Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Shukara]

I believe that the Bible is correct to a point. The Bible has been translated hundreds of times from all different languages. I believe it is correct as long as it is translated CORRECTLY. Now we can't be sure if it has been or not so I am not solely focused on whether the Bible is correct of not. With the Bible it is said you can't believe in it and Evolution as well. This is where I disagree. I believe and God and Evolution. In the Bible it is stated that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Well, it is also stated in later verses that our days are not equal to God's days. So if we do not know exactly how long one of God's days are then we can't be sure if Evolution is totally impossible. God's days could have been millions of years and we wouldn't know. That would leave enough time for things to be created and show how evolution could actually work. If God created the foundations of Evolution and each one of his days he let it build, it is perfectly possible for Evolution and the Bible to be accurate together.

[anarchyisbliss]

Think about this - How can some athiests/agnostics deny creation?

Evolution is a theory, and it can't really be proven beyond simple exemplification and assumption. Because evolution, according to the tenants of the theory, takes millions of year, we can't actually watch living organisms evolve ( unless we are viewing the cusp of an evolutionary cycle ). And yes there a fossils and bones and geological evidence, but that isn't always reliable. Also, creationism is a theory and it basically has just as much evidence and support as evolution...

[Carbon]

I believe that the Bible is correct to a point. The Bible has been translated hundreds of times from all different languages. I believe it is correct as long as it is translated CORRECTLY.

The King James translation was translated a number of times, correct. The newer translations, such as NIV, are translated directly from the original Greek manuscripts and Dead Sea Scrolls. It took about 10 years for the translation, so it's quite accurate.

With the Bible it is said you can't believe in it and Evolution as well.

Where?

This is where I disagree. I believe and God and Evolution. In the Bible it is stated that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Well, it is also stated in later verses that our days are not equal to God's days. So if we do not know exactly how long one of God's days are then we can't be sure if Evolution is totally impossible. God's days could have been millions of years and we wouldn't know.

The Hebrew words in this situation are quite different. There is no way the "day" referred to in each case is the same.

[pjkeeley]

Also, creationism is a theory and it basically has just as much evidence and support as evolution...

What evidence?

[anarchyisbliss]

Also, creationism is a theory and it basically has just as much evidence and support as evolution...

What evidence?

Creationism gets its legitimacy from religious texts. So just know that the following evidence is religiously based and may not be factual in your world, but in the religious world you have to remember that the epistemological people are the outsiders. Whereas in your world the religious people would be the outsiders.

Evidence:

The Bible: Genesis 1:1 - " In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth..."

The Qu'ran: "Allah created the sun, the moon, and the planets, each with their own individual courses or orbits. "It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon; all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course" (21:33).

There are more but I'm sure you get the idea. The basis of knowledge for theists are their holy books and their mythology, not scientific evidence. So you must realize that simply hearing those words is evidence enough for some people. In the same way there are atheists who hold onto their copy of "Origins of Species" like it was pure fact. Theists may pull out a Bible and say here is my proof. You might respond saying that that is just a book. Then you pull out your biology book to disprove their theories and they would rebut saying that that is just a book as well. It is a two sided fight that will never be won.

I hope you understood that.

[AlanDaboin]

It's true that a lot of disbelief in evolution seems to be found amongst Christians in particular. I suppose the reasons are as follows:

1) A lot of Christians adopt literalist/near-literalist interpretations of Genesis (notable exception: St. Augustine!). This leads people to think that everything was individually created by God, intentionally, in a certain order, with a certain goal, and only a short time ago.

2) Evolution, to many, equates to blindness, purposeleness, and chance in the formation of creatures. It also took place a while ago, and doesn't appear to necessitate a loving God.

-----------

So what to do, you may ask?

1) Take the Bible, and forget Darwin. After all, God's word takes precedence. This leads to Creationism and its near-twin Intelligent Design.

2) Take Darwin, forget the Bible.

3) Find a way to accept both God and evolution.

----------

An educated Christian should accept the truth of God as well as Darwin's theory. #3 would be their only choice of a path. Unfortunately, it's the hardest to defend--but certainly is not indefensible. In fact, Pope John Paul II endorsed both evolution and God!!

As a Catholic it shames me that many Christians in America can deny evolution...In my view, creationism actually offends the notion of a loving and perfect God for a variety of reasons.

[ape]

My question is how can anyone deny evolution?

Hi Scott.
Thanx for the question.
Spiritually, how I deny evolution is in Love of it.
This is different to how most evolutionists deny creation: in Hate of creation and of any creator who created it.
Evolution could have happened. But on examining the same evidence evolution-believers examine, I conclude there is no evidence of evolution simply because there are not the intermediate species we shd be seeing all around us and all in the fossil record.
Physically, I deny evolution in the same way that evolutionists deny creation after examining the same evidence.
To me, there is nothing wrong with belief in evolution and I love the idea.
Hope that helps.
What say you?

[nameless]

My question is how can anyone deny evolution?

One answer to your query is that 'evolution' is a 'theory' that works from a particular perspective (linear/sequential, for instance).
There are other perspectives in which the notion of 'evolution' is meaningless (such as wholistic).

I cannot 'deny' the perspective that perceives evolution, because it exists and is therefore 'real', and a feature of 'Reality'/the Universe.
But there are other, just as valid Perspectives that i cannot deny, either, as they too, exist.
I guess that when one 'denies' the perceptions of another Perspective, they are denying that it works for them, as they cannot 'perceive' it in their Perspective, so, in essence, it doesn't exist in their 'world' (a feature of The 'World/Universe').
Unaware of other Perspectives or their ultimate 'validity' (as 'real').
Ego is also involved.

"The complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives (us)" -Book of Fudd

[Alun]

Are we talking about micro or macro evolution?

The real issue is macro evolution, however:

Micro evolution being evolution, or change, within a given gene pool, and macro being something quite different altogether.

This is incorrect because DNA does change; this is the source of both micro and macro evolution. We can observe micro evolution when bacterial cells evolve toward the most fit to reproduce. Mutation can and does, on occasion, produce new information (such as defenses against antibacterial agents). The difference between micro and macro is simply whether the gradual changes alter reproduction itself to the point that two species diverge from one. Why wouldn't reproduction evolve while other systems do?

I acknowledge the fact that our species has an alarming amount of similarity in our genetics with some monkeys, but I find it exceptionally difficult to accept we 'evolved' from them.

Why? Do you think the concept is irrational? Do you think the archaeological links (like Lucy and other primitive hominids) are not convincing?

Evolution could have happened. But on examining the same evidence evolution-believers examine, I conclude there is no evidence of evolution simply because there are not the intermediate species we shd be seeing all around us and all in the fossil record.

First, this is why there are no relatives 'all around us': According to Carbon dating we've been around for more than long enough to eliminate weaker species in our niche (like Neanderthals--which we did eliminate). Further, most of our relatives didn't get far from Africa--without language, they probably couldn't have adapted well enough. We, on the other hand, exploded outward; it'd be more surprising if we didn't overrun our less intelligent relatives.

Second, there is plenty in the fossil record. How many species of hominid do you expect?

[Belinda]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/science/16fossil.html

The newly examined fossil primate from Germany

[ape]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/science/16fossil.html

The newly examined fossil primate from Germany

My point exactly: these and all else shd be endlessly all over the world, and in my backyard, if evolution were true.

[Juice]

A basic definition of evolution is “change”. Therefore one must concede that change is obvious. Whether that change, in biologic sense, applies to man is the question.

The theory of “survival of the fittest” has gone through several metamorphoses since Darwin’s original postulate. So that now it applies to change on a subcellur level in genes. This requires a long explanation but suffice to say that evolutionary biologist now simply say “fitness”. It is the fitness of genetic mutations which supports survival.

There are several reasons for this evolution of thought but simply put various aspects of Darwin’s original theory did not hold water when put under scrutiny. Cause and effect or effect and cause were major obstacles which are overcome with the current explanations for biologic evolution by “fitness”.

To say that “what survives will survive” is not necessarily true seeing that 99.9% of all life ever to have survived on the planet is now extinct. This also begs the question is extinction a natural process of survival which allows for species adaptation due to environmental flux? When one considers that biologic evolution leads to species diversion and new species development who is to say what has survived and what has not since evolution, as stated, leads to change. From a genesis perspective it could be said that the original organism that can be considered life has survived as evident by all the life now in existence.

That some religious organizations discount evolution is a matter of strict adherence to the words in the bible and a matter of faith. Something which a conscious and reason allows.

If one is not inclined to view biblical text as absolute then there are several various arguments that can be made in order to satisfy reconciliation between faith and science. Something which a conscious and reason also allows.

Furthermore there is currently no empirical evidence that modern man evolved and in fact some evidence which can dispute the claim that he has.

Also since there is yet no agreed upon scientific proof defining what time is then everything concerning the genesis and creation of the universe and everything in it is simply theory and a matter of scientific and religious faith.

[Alun]

My point exactly: these and all else shd be endlessly all over the world, and in my backyard, if evolution were true.

That's a common misconception. Bones don't fossilize under normal conditions; they almost always decompose. Think about how many trees there would be left petrified if they didn't decompose. However, if the organism is quickly dried or sucked into an oxygen depleted environment (like a tar pit) it can be preserved.

Furthermore there is currently no empirical evidence that modern man evolved and in fact some evidence which can dispute the claim that he has.

I'm sorry, but this statement is patently false. We have observed genetic mutation and its selection by natural forces. We have hundreds of fossils of extinct primates on various points between man and a common ancestor with lower order primates. You can evaluate such evidence and for some reason conclude that it is not as developed as it should be, but you are simply wrong to say that there is no evidence.

[ape]

That's a common misconception. Bones don't fossilize under normal conditions; they almost always decompose. Think about how many trees there would be left petrified if they didn't decompose. However, if the organism is quickly dried or sucked into an oxygen depleted environment (like a tar pit) it can be preserved.

Hi Alun!
Thanx.
So where are the living]/u] intermediates of which there shd also be endless?
And of course, if we ever find living fossils, then evolution did not take place!
What say you?

[Juice]

Alun

I'm sorry, but this statement is patently false. We have observed genetic mutation and its selection by natural forces. We have hundreds of fossils of extinct primates on various points between man and a common ancestor with lower order primates. You can evaluate such evidence and for some reason conclude that it is not as developed as it should be, but you are simply wrong to say that there is no evidence.

Alun-I distinctly said that there is no "empirical" evidence that "modern" man evolved. Commonality of genes is not empirical evidence. DNA and genes are just the best way to ensure hereditary reproduction and the best mathemathical expression to insure diversity. That there are genetic similarities between species is a mathematical given just like software in computers. 0+1's doesn't mean all software is the same or that it has a common point of origin. I understand what the science purports which can be easily argued is my point.

Man is so much more than the sum of his parts which currently cannot be explained by evolution alone given the fact that man is exponentially superior to his nearest genetic equivalent.