This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The evolution theory & religion
In many people views this two are very opposite even irreconcilable and I agree with them , but what do you think ? Should we strive to find a relation of compatibility between this two ?
Do you think only one is corect and the other is certainly false or both have corect parts and false parts?
What is the relation between this two ? is there one?
Where are we going to in our evolution process ?
Closing Statement from E G
Thank you all for your participation to this conversation , have been said many things about the relations between the evolution theory and religion in this conversation , some of you think that there is no relation between them , some of you think like me that there are some relations and this two are compatible ,partially at least, but anyhow it is a thing is certain : you are in the middle of it , it's up to you.Perhaps we the humans will never reach at an agreement but whatever you think (this is important: to think) try to carve your way to truth .
I've saw also here on this conversation some 'special guys' who put themselves to extremes , one of them until I mentioned the name of a scientist I was talking for nothing (even though when I’ve done it I was saying and some stupid things ) , the others was neglecting completely the evolution theory but this are the usual extremes .
Don’t forget : It’s up to you , make it to be rational and true as much as possible ................good luck.
Paul van Zoggel
As it is a conversation you have started and closes in about a day, I would be happy to read your final thoughts if you found answers for yourself on the commonground..
Imagine yourself sitting at this big round table, knights of typing as we all are, you lift the glass of wine, there is a complete silence in the room, everybody looks at you, and you say concluding the conversation camp;
E G 10+
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
Some wise words could be ;) ? You are the orackle in this topic and so many have put their thoughts in.
On the other hand, this Ted conversations is also modern way of 'bar talk' and 'tea house talk', everybody waking up next morning and doing something with was said before... or simple not. So no conclusion needed in this perspective.
E G 10+
Conte Di Salaparuta Mordeforte
E G 10+
Conte Di Salaparuta Mordeforte
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
My spanish/romanian (through my wife) is better :) Google Translate does miracles. Thank you for your kind words.
Carousel, I agree; we are trapped in discussing (old) discussions.
There is such a disconnect between talking about God and meaning and day to day life. When we start to see going shopping, (buying food, drinking wine) and divinity is completely related, only than we can move forward to something new I think. Untill than, it are just words because of the sake of words.
I wish things like this were common knowledge and every community/culture can have it's own comfortable interpretations/methology/gods/messias of it all... to be used for the personal and common good..
It'll come, I have hope.
Michelangelo Gambacorta
We cannot say one is correct and the other is false. Science talks about "theory" not truths. Religions tells us (by means of messengers) what the truths are and we (believers) should accept these dogmas.
Science states a theory and immediately starts working to enhance or refuse it. Religions try to state truths and if evidence shows those truths are not valid, then you are a "nonbeliever".
Evolution theory does not try to answer some questions, religion does. Evolution theory tackles how and if things evolve (once they are here), it does not answer questions about how (as you point out), why we are here nor where or if we will be after death.
I really see no relation between these two.
Religions state dogmas and then build upon them (sometimes rationally).
Science observes the world and tries to discover the inner workings by means of theories (in a rational way). When a male lion gets to the top of the herd, he might go out and try killing the baby lions that were sons of the preceding lion king. This is animal life trying to perpetuate it's genes. Religions would say those are inferior forms of life and God created humans as superior so we do not do that.
I am curious why you would want to find common ground between evolution theory and religion?
E G 10+
Would you say that the science and religion have no common ground ? (so seemed to me , am I right?)
The answer at your last question to me is depending on the answer you will give at the questions from above .........
Michelangelo Gambacorta
"God created life" not fact based, is based on two dogmas (God exists and God created life).
Living things evolve: fact based on findings (see evidence of animals that were the same and were separated by nature and then evolve differently).
The first contradiction is in taking for true something derived from scientific methods instead of taking it from granted because it is written in a holly book (dogmas).
According to religion God created man as it is basically, no evolution.
Ev. theory says man is the evolution of certain animals (monkey like), which in turn are known to be evolution of other animals, and so on until the vary basic components of uni-cells in primordial sea which in turn are now explained in some theories.
The above two paragraphs are in contradiction. They cannot be both true. For Ev. theory and science recently, life appeared after forming by itself. For religion God simply created life and man.
Yes I said science and religion have no common ground, except they talk about the same things (too few to be considered common ground). But the starting points are very different. Religion starts with dogmas (like God exists and created life, you believe in dogmas since there is no proof of it). Science tries to explain whatever can be seen/detected, or otherwise measured. Science is fact based, and an unanswered question is a point of further investigation.
Religion tries to calm the anxiety that arises when some questions remain unanswered. Some are willing to find answers (even blatantly fake made ones) in order to get an answer. Other decide they will live OK even without answers to some of those questions.
E G 10+
"The same things" don't you think it is a too huge common ground?
Michelangelo Gambacorta
Ev. theory says man evolved from primates which in turn evolved from ...
Religion says man was created, did not evolve from anything else.
They are talking ABOUT the same things (how man got here) but are saying two different/incompatible things. So talking about the same things does not produce the same results, and this is not because of a lack of communication. The results do not intersect.
So no common ground between evolution theory and religion.
E G 10+
What you say aren't things : "how man got here " it's a sentence which involve not only things like :'man' but involve also relations between them:'how' ' man got here' it is already something complex =things and relations between them, and perhaps , only perhaps using these kind of complexities the religion and science talk about different 'things' (I'm doubting of it) .................. but it's very sure for everyone I think : the most basic things are the same in religion and also in science=common ground.............it's not corect to analyze the complexities before of analyzing the simple things .
Paul van Zoggel
evolution theories are by messiahs studied the body of men
religious theories are by messiahs studied the mind of men
indegious theories are by messiahs studied both mind and body of men
all 3 have their encyclopedia of theories proclaiming 'truth', without proof of what happened in the 'beginning'.
evolution messiah got organized in institutes, religious messiah also, though the indegious have been interrupted by the iron and industrial revolution.
we are now realizing - while putting the industrial revolution in perspective - material prosperity does not make us complete. To become complete, running into churches and the old scriptures is only partly the answer; than Michelangelo Gambacorta is right; there is no common ground, the evolved/adapted world has no direct relation with the devine. if we will be able to look beyond the wrong/literal/stigmatizing interpretations we will learn again about true values, family importance, the 10 commandments how they should be seen. This is good for our tribes. At the same time we even have to look harder, deeper, higher as we live in a multiethnic society, so we really have to see the deeper meanings of evolution AND religion, not to start to clash with eachother AGAIN on misinterpretation grounds. There will be thought leaders who will use misinterpretations, to create 'us' and 'them' everywhere. We need to be able to go beyond that, so we need to look at where indegious has stoppe
E G 10+
You said "to become complete'' (complete = it's a state of consistency, a state of armony, do you argee with me on this? ) but at the same time you said that two parts of our existence have no common ground , how could we be complete then ? it's impossible (do you remember my mail's answers?)
(by the way , I have no interpretation of the Bible and I'm not the follower of any christian church).
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
(I don't think Michelangelo put it this way on our 'weakness' : of course I suppose it).
Paul van Zoggel
Of course we need to understand the two extremes, though still, they are in one jar with more colors and greyscales bridging black and white.
So all points to for me; both have part of our story and both are looked at narrow minded, so we can't see the rest. So both are false in current world views.
E G 10+
Personally I don't see only in black and white .
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
The main idea remains I think that that religion and science have a common ground.
Paul van Zoggel
My final thing on this is; we are a 'mobius loop' One half dipped in earth/nature/body. The other half dipped in the sky/aether/mind. And we function on running on the sides of the mobius loop, all the rhythms of the earth and skies go through there. It's a whole new book, partly already written by many indigenous in the world. We just need to collect this again and put it in context with the natural and cultural rhythms of this and future times.
take care bro,
Paul
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
But I do believe that religion conflicts with much of evolutionary theory.
That is if you take most common conception of religion as the belief that holy books are an accurate description of reality.
Paul van Zoggel
Like the evolution DNA theory we all stem from the same man and woman seems to be true. Though the bible put it in a romantic fashion with Adam and Eve.
Tim Colgan 50+
Peter Law 30+
Is that where you keep the rest of your history books ?
:-)
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
I'm not a catholic (in fact I'm not christian of any kind ) , why do you mean by reality ? (because also I do not believe that we can see the reality if it doesn't happen in the moment which we talk in about it )
Tim Colgan 50+
I would define reality, from a human perspective at least, as that which would be regarded as true by independent observers without recourse to their cultural/religious background. But I do believe in an underlying reality apart from human existence. However, how much we are able to intellectually comprehend it is questionable.
How would you define reality?
E G 10+
"regarded as true by independent.............."do you think that the reality known by us is really true? or is only regarded as true ? what is the relation between the reality and this "true" ? I mean what's the link between something true (a kind of abstraction here) and reality? could the reality be untrue , false? ............ I would like to know your opinion.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
reality is what happen.
Tim Colgan 50+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
E G 10+
Ehis Odijie 10+
Peter Law 30+
You ask a massive question. There are thousands of religious beliefs & quite a few evolution theories; Darwin, Neo Darwin, Punctuated Equilibrium, Hopefull Monster, Theistic, incl. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, excl. same etc. Most of us believe the truth is in there somewhere, but lots don't, & most don't care at all.
If we go with the Abrahamic religions, we have a clear discontinuity between the bible & evolution, but even here some folks support both.
Personally I believe the bible, & am astonished that the evolution idea is still around.
2Th 2:10 .......because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
:-)
E G 10+
Peter Law 30+
If we take the first chapter of Genesis at face value, we read that God created the universe in 6 days. Move on to Luke 3v12 onwards, and we read the genealogy of Jesus right back to Adam. If this is true then the time from Adam to Jesus can only be a few thousand years. There are other ways of reaching the same conclusion, but those will do for now.
So from the plain reading of the bible there is no possibility of evolution. Some try & re-interpret these passages to mean something else, but if we accept that then how are we to understand any of the bible.
So we take a look at the theory of evolution. The bible tells us that creatures are split into "kinds" eg
Gen 1:25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good." There is a built in variability within kinds to allow them to adapt (natural selection); but they always stay within their "kind". That is what we should expect to see, and that is what we do see. We never see; in life, or in fossils; any sign of creatures changing. We are told that mutations driven by natural selection can modify the dna to produce new "kinds". Some say this is impossible :- http://www.cross.tv/53142 I agree with them.
Google "evolution creation" or "intelligent design" & check it out for yourself. Stick with the science; that which can be tested; the opinions of scientists are at the end of the day just opinions.
Yes I think evolution is the "strong delusion" spoken of in scripture.
God Bless
:-)
E G 10+
Thank you .
Paul Jacoby
This means that evolution cannot be used as a stick to beat religion. There is zero conflict on closer examination of this issue. Any argument suggesting that the world was created as if it were already in motion (such as in simulation hypothesis) could just as easily make it a few minutes old as a few billion years. . .
Quote: [There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago. -Bertrand Russell]
That means the appearance of age in any scientifically analyzed material is never certain. If say, Richard Dawkins dismisses Intelligent Design because, "It merely appears designed," then it's only fair to say that by the same token a primate "merely" appears evolved, or the earth "merely" appears 4+ billion years old.
Appearances can be deceiving. Therefore, we cannot place all our trust (faith) in scientific observation and appearance as the "end-all; be-all" of knowledge.
Paul Jacoby
Surprisingly, they in fact are reconcilable, because ToE is inductively-based and ultimately uncertain. "Religion" is merely what the finite beings do, and begs the question of whether there is an extant God.
If God is uncertain (as in the case of fideism) then it's a shaky "faith" to begin with, if you'd even call it that. I define faith according to the more common and widely-used definition of "confident trust." Faith is, and should be, objective in nature and practice.
The ToE is science-based, which is governed by a methodology based in philosophy (Popper's falsificationism). Science was never intended to be the answer for everything, because science itself is not grounded in any certainty. Thus, it is foolish to cling to science and ToE "as-if" it were a certainty that is irreconcilable with God.
Eduard: [Should we strive to find a relation of compatibility between this two ?]
Yes. If only to move the argument forward. It's stagnating right now and we're talking past one another. Terms on both sides must be honestly and consistently defined.
Eduard: [Do you think only one is corect and the other is certainly false or both have corect parts and false parts?]
See above. You cannot even behave "as-if" science were certain, since it is inductively-based.
Eduard: [What is the relation between this two ? is there one?]
Science is the experience of man's own findings exclusively through inductive logic. However, I do believe an omnipotent being can be proven through deductive logic (which is math-based).
Eduard: [Where are we going to in our evolution process ?]
To a system of transhumanism/eugenics that will make the Nazis look like Smurfs. Embracing the flesh machine amounts to collective existential suicide.
E G 10+
I think rather fideism separets this two the most because fideism is about making the reason and the faith to be 'foes' I don't see anything reconcilable in fideism , if you see something explore it a bit more.
What is this ToE?
Ok (about your second answer)..............how do you define the evolution theory and the religion ?
''science itself is not grounded in any certainty" and "it is foolish to cling to science and ToE "as-if" it were a certainty that is irreconcilable with God." what should be in your opinion our reaction regarding what's certain and what isn't ? what could we deal with this both and to also make ourselves to believe something consistent, something which have continuity?
I don't think that a being like God can be proved by deductive logic , why do you think so ?
And math is science so it have also inductive logic , it have both inductive and deductive logics in fact .
It's interesting what you said about what we will gonna be , may you explore it a bit more?
Paul Jacoby
Start at the beginning; with the words you use. Do your words have any objective meaning outside of yourself? Does the word "objective" have meaning outside of merely subjective opinion?
Eduard: [What is this ToE?]
ToE = "Theory of Evolution." That is what we're discussing, isn't it?
Eduard: [what should be in your opinion our reaction regarding what's certain and what isn't ?]
Begin a new science based on certainty and on deductive reason, rather than the inductive reason that fuels current science. For example, math is non-falsifiable. Math is certain. Yet science depends on math. To doubt math is to commit intellectual suicide.
Eduard: [what could we deal with this both and to also make ourselves to believe something consistent, something which have continuity?]
Begin with the first principles of classical logic, which are math based, and have never been disproven.
Eduard: [I don't think that a being like God can be proved by deductive logic , why do you think so ?]
See next post.
Eduard: [And math is science so it have also inductive logic , it have both inductive and deductive logics in fact .]
Not when reduced to 1st principles. All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest.
E G 10+
About you second answer , why do you think that the science is fueled now mainly by the inductive logic? it doesn't happen , it is fueled by the both 'logics'.
" All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest." but you said that we have to use more the deductive logic , if we regress back to the first ideas , how we use them?
Paul Jacoby
I have a few proofs, but here's the shortest (brevity being the soul of wit, as they say). . .
PROOF I
“If x then y”
“x, therefore y”
“x” = transcendent logic.
“y” = a transcendent logician.
^ This is a modus ponens. Any attempt to deny “x” leads to a misology. Thus, the argument is sound. If transcendent, then the logician would be omnipotent by default, since this includes the entire cosmos (“order”) of omni (everything). Logic is math-based, discovered, not an invention of man, and thus transcendent.
E G 10+
Paul Jacoby
Thus, faith is simplified to the very chair you place your full weight on. The chair is objective and certain to the point of trusting the integrity of your entire musculoskeletal system upon it.
- The root word for a "fiduciary trust" is faith. All business deals are made in good faith.
- The term "fidelity" relates to the bond between true friends, fellow soldiers, or the bond of love between a married couple. The root of fidelity is the same as that of faith.
So we act in faith all the time. It's just taken for granted is all. So the question is never about faith, but rather the object of faith, whether we're discussing a chair, loyalty, true love, or the existence of an omnipotent being.
E G 10+
"The root of fidelity is the same as that of faith" partially perhaps we can suppose it .
"So we act in faith all the time" that's right .
Paul Jacoby
Objectivity is a step-by-step process that begins at the certainty of logic itself. Once you learn to trust meaning, then you learn to trust the objective truths that can only be built on these same logical 1st principles.
Eduard: [About you second answer , why do you think that the science is fueled now mainly by the inductive logic? it doesn't happen , it is fueled by the both 'logics'.]
Which is rather hypocritical of them, since deductive reasoning is a laboratory taboo. The method vs. the practice are at odds. See: Against Method by Feyerabend. You have noted a real conflict here: Between determining something, and determining it absolutely.
Karl Popper tried to put a Band-Aid on this issue, but it still eventually leads to what is classically known as "the problem of induction."
Eduard: [" All formulas and advanced theories must reduce to 1st principles or it is not intellectually honest." but you said that we have to use more the deductive logic , if we regress back to the first ideas , how we use them?]
They're already there. The only problem is getting the culture to admit it. We generally don't like deductive reasoning because at one time it got too close to proving God. Now that science has stumbled upon the post-evolutionary simulation hypothesis, it's time to dust off classical reasoning without prejudice or fear.
Paul Jacoby
No, but stronger than that. If X, then Y is an assured certainty. Not merely "must be" based on an intuitive hunch, but rather mathematical certainty.
Eduard: [so the question is why would we think that because exist x necessarily would exist this particular y (a transcendent logician)?]
Because "not necessarily" arguments by their nature beg the question, which is fallacious. You're essentially saying to yourself, "There must be a loophole to the modus ponens, therefore there surely is a loophole."
No, a modus ponens is the strongest syllogistic form there is. To deny "X" in any way, even the way you're attempting to do, leads to a crashing misology. In this case, an appeal to question-begging.
If the modus ponens above "isn't necessarily" conclusive, then an objective flaw must be pointed out. You can't simply coast on unspecified "not necessarily" arguments for the rest of your life. Vague feelings that it is wrong based on the subjective wish that it were otherwise doesn't count for anything.
Why? Because the proof is ultimately math-based. Thus, an objective proof.
Paul Jacoby
Because there are two dictionary definitions of the term:
1. Confident trust in a person, thing, or idea.
2. Belief that is not based on proof.
Historically, there was only the first definition. Definition 1 is the most widely used definition outside of religion once Latin roots are factored in. Later on, the Enlightenment-era theologians gradually developed a second definition that is ultimately absurd. If you're not certain of the object of your faith, then you're embracing a false trust, or a shaky trust that is really no trust at all. We see this in broken relationships all the time.
I reject the second definition entirely. Faith is not some Kierkegaardian "leap" into the dark. You must have certain knowledge of the object you put your trust in, or else it will ultimately fail.
Mike Schneider
Charles Darwin in The Origin of the Species:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK):
“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”
Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasburg Zoological Museum):
“Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA):
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.”
Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher):
“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.
Prof. E.J.H. Corner (Professor of Tropical Botany, Cambridge University, UK):
“I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. . . yet mutations and natural selection are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship.”
E G 10+
Mike Schneider
Now with religion we see something very different. First of the bible. God never said "I will create man and man shall create big book and people shall follow". however when people began recording our worlds history they wrote it down in there own books, priest and kings and wisemen were the only literate people of that time period. and many of them were in fact corrupt, demanding money for the church to "buy a better spot in heaven". So not all of the bible may be perfectly true because it was in fact made by man and man is not perfect. however that is were faith steps in our faith is rooted in the belief that the words of the bible will not lead us to do anything that is unmoral. so the teachings are all accountable of there morality. which is true there is nothing unmoral in the bible.
the facts in the bible are also quite outsdanding. take for example Noah and the arc which many believe to be some ridiculous fairy tale
-next comment-
Mike Schneider
Noah, his sons, (and perhaps hired men) built the ark in 120 years. (Genesis 6;3)
God caused the animals to “come unto Noah” (migrate) much like the inexplicable ability of a tiny monarch butterfly of today that can fly from a designated tree in American’s northwest to a designated tree in Mexico ina time span extending over four generations.
Derek Payne
E G 10+
Mike Schneider
My good reasons to "place on trial" this theory of evolution is the lack of evidence. What evidence does evolution have to help there argument?
~~here are some examples of the half human half ape evidence
Ramapithecus – Now classified an extinct ape by most evolutionists
Australopiithecus (Lucy)--Though overzealously manipulated by earlier evolutionists, more recent study places australopithecus in the ape family not in the lineage of modern man. Evolutionist/ paleontologist Professor Joseph Weiner: “The first impression given by all the skulls from the different populations of Australopiithecus is of a distinctly ape-like creature . . . The ape-like profile of Australopiithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with remarkable closeness of fit. In this respect and also in the lack of chin and in possession of strong supra-orbital ridges, Australopiithecus stands in strong contrast to modern (man) Homo sapiens.”
Homo Hablis- Has now been determined by Doctors Albert W. Mehlert, Paul Lysen, and Duane Gish to be another Australopitheline more on the order of a chimpanzee or orangutan. “It is overwhelmingly like that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee.”
Sinanthropus –‘Peking Man’ - This highly speculative find is now thought to be a now extinct variety of ape hunted and eaten in China by humans. All bones were “lost” in the early 1940’s
Nebraska Man: -Though published widely as a missing link and used as pro-evolution evidence in the famous “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, this fraud was later discovered to have been totaltotally conjured from a wild pig’s tooth now extinct in North America and living currently in parguay
Derek Payne
Christophe Cop 500+
2) evolution theory is the most plausible explanation for how life evolved (sic) here on earth. It has no serious rivaling theories that corresponds better with the facts.
a) If a certain religion decides to ignore facts, that is their problem (well, it doesn't have to be a problem), but by doing so, they ignore facts about reality, and if they want to claim that what they believe is true, they would need to explain all the inconsistencies in a plausible manner (and in a way the other can except the arguments)
b) If a religion accepts the evolution theory for what it is, it is correspondence with, and acknowledges the facts and is not in conflict.
c) evolution theory doesn't exclude the existence of religion, so no conflict there. It does however exclude a lot of claims made by a lot of religions... which some religions are not quite willing to accept.
E G 10+
why do you think that a religion should explain some inconsistecies in a plausible manner ?
Christophe Cop 500+
If such claims are made, they need to explain all inconsistencies present in their claims (compared to the observations made). If they want to convince people something is true, I suggest they use the same rigorous methods as those used in science.
Knowing that 'revelation' for example is not a thing that can be accepted as an assumption...
E G 10+
"and if they want to claim that what they believe is true, they would need to explain all the inconsistencies in a plausible manner " this is your opinion , isn't it? (your first post) but now you say that you don't think that religion should explain anything , how come?
You talk about revelation but at the same time in your opinion all who accept the revelation should be able to convince people by the revelation truth using the methods used in science , this doesn't make too much sense .
Christophe Cop 500+
I say (clearly): IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others...
Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim...
I use revelation as an example to indicate that revelation is not considered as a source of truth (as there are many psychological objections to it). Revelation falls in the category of experiences.
If you want to convince me that revelation is a good method of doing science, please explain why...
So what I meant to say was :
revelation doesn't reveal truth... (well, by accident it can happen that what one sees as revelation is actually true)... that's why I reject the assumption of revelation.
still confusing? or does this make a bit more sense?
E G 10+
It's absurd (and very unscientific ) to ask to the people who believe in a main revelation to prove you why the revelation is true by scientific methods because they claim to believe a revelation=something which no human could imagine , something which come from a 'god' .
"IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others... " according to what I said I think it's clear why it's absurd to say :"then they should argue why (using the scientific method)" ......... we talk about revelation (I imagine you know what a revelation means, I've just said it somehow).
We, who believe in a revelation can talk about it in a reasonable way as much as is possible but to prove it's truthfulness by scientific method doesn't make too much sense, we can prove it's truthfulness only using the words of the revelation (the revelation itself)......... this is possible.
"Revelation falls in the category of experiences." until now I've talked about the revelation ( I think you notice it) as the main revelation (how is the Bible in the christianity) , I think you here don't talk about this main revelation , do you ? but you talk about the particular (personal) revelation....... it's no need to talk about it now , it is very subjective and don't affect us ( the outsiders) at all usually.
"If you want to convince me that revelation is a good method of doing science, please explain why..." I don't want it , it's not my purpose now and I've said you why.
"IF they claim................Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim... " you seem to believe that the science is perfect, totally true , which is again wrong ................and if
E G 10+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"I say (clearly): IF they claim something to be true(!), then they should argue why (using the scientific method), lest they want(!) to convince others...
Or they shouldn't make the 'truth'-claim... "
seems you like Mathematics.
revelation have some argue special for you:
http://www.quranmiracles.com/mmwh/
http://www.quranmiracles.com/mmwh/mmlhread.asp?id=9
http://www.quranmiracles.com/19/
does it meet scientific method?
Christophe Cop 500+
I am a probabilistic thinker, so I hardly make any claims of hard truth, although I do consider a .9999 as 1 for ease of argument.
On the other hand, one can state what is false (Try to research on scientific reasoning or inductive logic, if you don't know what I mean here)
As for revelation: I reject any form of revelation ("main" or "individual"), precisely because it has never been proven to be accurate, nor ever there is a factual basis that can show revelation actually exists. (for me the hypothesis that they are figments of imagination is much more likely, and based on plausible theory and data)
I do understand this might be absurd to you, but to convince a scientist or non-believer, you need to argue on common ground, which excludes revelation.
People who believe in main revelation: good for them, but they might know that it will not be accepted as evidence... And if they wonder why, I suggest them to read Pascal Boyer's "religion explained". or other good works like "The God Delusion" or something...
Faith is the absurd thing, not the questioning of it.
E G 10+
you are free to believe what you want of course but you have to prove it, only to say that in your opinion from what you know something is more likely than something else ...........it's not .....
"one can state what is false " of course but only to state what is false , to prove it isn't possible (this is from inductive logic).
"I do understand this might be absurd to you, but to convince a scientist or non-believer, you need to argue on common ground, which excludes revelation" it's not absurd to me and I agree with it (somehow the revelation don't have to be excluded because sometimes it take part from that common ground) .
".....but they might know that it will not be accepted as evidence..." you using science perhaps know (you should know : again from the scientific reasoning and logic if you don't)
that we know TOO little evidences , and sometimes these aren't really evidences (read "The problems of philosophy" by Bertrand Russell , if you didn't until now ) we must believe , we can't live otherwise .............faith isn't an absurd thing is our life .
I would like more to talk about faith without using at all the subject of faith=the revelation , the interesting thing is that you use what say the revelation for criticizing it , ironically isn't it?: "it has never been proven to be accurate".........
Christophe Cop 500+
And Furthermore, since Russel, we have found the appropriate solutions.
Like Jaynes http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/prob/book.pdf for example
I don't think Apologetics is convincing to try and do claims of reality... so I'll pass on McDowell if you don't mind...
I'm re-reading your remainder of your text... I think I'm not going to comment any further. (I only might suggest to bring a little more structure in the text, as now it is difficult to read, though I need to admit my English isn't perfect either)
E G 10+
Mike Schneider
Please state some "Facts" to back this argument. your are presenting the theory alone without backing evidence. if it is fact based upon science please show some science in the argument to provide for a adequate discussion.
Christophe Cop 500+
I wouls further refer to "http://www.talkorigins.org/" if you want to have more information.
I also might want to suggest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1sTM5we_xs&feature=BFa&list=PL101E67EFF548C882&index=3 for some facts
I'm not going to discuss with you further until you can explain me in 1500 words what the evolution theory means.
Peter Law 30+
I watched the vid with hope as the young lady mentioned macro evolution. This is the bit I don't get, one type of creature turning into another. But she went back to finches with different size of beaks. How on earth is a finch with a short beak losing the ability to mate with a finch with a long beak macro evolution ? This is a damaged finch, it has LOST an ability; & everybody is still a finch.
Likewise with parasites, moths, horses & every other example of new species I can find The definition of a new species appears to be that it has lost the ability to mate with it's erstwhile peers.
Let's say we create finches with a gene pool that includes all beak sizes. Natural selection favours one size & the rest die out. This carries on for many generations, until natural pressures favour a different size. If the genes are still available, then the new beak size becomes prominent. Isn't this what we see ?
Let's say Budgies don't exist. Supposing finches were to evolve into Budgies. They don't have the necessary dna code. How does it come about ? Where is the scientific evidence that such a transformation is possible ?
I think you are hard on Mike with the 1500 words, as we could probably find 1500 different answers to what the evolution theory means.
:-)
Christophe Cop 500+
Sigh...
I'm going to give my answer once. As I do think you have a good deal of thinking and catching up to do (that may sound harsh). Remind yourself that not all answers have been answered, and that we humans are still learning how everything works...
that said:
- "inability to mate" can mean that they are separated, different fertility periods, don't have the same mating rituals &c, so not only being mutually sterile for each other.
- Losing abilities is well documented (cave creatures losing eyesight, brain atrophy when predators disappear, loss of flight,...). As some abilities need a lot of energy, and if useless (for sexual or survival evolution), then 'loss' mutations can even become an advantage (needing less energy to support it).
- losing the ability to mate is a rather apt definition for a new species, but as all evolves, those borders are not clear-cut... One must also consider that we started to classify before we understood the process of evolution.... So we sometimes find classification errors, or biologists debate as to call a species a new species or a sub species or an altering population of the same species...
- your assumption of "all beak sizes" is probably not complete. Mutations can give rise to different beak sizes, so they don't need to be represented in the whole population. (I would think there might be dna-parts that can lengthen or shorten beak growth).
So one can see that some DNA can get lost, and that new DNA can appear to 'mimic' the lost function (like fish have different fins than dolphins, mammals lost the fins long ago, but dolphins have altered limb structure, making up for the fish-fins)
- You talk about transformation... if you stretch a lot of small changes over time, one can see that after a long time, major differences have appeared (like you can't see a plant grow by looking at it, but if you take a picture now an in a week, you can see the difference).
Peter Law 30+
Thank you for that, I know you are a busy man.
There is no problem with creatures losing abilities, I've lost a few myself over time, but that is not evolution in the classic sense.
I see one of your areas is Statistics. The driving force of evolution is claimed as mutation & natural selection. This site may seem a bit simplistic, but why not check it out anyway...
http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm
:-)
Christophe Cop 500+
A very bad article.
Random numbers are insufficient for evolution to take place.
Evolution theory is about evolution of life, not the beginning of life (that is abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
Random numbers are even insufficient for abiogenesis too. One needs to take into consideration what already happened before. So If you don't take into account of all the environmental factors, you quickly get lost.
The author clearly doesn't understand what he is doing: trying to use a model that does not fit the data to disprove the data... quite a fallacy indeed.
So yes, it is way too simplistic, more-over: it is misleading
Peter Law 30+
Without abiogenesis there can be no evolution, but I don't think the article was about abiogenesis.
I saw another site recently explaining random selection & it explained it in similar fashion with one exception. Whenever a beneficial mutation occurred it was locked. However this wouldn't work either as the benefit of the 'letter' is not manifest until the whole 'sentence' is complete. Also while the 'sentence' is in flux it is unlikely to be beneficial.
So can you explain what you think happens using the same metaphor so that we ordinary Joes' can understand ? If you can, you could write a best seller. I certainly haven't come across a persuasive argument yet.
:-)
Christophe Cop 500+
(there already exist good books on genetics, maybe http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Genetics-For-Dummies-2nd-Edition.productCd-0470551747.html ?)
A mutation is most often not beneficial.
- If they are harmful, the get selected out (over time, on average)
- If they are neutral, they can linger (nothing happens)
- If they are beneficial, they can gain the overhand (over time).
So even with low odds, positive changes can happen. unlikely means 'not that often' but it does happen...
we need http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate to make some calculus of course
And then we have a whole bunch of systems that can suppress or activate genetic expression... (even in a Lamarck kind of way for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lPPcIXw2Bs )
maybe look at 'hox genes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_gene) too...
If you look at language, there is redundancy (mnaenig taht you can raed snteecnes wehn lreetts are samcrlebd for emplxae), so is there in genes, which can also influence the genetic drift.
anyway, although the principles of mutation and selection are very simple, the consequences are highly complex, and strange effects and interactions can and will occur... without violating those principles.
in other words: genes can start to rearrange words after a time instead of just changing a letter...
Peter Law 30+
I don't really want to learn about genetics; I don't have the time. I have picked up a fair bit along the way though.
Part of the problem is that the creation guys are really good at explaining things in simple terms. I find however that the evolution side tend to look on me with distain & expect me just to believe that they know best. I listen to both sides & do my best, but have grown to much favour the creation side, I much favour common sense to academia. It should be possible for any expert to get his point over to a layman.
Mutations kill us every day. We are told that there are good mutations; such as ? I take your point about redundancy in language, however that wouldn't work with a computer. It only works because we can use our brain; how would the cell translating system work it out. While we're at it, how did it learn to translate in the first place ?
Talking of Hox etc. Some folks are saying that the dna has no input into the body plan anyway, so mutations are irrelevant as a source of new creatures.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263797/darwinism_vs_fruit_flies_jonathan_wells/
I'm sure I heard Steven Myer on the same vein. I get the feeling that this is cutting edge science & that no-one has too much idea what is going on. Like labeling dna 'junk' before we really understood.
Many years ago I had a pal who was doing his PHD in biology. He was a firm evolutionist, & we had long discussions. Most of the time I had to bow to his expertise, but we had fun. we lost touch until quite a few years later when I was invited to a powerpoint he was giving on "Why evolution is impossible." He had a gang of peers there intent on heckling, but for the most part sat quietly with no answer to his logic. His story is one of many; could be there's a reason for that.
:-)
Christophe Cop 500+
I rest my case...
I don't have the time to teach it to you either... and any further discussion is hence a waste of effort.
Please believe whatever you want, but don't try convince scientists with ignorance...
@ All:
I encourage the reader to see this as an example of many discussions and debates going on on this forum:
If you don't know what you are talking about... please say so! or don't say anything at all...
And if you do, but get overhauled by reasonable arguments, state it as well.
As such, we might heighten the quality of discussions here, and come to some real interesting Ideas Worth Spreading
(and yes, this is an argued opinion, and there are exceptions &c... but that might be a debate for another topic)
Peter Law 30+
In order to address the origins problem (according to many) we would need to be experts in biology, archeology, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, etc etc. My thing is engineering & if your granny wanted to know what a tig welder was I could give her a good idea in simple terms. Why oh why do I have to earn a degree in biology to get a straight answer to a straight question. It's frustrating folks!
I guess it's an easy hit; but beware, the creation guys are very good at explaining their point of view. If you really want to persuade folks then you need to lighten up.
:-)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You have a pattern of two things on TED
Being found in the science/religion areas, and having the smiling face ending.
Since you know nothing about science, you still claim to know something beyond yourself. I claim I know nothing of science (biology, chemistry, physics) and therefore keep to what I know and that is human intellectualism. There are patterns in how we think, by understanding those patterns you understand human beings as a whole. When you do that you discover, we are all not THAT different, details make us different (personalities, attitudes, agendas). Now that being said when you or ANYONE else dictates knowing something without knowing science, cultures, anthropology, psychology, critical thinking skills, and anything else that does indeed require an education involving humanity-based subjects (including evolution and religion)....
You really know nothing in comparison to reality. Your actuality is grain of sand breaking through a blackened wind shield. The only way to break and remove all the blackness is educations, not philosophy alone. Philosophy without science, got us fundamental religions today. Philosophy with science gave us today, pretty much, everything else.
The creation guys (God made people not the original single cell in which all life evolved from) are unaware/ignorant, plain and simple, when faith is prior to science there is SO MUCH room for error. God was/is a human invention, that easy, done. A delusion, and today an unneeded delusion.
Christopher is human and flattering a human enough will make them believe such, but he is indeed brilliant. For you to go against his word on this matter, is ridiculous and shows you have no better character than a sixteen year old girl from New Jersey.
:-)
P.S - it is called a search engine, use it, you will be surprised in what you can discover in a few minutes. God being a delusion is nothing new, Richard Dawkins only simplified that idea further.
Mike Schneider
Charles Darwin “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Charles Darwin in The Origin of the Species:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
"[men attain] a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).
you cant trust everything that man says
Science is based upon facts and darwin did a great job in proving horizontal evolution, and also did a great job providing a theory of vertical evolution. But it is just a theory with little to no evidence at all.
Nicholas has some very smart words here but still one sided. neither side is being proven right nor wrong
Peter Law 30+
"I claim I know nothing of science"
"The creation guys ...... are idiots/unaware/ignorant, plain and simple,"
Doesn't quite compute. These idiots include some of the greatest scientific minds that ever existed.
"Evolution has just been dealt it's death blow. After reading Origins of Life (Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross), with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred". Richard Smalley. Nobel Prize in chemistry 1996.
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/evolution-vs-creation-part-1/h2Hb3gnP2phueDrN75pVNA (27mins)
:-) (oops! habit)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Remember how I made sure I added this into my comment?
**(God made people *NOT* the original single cell in which all life evolved from)**
For good and just reasoning. This "greatest scientific mind" contradicts himself involving science because of his faith. Making my next statement **when faith is prior to science there is SO MUCH room for error** Completely accurate based on your example scientist, thank you for that.
Richard Smalley believes "God did create the universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and of necessity has involved Himself with His creation ever since" (Smalley 2005)
However "Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading 'Origins of Life', with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, 'Who Was Adam?', is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death." (Smalley 2005)????
So God started the big bang which started the cycles of life for all in the universe on subatomic to astronomic scales but not evolution of man of earth? That is awful awful logic. I guess the prize went to his head. Think we can put this guy on the chemistry shelf and call it a day.
Again God creating the original single cell organism that was intelligently designed which evolved into all the animals of today, past, and future. Awesome! That is great! God creating humans out of dirt, pixie dust, or whatever = nonsense.
:-)
Peter Law 30+
You are into patterns. Perhaps you could look through my posts where I name a scientist who voices doubts about evolution. The standard rebuttal is to attack the integrity of the scientist. I was replying to your assertion that all creationists are numpties. Numpties don't win nobel prizes. The fact that Smalley doesn't agree with my way of looking at things is irrelevant to me. I try and learn from all sorts of sources; we never learn by only listening to those we agree with.
One of the best orators on the creation scene is/was Kent Hovind. He is easy to criticise as he's in the klink for tax fraud. I am only surprised that it took so long for Uncle Sam to nail him, as he was preaching for years about the IRS. They got him in the end, which I'm sure he realised they would.
If you want entertained give him a listen; google him, or follow the link and then let me know what exactly he's got wrong.
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/creation-evolution-debate-rutgers-university-round-1-hovind-vs-professor-of-anthropology-dr-robert-trivers/_q-OKnoNv5CT3G85QJHVJQ
Sorry, but I don't believe in the Big Bang either. Science is ok, but this is speculation. We've had all sorts of stories about what killed the dinosaurs, and how the moon got there, etc etc. Each speculation in it's day was a "must believe" at the time, if you wanted to be a "proper" scientist. Big Bang? Let's wait & see.
Why should God make a cell & then leave it to it's own devices. Is there any reason to believe that; apart from the contents of your imagination ?
:-)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Actually, you are quite wrong.
Here is a short article on the manner.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sapient-nature/201105/delusion-productivity-and-success
Basically, because people are delusional and/or allow themselves to be deludedl they are actually very productive and can be highly mechanical into their skills.
The big bang is speculation.... of course it is, but it is the most widely accepted speculation among scientific minds. We do not have a time machine to know for exact, but we have all the different fields of science to provide facts that allow this VERY strong speculation.
Intelligent design would mean "God" created the single cell with mechanisms for life to achieve. This "God" would have thought ahead and considered what it takes to survive in the universe, even what it takes to also survive on a planet in much more microscopic terms.
We are just specs living on a bigger spec in comparison to even a fraction of space in the universe. To declare God loves us stupid animals is belittling the idea of God to me, simple answers creating fundamental practices at it's best.
Being brilliant and being a genius are totally different. Einstein didn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God but still believes in a form of God. He kept God free as can be, and we still idolize him today, like there are no new Einsteins' being born everyday. The minds we most recognize, educate on, and talk about today in public educations and academic circles were either atheist or created their own belief systems, not Christian quacks. The philosophers who were religious in history (Ex. St. Austine) are allowed into the debate due to philosophical standards, which means if it is constructive it is considered! In no way means it is logically sound by universal considerations.
:-D
Paul van Zoggel
With the elements (earth, fire, air, water, aether, rhythm) I meant the material world. Your question was if immaterial world evolved, my very subjective logic is, there are also elements for the immaterial world and they evolved in parallel.
On naming them, I don't know, but they manifest in intuition, compassion and self-esteem for example. Some name them memes. Some aura fields, some the akasha field, some God, some Allah, Chakra, some the Matrix, some The Force, each culture has it's own names.
If it suits you, on evolution terms, you can cling on this idea; Mankind imitated the physical nature. Crabs became scissors. With the internet we are just beginning to imitate the immaterial nature. Everybody and everything is wired up and if you know the way you can access it anytime. Just a thought.
On evolving, I am no neurospecialist or something, though I enjoy Garrett Lisi on his theory of everything. We cannot see the immaterial world, though we know it is happening. There is lot's of scientific proof there is something else than we see, though we can't put our finger on it yet what it actually is. I guess our grandchildren will figure more out and laugh at our talks here! :)
E G 10+
Yes perhaps our grandchildren will do it :) .
Elizabeth Berry
Derek Payne
Elizabeth Berry
And think of it this way: nature has been tweaking for billions of years. Plenty of time to get it to where it is today.
E G 10+
I agree, this happen but how happen with our identity if we don't believe in something and only in something , if we divide our mind ? I mean we can compartmentalize and select what we agree with but even so must be a continuity , a consistency what we believe in , our identity is gone otherwise , what do you think ?
Elizabeth Berry
E G 10+
"The more we discover about the world around us, the more ignorant we are" I don't think it's correct your formulation , the more we know the less ignorant we are , but the more we know the more we are aware of how much ignorant we are.
Elizabeth Berry
And if relation is what we seek in what we know, not a cyclical continuity that I refer to, it won't be an issue to believe in a religion and in evolution at the same time.
E G 10+
(I've spelt wrong the last time but I've corrected myself a bit now .)
I see your point better now and I agree with it (it's exatcly what I meant yo say).
What do you mean by cyclical continuity ?
I think that what we know are relations and these have continuity . Someone could say that the form of the Earth is a fact : it is spheroid , maybe but for us this fact is made up only from relations which are set in our mind between more knowledge (and how ew get the knowledgeinvolve some relations.............). We talk here about the evolution theory , it is more relations combined , we talk about religion which is formed also from relations . I think that the reality known by us is made up only from relations and objects between which are set this relations, how could we set some relations if we don't have continuity what we believe in ?
I mean with all this that any system of knowledge is make up from relations.
Elizabeth Berry
And we don't need to have continuity in we know or believe in because we simply don't know enough. There are inconsistencies in the bible, for example (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html) for your reference.
E G 10+
Ok, we don't know enough and we will never know perhaps , but actually we know something, in this something isn't there continuity? how can we talk about limits if we don't have continuity ? The reason suppose continuity. What do you think?
Elizabeth Berry
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
a Muse whispered it in his ear. She has been trying with many people, though he was the first one who heard it. (Stephen Pressfield - The War of Art)
A professional artist knows he/she did not come up with the creative idea him/herself. It's tapping into the collective consciousness and maybe even higher to pass something we humans need to go further, to grow.
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
Perhaps we can hear something aswell but it isn't depending on ourselves totally .
Paul van Zoggel
And now back to the topic ;)
Paul van Zoggel
With all the time we have to read and share thoughts with like minded, we start to believe more in our intuition again, making from a few of us modern indigenous.
Ari Hahn
The first is the issue of comparing science and religion. Science is a means of studying the relationships between measurable phenomena and making theories, hypotheses, and experiments concerning those phenomena. Religion is about a belief in a non-observable "truth" that since it is a belief it cannot be proven either correct or incorrect.
If science stays in the realm of science and religion stays in the realm of religion there cannot be conflict any more than an idea can be so deep that even the most muscular man cannot pick it up.
Evolution conflicts with religion only because it is a case where science treads in the realm of beliefs and does not follow scientific methodology. Although there have been many books about this, most of them have been written by people who are not scientists and this has muddled the arena terribly. With no experimental evidence of any species mutating into a different species, evolution is a mere theory that has been accepted as fact by general society. And since all scientific theory is constructed to be eventually disproved in the course of developing science, it seems a disservice to society that any theory should be taken as "law." Regardless of religious view.
The question concerning evolution and the Bible is one of physics and measurement of time. At the speed of light there is no passage of time. If there was a "Big Bang" the beginning of matter was at the speed of light and time needed to "slow down" "over time". The 13 billion years of the universe are years measured by earth years -that didn't exist for most of that time. If calculated in universe years - relative to the matter originating in the big bang - there would be less than 6000 years. Just plain physics. No religion in that argument but 12th century mystics (Nachmonidies) wrote about it....
E G 10+
you said that religion is a belief in a non-observable 'truth' (I agree somehow with you) but you continuied and you said that this truth being non-observable it can't be proved either correct or inccorect , but if it is truth might it be inccorect ? I mean the truth is correct all the time , everywhere , if something is a truth have it need to be proved correct ?(in my opnion it doesn't matter if something truth is proved or not ), what do you think?
So you say that is only a misunderstanding of how is measured the time it being measured relative ............ it is interesting . But about the human life on the earth , is it older than 6000 years ago ? what do you think? according to the evolution theory it is older , how can we fit this two 'facts' ?
I agree with you on your third paragraph .
Asher Ross
I am in no way an expert on the topic of Evolution, but I'm assuming that the actual process is validated by natural selection and the mutation of genes within species. However, what I find difficult to understand is how an entirely new species can 'evolve'. For example, if a Raven continued to 'evolve' it would never - no matter now long the process was underway - turn into a Finch. Personally, I agree with natural selection (slight changes WITHIN species)....however I find that the Theory of Evolution is based on too many assumptions.
On the subject of can Evolution and Religion agree....it depends. What relgion? and how do the adherents interpret their sacred text? In the case of Christianity, many people argue that the reason Christians will not agree with Evolution is because they are extremely conservative and fundamental (not bad things) and therefore will not compromise their belief about the origin of the universe. This is true, however, theologically there is also a major discrepency between Evolution and Christianity.
Christians believe that we (humans) brought about sin and death because we chose to disobey God. Death is a result of our sin. Therefore, when Evolution claims that humans are only a 'recent' addition to the Earth and that death was present before our existence.....well, it just doesn't line up. However, having said that, there are many, many Christians who believe in Evolution (if you know how they explain what I've stated above I'd love to know!).
That's just a few of my questions and thoughts on the issue. Once again, I am in no way an expert on Evolution so what I have said may be theoretically incorrect. Also, does anyone know of any good books or websites that give an unbias view on Evolution? (they don't side with religion or evolution, they simply just state facts).
Paul van Zoggel
1. Sin and death upon us; One can say if you don't have empathy or compassion and a clear conscience, you will die as you are not connected fully to the world. And it's true in science; if you don't have a healthy mindset, you can get sick faster and in theory die younger.
2. Evolution and Sciptures : Science tells us that Adam and Eve did exist. It's just written in the bible in a romantic fashion, so the book becomes readable. That we people start to argue how 'real' it is, is our problem. We forgot until now it could be the case that natural selection killed all other 'people' leaving only two of the best we all decent from. We couldn't imagine that... so what else can't we 'imagine'?
Tofig Ahmed 500+
Science ? Bible ? I don't get it ?
Paul van Zoggel
Tofig Ahmed 500+
Thanks
Paul van Zoggel
That's the first time I heard it and thought; 'What the?" Really? It's in interesting thought for me fact and imagination are more intertwined than we can think by ourselves.
E G 10+
I also heard many things about the idea that the evolution is based on many assumptions .
I don't know to explain that I'm not an evolutionist.
You can check it : http://academicearth.org/courses/evolution-ecology-and-behavior or search some books wrote by Motoo Kimura.
Yes , there are many questions which can be put you can if you want post them here to talk about them and also about religion.
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
What are this relations more exatcly ?
Paul van Zoggel
Mental relations, what religion in definition is about; entering a new city, you can find a church (or sportsclub or Meetup) to make new friends and share joy and worries with. The social animal with 1:1 relations.
Material relations, what evolution in definition is about, is the ecosystem evolving. Species meet, interact, strong win, weak loose.
...
The problem is when evolution somewhere on the planet or a religion on the planet has access to too many resources. Out of 'species survival instinct', a species will use it's resources to take control of the region, and so tries a religious group. Not because it needs to, just because it can.
It's like why people get fat; our body is wired to store fat just in case there will be periods of hunger, it's a survival instinct in our DNA.
So if we can see evolution as building material relations and social structures under which religion as building mental relations, we see one and the other together are one as within ourselves they are one.
E G 10+
why do we have this instincts ? why don't we have only reason for example? what do you think ?
Paul van Zoggel
Immaterial, all relations between the rest, though we cannot measure so easy, so the war between people who experience this 'More' through intuition, instinct, a-field, art, meditation (religion).. and skeptics who don't find ways and simple believe it's all a farce.
There are more and more neurological studies which show there 'must be more' and proving ways to 'tap into this More', what is going on in the brain. Google for the "God Helmet", read stories about near death experience, find your own way to tap into intuition, the akasha field, common aura or what name for this immaterial ecosystem suits you best.
We have start and ending biologically. So we imagine infinity to counterbalance. You may believe imagination comes from 'nothing', a purely personal psychological event or is fed by an immaterial information field we are wired with like we are wired with nature. Both have arguments to be true.
Links between these two relationfields, that's even beyond my current scope :) That both exist and are both in balance/intertwined read for example stuff from Ervin Laszlo and Arthur Koestler.
E G 10+
I agree ............. there are relations between these two relationfields .
How can we know the immaterial world , what's the role of religion in it? What is the link between this immaterial world and the process of evolution I mean what the evolution say us about this immaterial world , have it evolved ? what's your opinion about it?
Derek Payne
E G 10+
Thank you for your comment, but you didn't answer at my question , I would like to find out an answer .
And Derek , I don't wanna be unrespectful but I don't care what science says me if I don't understand why the science says it ......so why is so logic the idea that the first life was a dormant one? And how according to what you said:"This dormant life ......the beginning of the mind." only from the fact that life exist the mind have appeared ? How from some emotions evolving could start life ? Usually the emotions are the results of life , the results of living ..................so again: what do you mean by emotion?
( what you said makes me to put you a lot of questions)
P.S.: I'm not seeking an scientific answer from you , I wanna see your rational opinion (not necessarily what you believe but why you believe).
Paul van Zoggel
On the science side : http://www.squidoo.com/contemplative-neuroscience what contemplating does for you on concentration span, intuition etc.
On 'evolved' : As we cannot measure what is going on in our brain for so many years, this is all shortterm theory. The findings however is that the minds of young children today (due to different inputs by computers/screens/travel) is different wired than children some years ago. What that means in evolution of mental connections, time will tell on how these wired kids will think.
My personal very subjective logic is; As nature consists of 4 ever lasting elements which evolved over time. So does the immaterial world have some 'everlasting elements' which evolved parralel to the material ones.
E G 10+
You said I can know the immaterial world by experiencing it and this is possible by meditation or others means , you said also in your earlier comment that the immaterial world is made up from the relations of the rest of the four everlasting elements (I don't think this four are everlasting , I think you meant to say : the water , the fire , the air and the earth , did you?) so there are others 'elements' which are immaterial : would you wanna name them? (I think this 'elements' are everlasting , as would be: the ideas , the forces ...........about these do you meant to talk? )
What is your opinion about these 'elements' ? I mean , do you think that these 'elements' are brain connections ?if yes or not: why ? (personally I think that these are acting upon our material world through the brain connections not that these are made up from the brain connections) but what do you think ?
is depending on us the immaterial world ? how can it evolved ? (in my opinion it cannot evolve , what evolve is our connections with them as you said in that example with the child but not the immaterial world) what do you think?
Derek Payne
E G 10+
I know this thing , but yet this do not explain the state of dormancy , and that aninals do not have the all senses alert .
Derek Payne
Davie Webb
religion is simply ignorance and fear of the truth.
E G 10+
Alan Bishop
I suspect that some religious people will accept natural selection as a basis for evolution. I have heard some religious people argue against evolution but I am not convinced by their arguments. It is a tough sell for those who argue against natural selection since there is so much evidence to support the science of evolution. The argument against struggles since there is no physical evidence to support this argument.
I like to think I am open minded and I would most certainly listen to any argument based upon facts.
E G 10+
Hassan Syed
There are few things to avoid in order to have a constructive dialogue:
- Focus of the conversations should not be on the fundamental belief of beginning because none of the groups can solve that mystery just yet
- Conversations should not be limited to one religion, instead the dialogue should be with all the key religions of the world
- Focus of the conversations should not be to prove one group right or wrong
E G 10+
Hassan Syed
Taking away my first point, I am still in favor of the dialogue.
E G 10+
Hassan Syed
Paul van Zoggel
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
What we can measure on evolution is growth through new connections, relations. And what we know about growing/evolving in nature and animals there is a certain start so we make the bridge fast that existence must have a start and we look for proof. This proof doesn't mean what we can not measure does not exist.
To start finding a meaning of life to live why we are etc, starts in my opinion by accepting duality between what we can calculate and what we can't (yet) has divided the world in two camps, was a big mistake in our enlightened past. Though at the same time it is part of evolution of our brain, a wave form, we focus more on matter to survive in times of crisis. And if our belly is full a next century we focus more on our 'home feeling, relationship with people and nature in psychological/spiritual way). We float than to much again, forget about taking well care of resources, new crisis and we focus on material survival again, putting spirituality on the shelves a bit.
Tim Colgan 50+
Evolve = change. The process of change is the core of the theory. To speculate beyond that is to speculate beyond that.
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
Religion means bindings
The written words and later the printing press froze all the mythology which before that evolved by word of mouth, through changing cultural conditions, evolutions.
Tim Colgan 50+
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
E G 10+
I remember some things you said about religion (the religion being about authority..........) and I try to imagine what you think about religion , this is really intriguing (perhaps I would be also an atheist ....................would I ? :) ).
A thing is sure we perceive this idea of religion very very different .
Paul van Zoggel
Somebody told me the word religion means 'rethinking' and some say 'rethinking relations''.
Normally, we do that all the time. We act and reflect. We feel connected to some and some not in work, passion, love. The 'holy' books are a momentum, to explain our understanding of possible human relations, in a context the people had. The bible is focused on emotional relations between people. The Kohran, as far as I know has quite a bit more indigenous in it, explaining also relations/bindings in nature. The Torah, I have no idea, though I can imagine it is the best of both ' Tribal relations'.
....
To be cynical a bit; Currently our understanding of relations between people does not go much further than the 'xxxx friends counter on facebook and linkedin ;) We vote for presidents and leaders on how many 'friends' they have.... Like cattle.. We need to write some updated books on relationships in a global context.
E G 10+
I don't think that the Bible , in fact the religion usually, is about relations between people , is focused on this, why do you say it? In my opinion the religion is about our relation with God , only this relation ..........the rest of relations are only caused by our human nature which is human not divine , this kind of relations have brought and bring the all pain and frustration in our world , the religion is about how can we get that divine nature which doesn't involve human relationships obligatorily ...............the divinity is sufficient in itself .
This concept of bindings shouldn't be applied to religion in my opinion.
Paul van Zoggel
Our human nature is 'survival' of body and mind. We do anything for that. We are misled by others as our brain has limitations we forget to take care off, don't teach in school. That is where the pain comes from. It is in our DNA to be greedy, to collect wealth in case of bad times to come.
Divine means Godlike, means 'God' is a way to address, communicate about our collective spirit. It is irrelevant if we think of God within or outside the ozon layer.
So in my opinion it should be all about bindings; all we have IS relationships with what we sense (proof) and cannot sense (belief). ( the matter and immatter as said before)
Peter Law 30+
"....original scriptures say in there God is referred to as 'We'."
God can indeed be taken as plural. That's where we get the Trinity from; Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. No way does it mean "God is US". As can be seen below, He refered to Himself in the plural before man existed.
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
:-)
Paul van Zoggel
And Dominion yes, in thought, not matter, we are the most dependent on everything.
Just a matter of perspective which is comfortable, truth full for me, I respect yours, this one is for me.
E G 10+
Paul van Zoggel
This does not take away there are other 'gods' as well, the whispering ones in our ears, the ones without time and place enjoying up there what we are able to achieve in limited space and limited time. This last is also the immaterial ecosystem/relations/collective spirit/(sub)conscious.
I will not be able to proof which opinion, truth, view is the right one, true one, nobody can.
That's why I say on a different conversation;
Economists : Read the Art of War
Artists : Read the War of Art
and get to work!
The way I understand things for myself and myself only (though I should share if others are looking for answers and might find this view comfortable) as I'd like to follow Einstein his words; "I would like to know what God thinks, the rest are details."
I think 'he' thinks (we think) we give our children crappy education and crappy food, do something about it.
E G 10+
I don't think is corect to admit more 'perspective' upon the same point: the truth is only one , all we have to do is to fight released by our preconceived ideas as much as is possible for what we believe that is true.
I've read some time ago Einstein's book :"The world as I see it" and it's clear that Einstein agree with the 'pantheistic God ' which has been proposed by Spinoza (and Hegel) in philosophy , I disagree with it (perhaps if we'll talk I'll say why) . It's not enough to have an opinion if you want to do something about :we give our children crappy education and crappy food" (by the way I agree with it).
When you say 'our ego', 'our collective spirit' you use the singular nouns : ego , spirit , this make me to think that you talk about an entity , a unity (seems to me that you suppose that this 'collective spirit' 'collective ego' is an underground reality of a specific nature which keeps everything in balance ) . You said also that the collective spirit are all immaterial relations but saying it you don't make something else than to say that this unity/entity is infinite divisible (the collective spirit , ego is made up by the all particular relations(which are keep together by other relations= to infinite / spirits and also by the all particular egos ) .
But you also suppose that :"Therefore God is Us. Our collective spirit where compassion is the most evident 'proof'" ...................... therefore summing all these you just say that God is infinite divisible : it's an impossible idea from a christian perspective , this is pure pantheism.
We can talk about pantheism if you want to ............... it suppose 'bindings' but it's a wrong view in my opinion (at this moment I'm not sure that you are a pantheist ).
So i come back to my point that the christian religion don't suppose necessarilly bindings between human beings ................
Paul van Zoggel
Immatter is of a complete different order we cannot comprehend, it's maybe yes maybe not dividable as matter, though we cannot see the parts, as we can not sense/measure it.
That's why we can discuss it endlessly and use it for war to divide through divinity.
Eduard, I gave you and others interest my view and I enjoy reading and can understand other views on the topic. The important thing is we keep on looking and in dialogue as our own world is changing fast and we should not put labels on everybody. It's an industrial thing to put everything/everybody in boxes.
Secondly. there are still too many people going to 'church', saying they are god fearing or christian and on monday morning continue slave driving or being a slave to the elites system.
The binding between life and religion is gone, this has to be brought back by understanding the scriptures and the relationship with what we can see.
We are mind and body, as simple as that. We know they are interdependent. Our body exists because of matter. Our mind/thought because of immatter. We need to take care of our body and mind to have a common good soul.
So we need to take care of the planet as we sense and the spirit as we can not sense.
Discussing about which analogy, words, experience on the spirit misses the point. It's like proclaiming everybody should drive the same car as you do, just because you feel great and empowered in it. What is important when you have a car, help others with getting their car for the ride. Maybe the same as yours, though it can just as well be a totally different horseless wagon.
E G 10+
there are some things at you which bother me very much : the idea that the spirit is something what we can not sense, the idea that what is immaterial we can not comprehend , the idea that the mind and the body are independent ..........
"...It's like proclaiming everybody should drive the same car as you do" when I'll find out that my car is on the wrong way I will stop proclaiming it, until then..............
Andrew Hussey
E G 10+
Vasil Rangelov 50+
For a theory to work, it needs to explicitly state the conditions in which it is applicable, and match them to all available evidence (in the form of tests, observations and others). Both the theory (i.e. explanation) itself and the conditions could be reshaped as new evidence comes along, but the point is that if the conditions are met, the theory must work for all available evidence to be valid.
Evolution places as a requirement one or more kind of cells capable of reproducing, and an environment in which the reproduction may produce an offspring with one or more different characteristics for whatever reason (with "natural selection" being the main reason in multi-cellular organisms). It explains how you get from THAT to us over a range of 3.8 billion years. It doesn't deal with how/why life started, it doesn't deal with how our solar system formed, or how chemicals formed, or how the universe started. That's all separate theories that also place conditions and go onwards based on the available evidence.
We still don't know for sure how the first life started, but even if it started by a divine or alien intervention, that still wouldn't contradict evolution, which is why there are theists that also accept evolution. The problem creationists have is that if this bit of the Bible/Quran is wrong, then it's no longer the infallible work of their God, but just the claims of bronze age desert goat herders... God might still exist, heaven and hell might still be real places, but the stories in the Bible/Quran are no longer the full truth in God's own words. If evolution is true, the circular logic that has been a driver for their life ( http://www.wayofthemind.org/2009/01/14/the-lovely-circular-logic-of-biblical-literalists/ ) is broken.
E G 10+
All is too relatively (especially now with you) to can talk about your last paragraph.
Peter Law 30+
".evolution is behavior within an existing system"
This is what folks say; however if you read a book, or watch a documentary, it almost always starts with the Big Bang & continues via Primordial Soup to evolution as we know & love it. Don't you think that creates a false impression that it's all been worked out ?
:-)
Vasil Rangelov 50+
If we had one "megatheory", we would derive everything out of it, even when there's no evidence to verify our derivatives. That's how theists work... they assume God (with the lack of evidence being expressed as God having the will to evade stuff), and derive everything else out of it (note: this does not apply to deists). That has definitely not been helpful in actually advancing knowledge, which is why science goes the other way around - collect evidence, come up with explanations based on the evidence, and collect new evidence based on the theory until it fails, at which point is is reshaped to take the new evidence into account.
Quantum physics is as close as you can get to a "megatheory" that would potentially explain everything, but the field, much like most scientific fields, is incomplete. There are particles that exist only hypothetically (i.e. there's no evidence for them other than them being compatible with the proven particles) or that have only a semi-predictable behavior.
Even if the field was complete, as you enlarge the scale, you start needing abstractions... subsets defined over the superset. As long as you don't depend on a particular behavior of the superset, having abstractions is the only way for us as humans to understand and actually use the knowledge. Even when quantum physics is complete, there'll still be use for chemistry, since the vast majority of the quantum particles in the universe are arranged in a chemical way, and we can keep enlarging the scale to reach up to celestial objects like galaxies and black holes.
Without abstractions, "me talking to you" would be nonsense. "me" is abstraction (of billions of particles), "talking to" is an even bigger abstraction (especially when the Internet is involved; trillions of particles moving over the course of a few minutes, plus another trillion of particles moving over the course of other few minutes), and "you" are also an abstraction (of another batch of billions of particles).
E G 10+
Vasil Rangelov 50+
"I don't know why you like so much to bring the idea of God in almost any our discussion (but I guess why)"
The topic title is "The evolution theory & religion". Since God is the focus of the kind of religions that are in conflict with evolution to begin with, bringing theism and God into the discussion HERE seems appropriate.
Besides, I'm not talking about the truth of it, nor do I assume anything about what you believe. I'm simply bringing it as a base of comparison with what I presumed was your idea, because whether you believe in it or not, your way of thinking seems to lead back to something resembling it.
But OK... you meant something that can summarize all knowledge in a basic way... let's start with something easy, and duplicate the method for larger and larger areas of science, until we reach science itself... how do you summarize all of humanity's math knowledge? You can give me definitions of math like "The part of science that deals with manipulating numbers in various fashions" or something of the sort, but that doesn't reflect what we know in math. It's only a way to separate math from other sciences. You could tell me "The fundamental concept is the number 1 and the operation +, and everything else exists for the sake of convenience, including negative, real and complex numbers, which are just 1 being expressed as a sum of differently defined 1's." (P.S. That's actually the real deal in computer science). That still doesn't explain all of the conveniences we have, why do we have them and not other conveniences, how have they been useful if at all, and what and why don't we yet know.
I can give you a metaphorical idea of the amount of knowledge we have, but not for what is the knowledge that we do have. The metaphor? Imagine a sheet of A1 paper - all knowledge. Draw a dot in the center - your knowledge. Draw a circle with 1cm radius around it - the sum of the knowledge of the people around you. Draw a 5cm circle around it - human knowledge.
E G 10+
I don't know what you talked about in your last paragraphs .
Vasil Rangelov 50+
The common ground is for religious people to admit Genesis is "a poem about creation". Anything less is in conflict with science, considering that evolution is the least of Genesis' conflicts with science (other fallacious claims include the moon being a light, light existing without the sun, etc.).
Fortunately, many do just that. But it's actually creationists that have a stronger sense of logic here. They say "if this part is false, I can't trust anything in the bible without evidence. Without evidence, it's possible that all of it is man made". The only problem is they go the wrong way after they get this thought... they choose the bible instead of choosing the truth.
Here's how Genesis needs to be revised if it is to be compatible with scientific knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9EVMzVQKTk
My last paragraphs were all about your idea of a "mega theory".... what do you mean by that? It seems I've missed the mark on what you're talking about twice now... a scientifically compatible creation story? There's one on TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history.html
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
(There is already a conversation about this.)
Evolution has nothing to do with religion, at all. Even if we had no religions we would still have the process of evolution happening naturally.
Derek Payne
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
While philosophy strengthens both science and religion their connections are not direct but correlations. Spirituality however can inspire science as can science inspire spirituality.
When I said evolution I meant, natural (over time physical) evolution. The mind follow body, body does not follow mind until intelligence is established and responded to communally. example: the first ape to walk long distances due to the ability to save energy than walking on all four.
Derek Payne
E G 10+
"all life has a subconcious" should we make a difference between the animals and humans at this point? what do you think?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Merely the instinctive drives all animals have is what keeps them surviving naturally.
@ Derek
Yeah I am still pretty confident mind follows body and I don't see how your argument disagrees with my conclusion either. For DNA to develop through lineage is evolution/mutation; that's natural due to the need to reproduce in nature. Only some animals have intelligence in which they can respond to their environment extensively.
E G 10+
Derek Payne
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Why don't you just do personal research on this manner?
E G 10+
E G 10+
Derek Payne
E G 10+
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Derek Payne
Derek Payne
E G 10+
Derek Payne
E G 10+
Derek Payne
E G 10+
Karine AUBRY 50+
Some religions or at least the way they're understood make us irresponsible people, waiting for our fate to decide.
But some spiritual movements seem to be evolution-bound since they make us rise and awaken spiritually, i think.
Scott Armstrong 50+
A need to reconcile the two reveals a need within whoever calls for it.
Comment deleted
E G 10+
Comment deleted
E G 10+
Comment deleted
Derek Payne
P S. I agree with your first part.
Paul van Zoggel
Guess we also need one for 'psychology, religion, intuition, compassion, empathy'
E G 10+
"God, just like other invented things such as art, philosophy, music, sports" you know philosophy study something, for example analitical philosophy study the meanings of the words and if God is an invented thing like the philosophy , what we have studied in order to invent it ?(it's the same thing about the music and any sport.....)everything have a basis, a ground , at the idea, invented in your opinion, of God what is it? and why exatcly the idea of God? why not something else?
Interesed in your opinion.
Comment deleted
E G 10+
Emotions , what do you understand by this word , not necessarily to give a definition but what do you understand by emotions?.......... and when have appeared the emotions in the evolutive process ? and how these influenced us ? we as humans have reason it's more important .........
what do you think about it?
Derek Payne
Comment deleted
Derek Payne
PS I have discovered a link between all life on earth and I am not talking about DNA. You can understand why I can't mention it. I am about to discuss it at a meeting tonight.
E G 10+
I don't want to recieve comments in the scientific terminology or something like , I wanna see only the reason behind someones opinion , I have only contempt for someone who use this terminology and do not make too much sense logically , rationally .............but Birdia I also don't think it's enough for someone only to express his/her opinions without arguments (doesn't matter the terminology), and without trying to answer at some normal question about his/her belief.
Thank you for your comments.
Comment deleted
Elizabeth Berry
@ Derek: I see where you're getting at, but I'm not sure how your reasoning has allowed you equate evolution with ability. Evolution is the gradual change in inherited traits in organisms, not ability. I see where you're getting at with the dormant thing though. If my assumptions are correct, are you referring to the fact that, at the most basic level, cells have the ability to express certain genes and not others? This allows cells to differentiate to different cell lines etc.
@Birdia: You're line of thought seems pretty clear too. I agree that not all emotions are necessary and arts and the like do not have a concrete purpose other than to make us feel better about ourselves and communicate. But I think that in our more primitive state a few million years or so ago, emotions did play a larger role in our existence as, without the intellect and knowledge that we have now, humans had to rely on their 'gut-feelings' to judge precarious situations. That said, that really only applies to anger and fear and, maybe, to love. The rest is comforting but unnecessary in my opinion.
I digress. Religion and evolution can survive together. Look at Charles Darwin, father of the theory of evolution and a regular church-goer. But it depends on what you rely on religion for. Is it a place for comfort or do you turn to it to explain every detail of life? If your idealisms follow the latter, chances are you won't look on evolution too highly as it refutes the whole idea that God created the world and everything on it in seven days.
I personally find the religious standpoint to be false. There is clear evidence for evolution, from selective breeding (yes, pugs are an example of accelerated evolution), homologous structures and DNA. And say what you will about the structure of the eye, but scientists have modelled that such a structure is entirely possible by evolution and would even take even less time to create. Perhaps we should celebrate the power of the natural world.
E G 10+
You say that religion and evolution can live together , what do you mean by it : this both can exist together separated of persons or a person can believe both two ? It seems to me that you will agree with the second from what you said but how is it possible more exatcly?