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.

[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.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]Your fist statement was more of what I was expecting as a response. We are the special creation of God. I believe this is a core tennet of xtianity. And I believe it to be in conflict with evolution continueing.

To your 2nd thought, well yeah, of course atheism is in conflict with theism. Unfortunelty, the fundementalist views of creation in your scripture are in direct conflict with history. Provided you realize genesis means god did it, we don't know how but we know he did, then you would be smart to learn from that transaction. To learn that when a religous view and our observation are in conflict the religious view is the one likely to be wrong.

And to the nothing point let me rephrase. When we say that something cannot come from nothing. It our misunderstanding, or lack of knowledge, about the; universe, the objects withen the universe, what was before the universe, what matter fundementaly is, the nature of time, wholey the nature of what you assume is nothing, or of course the nature of what you assume is something, and lastly the effect of time on what you assume is nothing, and what you assume is something. What that goofy stamement means is that you(read: everyone) does not know the exact process that created the universe(read: our ignorance and predispotions) as well as the nature of time(read: the process and creation of universes). We could just say "God did it", and you have chosen that path. I will keep my mind open on it.

I'm pretty new to this forum, I've only been pokin around it for a week or two. I gotta say that I love the passion put forth in the posts. Anyhow, I wanna take a crack at this one.


[ QUOTE ]
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 ]


[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

How about, if there is a God (I'm thinking christian perspective)evolution MUST continue?

Acording to the Bible, Jesus, the son of God, created in God's image:

- walked on water
- predicted the future
- had such emotional control to take the beating he took with no disdain towards the perpatrators
- returned from the dead ( or cast himself into a state to appear so, also wasn't he pretty much healed when seen a few days later? I'm not extremeley good with the particulars)
- levetated into the sky (heavens?)
- healed the sick with his touch


We may continue to evolve, not necessarily in appeareace. Humans could conceivably look the same thousands of years from now, yet advance in abilities far beyond what is now capable. Couldn't many of Jesus' "miracles" be eventually explained by currentley unknown truths in physics? Perhaps human energy transfers, magnetic force usage, control of consciousness, etc..., are all basic functions of the "man" we are to evolve into. They say we only use a small % of our brain. The rest was meant to do something wasn't it?

One could question weather or not Jesus exsisted, or if the stories of his miracles actually happened. If you believe in God in the Christian religion, and you compare Jesus' abilities to the current man, wouldn't the conclusion be not only that we must evolve further, but we have a really long way to go? Isn't the goal to be like Jesus? Wouldn't this theory put evolution and Chritian beliefs more hand in hand, than one vs. the other?

OK, now pound me into the turf.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
They say we only use a small % of our brain. The rest was meant to do something wasn't it?

OK, now pound me into the turf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The small percentage of the brain idea is popular myth. We use our entire brain, it's just that only part of it is active at any given time. If the whole thing were active at once, we'd be incredibly confused. Even having large parts of the brain with excitatory activity at any given time is essentially a seizure.

The general operation of the brain is a global inhibition with small islands of excitation. When the surrounding zones of inhibition break down, seizure results.

Consider yourself pounded. :P

As for the rest, I do believe humans could evolve other abilities, but I consider the ones you describe as unlikely. I do think there is energy/information that humans can take in that does not come directly from our main sensory modalities and is difficult to consciously appreciate.

I think we're a long way from Jesus though, who btw was way cool.