The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion

[DougShrapnel]

There is much argument on this board that evolution by chance or otherwise conficts with the belief in a God. That since life hasn't been known to come from non life there is a god, a first cause that got the whole universe and life started. Also the discussion of absolute morals must come from god, vs from evolution. DS has given a great abridged summary of this argument. These arguements do nothing for the existance of god or no god. We can know the world around us with or without a god. We can know, ethically, right from wrong with or without a god.

What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.

[David Sklansky]

Bingo

[Peter666]

If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.

Besides, evolution itself is not in conflict with religion, it is Atheism or the atheistic aspect of atheistic evolution which is. We can still come from monkeys and be redeemed. It's basically the idea that something can come from nothing which causes the problems.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If so far we are the best product that evolution has produced (a rational creature) how can we possibly know that evolution will continue past us? That is mere speculation, so it is not unreasonable to think that evolution ends with people.

Besides, evolution itself is not in conflict with religion, it is Atheism or the atheistic aspect of atheistic evolution which is. We can still come from monkeys and be redeemed. It's basically the idea that something can come from nothing which causes the problems.

[/ QUOTE ]I am not saying we are the best evolution has produced so far. Curisoty may in fact kill the cat.

Are you saying that if there is a God, evolution can not continue? Can I get you on the record to say that. And when it's proven false would you change your religious view, or would you deny the validity of our observations. This is why I agrue against religious beliefs. Steadfast denial of working theories soley because of one text. This denial will lead to the downfall of xtianity.

We can force evolution(square peg) to fit with evolution(round hole). But why would I want to? More importantly why do you want to?

The idea the something cannot come from nothing, is nothing more than not understanding the nature of something, or the nature of nothing. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not account for the creation of the universe or the creation of life. It mearly state the process of how life changed. And how it will continue to change. This continually evolving of man, is the real danger to your specific religious belief, and not as you say, that we came from monkeys. Or as NotReady states that evolution by chance denies a worldview. I stand by my statement of how evolution damages your beliefs.

[RJT]

You might understand evolution, Doug. You do not understand Christianity. Even if (when) man evolves into something vastly different than we are now, (or even if man become extinct) how does that change Christianity?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
You might understand evolution, Doug. You do not understand Christianity. Even if (when) man evolves into something vastly different than we are now, (or even if man become extinct) how does that change Christianity?

[/ QUOTE ]I am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity might be static. Our understanding of it is not, however. Our understanding of it is always evolving (as should be our practice of it).

(Btw, I don’t believe “we can evolve past [our] extinction“, but I know what you meant.)

[Peter666]

No, RJT was right when he said that evolution can continue, but man would change to the point that he would no longer be man. For Christians, Jesus was the Incarnate God Man, and he came to save men, not some evolved Superman who is above rational that might emerge in the future. So evolution could still continue and not contradict one's religious belief or belief in God.

As I stated earlier, the real fight is not against evolution itself, but the atheistic belief within it.

Also, nothing is nothing, it has no nature.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
There is much argument on this board that evolution by chance or otherwise conficts with the belief in a God. That since life hasn't been known to come from non life there is a god, a first cause that got the whole universe and life started. Also the discussion of absolute morals must come from god, vs from evolution. DS has given a great abridged summary of this argument. These arguements do nothing for the existance of god or no god. We can know the world around us with or without a god. We can know, ethically, right from wrong with or without a god.

What the important aspect of evolution that conflicts with religion is, is that we are not the ultimate objective of evolution. Evolution does not stop with us. Humans are not the special creation of God or the ultimate objective of evolution. To think otherwise is to deny reason. This is why evolution is so damaging to religion. Evolution continuing past our creation is the real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that human's not being an evolutionary endpoint is in conflict with religion. I think the a reasoning person it might even be the biggest problem. However, I think the problem tat most religious types have is that it conflicts with the bible's description of creation to someone making a narrow interpretation of the word "created."

It's like religious types are not open-minded!!! (fine, to be fair, as a general rule)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
am always glad when forced to chose between altering ones religoius view and denying reality, one alters the religious view. If you believe that we can evolve past extinction and xtianinty could still be true, you are likey to be in the minority of religous practicers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity might be static. Our understanding of it is not, however. Our understanding of it is always evolving (as should be our practice of it).

(Btw, I don’t believe “we can evolve past [our] extinction“, but I know what you meant.)

[/ QUOTE ]How can we be the special creation of God, in his on image, if evolution is allowed to continue to create something better then the image of God? Does this not go against a core tennet of xtainity?

I can be certainly found lacking in my understanding of both religion and evolution. What are the central tennets of xtianity: rhetorical? As far as I know the workingness of prayer has been shown to not exist. It may help someone with personal "demons", but does not affect externalities in any way? Is prayer and God listening a central tenet of xtianinty? Or must one change the beleif that god affects anything outside of the spirit? My understanding of the observations is that god does only affect the being, the personal choices, the self, the soul if you will.