The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion

[Rduke55]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[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.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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)

[/ QUOTE ]I believe after decifering your first thought I mostly agree, and am confused how RJT is stateing the opposite about the endpointed aspect of religion.

[patrick dicaprio]

i dont deny that there is evolution. but we do have to recognize that humans may indeed stop evolving, not because they are the prime end of evoution. for one thing there are many factors working against us like the rise of science and medicine, drugs etc that allow the weakest to survive and procreate. we may have already stopped. but to assume we will keep evolving is pure speculation at this point, although probably it is true that we will evolve at least for a while but we are probably much closer to a finished product than we might think.

this says nothing about God existing or not existing however.

Pat

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont deny that there is evolution. but we do have to recognize that humans may indeed stop evolving, not because they are the prime end of evoution. for one thing there are many factors working against us like the rise of science and medicine, drugs etc that allow the weakest to survive and procreate. we may have already stopped. but to assume we will keep evolving is pure speculation at this point, although probably it is true that we will evolve at least for a while but we are probably much closer to a finished product than we might think.

this says nothing about God existing or not existing however.

Pat

[/ QUOTE ]

While I see your point, humans will never stop evolving. The may be no more speciation but the smaller scale stuff will always be around. Think about things like disease resistance or sexual selection. While a lot of the height differences can be explained by nutrition, etc. sexual selection could play a role in it as well.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is completely unreasonable to think that humans are the pinnacle of evolution or that we are "better" in an evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you know anything about evolution it isn't.
This thinking is seriously flawed.
What is your reasoning on why humans are better than other organisms in an evolutionary sense? For example, many species of single-celled organisms have orders of magnitude (many, many orders of magnitude) more individuals and greater total biomass than humans. Are they more successful than us?

Most reputable journals on evolution phased out use of terms like "higher" and "lower" organisms because of this bias that humans are better evolved than apes which are better evolved than monkeys which are better evolved than...
you get the idea.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]


It is absolutely reasonable to think that we are better in a n evolutionary sense than other organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. I'm totally enamored with the abilities of humans relative to other organisms. However, we're only better evolved to do what we do. Deinnococcus radiodurans bacteria can live in Antarctic ice, on uranium rods, and in high salt concentrations and just about any more hospitable environment as well. I'd say it's more evolved, honestly. Cockroaches are supposedly the only guaranteed survivor of a worldwide nuclear holocaust. Sharks have not changed in millions of years and have still been incredibly successful even today.

It's all about adaptation and though humans are almost certainly the smartest and have the greatest fine motor coordination, if the earth's environment changed rapidly, many species would fare better than us.

[Peter666]

The fundamentalist religious view is only held by a small sect of people who really don't matter in the scheme of things. It should not be considered the predominant "religious" view. There are many religions, so one has to take each on its on accord.

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.