me if I missed the whole point, but the idea of 'intelligent design' can be seen as a sort of half-way house?
    Which is not true at all.

    ID is Creationism. It assumes something, and then looks for evidence of the assumption. A hypothesis, one with no evidence.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Here's my personal view (as a Christian), without starting any argument, which I know I'm very good at...

    I believe God is love and because He is love he decided to make the human race that looks, sounds and smells like Him - in much the same way that a loving couple makes a child that looks, sounds and smells just like them too.

    I don't really see any problem between the Bible's description of God as our loving creator and Father as at loggerheads with the scientific theory of evolution. I haven't got the best appreciation of science (unless an A*A*A in triple science at GCSE counts :L), but I'm pretty convinced evolution is for real, given what I have learnt. Is it not possible that God used the "tool of evolution" if you like, to create the world in all it's natural beauty?

    As a Christian who appreciates science (despite not having a very in depth knowledge of it because economics is more my thing!), I think that however He decided to make the world, He made the world with loving care in His heart. We ought to show that loving care to all creation, especially to one another, being made in God's own likeness.

    But hey, you asked for my view. And I'm sure everyone else's is different, so I'm not here for any kind of argument. But in my faith - God is love and everything else is just embellishment and detail.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alpharius)
    Which is not true at all.

    ID is Creationism. It assumes something, and then looks for evidence of the assumption. A hypothesis, one with no evidence.
    Not even in that it accepts evolution but sees God as the driving force behind it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Perseveranze)
    We don't believe in the common descent aspect of evolution, that Adam(pbuh) was or descended from ape-like/sub-human creatures.

    There may have been such creatures that existed during the time of Adam(pbuh), but we don't believe there's any evolutionary connection between the two.
    Yeah, because we're 'special'...
    • 53 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    Not even in that it accepts evolution but sees God as the driving force behind it?
    The problem is intelligent design doesn't fully comply with evolution, given that one of the base premises is that there are structures in living organisms too complex to have evolved naturally. Whatever name you put on it, ID necessitates some sort of intervening force for which there is no evidence.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    Not even in that it accepts evolution but sees God as the driving force behind it?
    That's not ID.

    It disagree's with including humans among other animals (they claim humans did not evolve from anything). Therefore in my eyes they do not accept the theory of evolution.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrodiction)
    Yeah, because we're 'special'...
    In the sense that we can think morally, yea, I'd say so.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
    In the sense that we can think morally, yea, I'd say so.
    Sure, but this emerges from the only real difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom - a highly organised nervous system.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    The problem is intelligent design doesn't fully comply with evolution, given that one of the base premises is that there are structures in living organisms too complex to have evolved naturally. Whatever name you put on it, ID necessitates some sort of intervening force for which there is no evidence.
    That's the whole irreducible complexity argument, right?

    And am I right in saying that ID will, as a basic explanation, try to categorise features of the world as coming from an 'intelligent creator', natural selection, just down to chance, or a combination of any of these?
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alpharius)
    That's not ID.

    It disagree's with including humans among other animals (they claim humans did not evolve from anything). Therefore in my eyes they do not accept the theory of evolution.
    Oh OK - I wasn't aware of that. On what basis can they claim that? Is it just teh purely theological argument that humans are above animals?
    • 53 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    That's the whole irreducible complexity argument, right?
    Yep.

    And am I right in saying that ID will, as a basic explanation, try to categorise features of the world as coming from an 'intelligent creator', natural selection, just down to chance, or a combination of any of these?
    The only thing ID really looks for is evidence of intelligent causation. It's willing to acknowledge the roles of natural selection and other mechanisms, but the primary target is finding enough evidence to get itself into science curriculums alongside evolution in order to gain a foothold for fully fledged creationism. Check out The Wedge Strategy, it's a leaked document that pretty much outlines the objectives of the ID movement.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrodiction)
    Sure, but this emerges from the only real difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom - a highly organised nervous system.
    And that makes us special nonetheless.

    And I'm sure there's more to that than simply organisation of the nervous system.

    And even then, it'd be due to the organisation of the brain and what is present more than the nervous system.

    EDIT: I realise the brain is part of the nervous system, I want to make the comparison in terms of what is different between humans and other animals in terms of what makes us unique.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
    And that makes us special nonetheless.

    And I'm sure there's more to that than simply organisation of the nervous system.

    And even then, it'd be due to the organisation of the brain and what is present more than the nervous system.
    The brain is the centre of the nervous system... this is GCSE biology.
    It makes us about as special as any other creature which has a unique distinguishing feature.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Yep.



    The only thing ID really looks for is evidence of intelligent causation. It's willing to acknowledge the roles of natural selection and other mechanisms, but the primary target is finding enough evidence to get itself into science curriculums alongside evolution in order to gain a foothold for fully fledged creationism. Check out The Wedge Strategy, it's a leaked document that pretty much outlines the objectives of the ID movement.
    Interesting. Thanks, I'll have a look at that - I like a good conspiracy!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amos36)
    Here's my personal view (as a Christian), without starting any argument, which I know I'm very good at...

    I believe God is love and because He is love he decided to make the human race that looks, sounds and smells like Him - in much the same way that a loving couple makes a child that looks, sounds and smells just like them too.

    I don't really see any problem between the Bible's description of God as our loving creator and Father as at loggerheads with the scientific theory of evolution. I haven't got the best appreciation of science (unless an A*A*A in triple science at GCSE counts :L), but I'm pretty convinced evolution is for real, given what I have learnt. Is it not possible that God used the "tool of evolution" if you like, to create the world in all it's natural beauty?

    As a Christian who appreciates science (despite not having a very in depth knowledge of it because economics is more my thing!), I think that however He decided to make the world, He made the world with loving care in His heart. We ought to show that loving care to all creation, especially to one another, being made in God's own likeness.

    But hey, you asked for my view. And I'm sure everyone else's is different, so I'm not here for any kind of argument. But in my faith - God is love and everything else is just embellishment and detail.
    How do you not see that you belong to a cult? Seriously, Scientology sounds more rational than what you've just written. I'm not even joking or exaggerating.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    Not even in that it accepts evolution but sees God as the driving force behind it?
    If it is intelligently designed it is purposely created. There is no evidence what so ever for such a hypothesis.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    It entirely depends what you're referring to. The existence of the respiratory system? No, that is not theoretical. However it is not a law, it is an object, so the comparison isn't valid. The chemical processes that occur within the reparatory system? They aren't theoretical and are laws, but that's because they're within the realm of chemistry and not biology, so the comparison isn't valid. How it operates is theoretical, not a law.
    well, it goes from mathematics -> physics -> chemistry -> biology -> social sciences.....

    any how, the respiratory system still comes under biology, just like gravity comes under physics, although we use mathematics to understand it.
    • 53 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammy-lou)
    Interesting. Thanks, I'll have a look at that - I like a good conspiracy!
    More of a failed conspiracy than anything, look at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial where ID basically gets labelled as creationism by a federal judge, ironically a Lutheran judge appointed by creationist George Bush and supported (until then at least) by Rick Santorum.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Evolution does not favour the strong. It favours those most likely to survive.
    Altruism has emerged through evolution so it isn't all brutal and arduous.

    Plus your comment on the theory being 'devoid of morality', every theory is devoid of morality, because morality isn't a applicable to a theory. An example: Stem cells can be modified to create almost any cell in the human body. That isn't moral or immoral, it just is. The fact that you effectively have to cause an abortion to get them for scientific purposes is a moral issue but not part of the theory.
    But what I mean really is that most of those favoured by natural selection would be the stronger and more aggresive individuals (in physique and/or in intelligence) as it tends to correlate with the ability to survive and procreate in a darwinian world.


    What I meant by 'devoid of morality' was precisely that - it is a process that has no morals rather than is immoral. As you said; it just is. For those that believe 'God' oversaw evolution, however, the process seems to defy any notion that a moral creator could have orchestrated it.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 24, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE results day

Waiting for your grades? Let off some steam in our results chat megathread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.