The real reason why evolution is in conflict with religion

[RJT]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

When Christians(and Jews) speak in such language, it is to illustrate what we believe. I would think that God is much more than even the most beautiful person on earth. This type of language has limits. We often picture God as a wise old man with white hair. These are only metaphors. Perhaps, it does more harm then good when we use such literary devices. The problem (short coming) though is with language – and to an extent our imagination; another problem of course is that all is not known, i.e. mysteries we call them. It is a cop-out so to speak for sure to end with "mysteries". But, that is what Faith is – as reason stops short, faith kicks in. Hopefully, the more science discovers, the more (better) ways we can describe God’s word.

How does science talk about DNA and Atoms? Do these things actually look like such in real life? (If they actually do, then you could probably come up with a better science analogy than I to get what I am trying to say. Can’t think of one off hand. There must be a similar example though. )

[RJT]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think when science can tell us how the jump from self-awareness, intellect (or whatever the proper term would be) was made in the evolutionary process, we will have the answer to this question. Believers think that it has to do with God is all.

[RJT]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This certainly is a hard one to figure out. It is even harder in that science does not try to predict the paths of evolution (to my knowledge). Things such as these are indeed subject for discussion.

I do not think it is the endpoint, though, for the discussion. As I just posted to you, if we are made in God’s image as we believe, only our language and our understanding to date can explain what that means. I suspect we have along way to evolve to even approach being near God-like. So, the future of our evolution does not necessarily negate Christianity.

[RJT]

Mr. Chips,

I think you make a good point (from my quick read). I don't have time respond now, but will later. Let's let the others flame away for the time being.

RJT

Very well ...Mr. .......T???

praytell.... do you really pity the fool?

Hey, watch it now....I'm gonna gitchu sucka

[RJT]

I am not up on current science viz a ziv the following. You guys tell me.

Freud was a break through, I thought. Jung took what he “discovered” it in a somewhat different direction. Shamans and Huxley had something to say. Or is all that discounted in science? Is it all silly?

Who’s to say that we can’t evolve to further our awareness of nature - if we can’t evolve into better “seeing reality”? Maybe Jesus, if He was/is God too, had a better understanding of the doors of perception.

Our evolution , I suspect, will either negate all the theories that have come before us (e.g. Christianity) or better explain them.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
One could question weather or not Jesus existed…

[/ QUOTE ]

No one with a modicum of knowledge of the subject could.

[ QUOTE ]
… or if the stories of his miracles actually happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem with this discussion.

Regarding your post:

I can imagine our brain evolving to have more abilities than we do now. To have more perceptive abilities. For example “I see dead people”. This would not conflict with Christianity.

Ben seems to think the brain is not capable of expanding in this manner. (Or does he?) I have no idea what science says. Science does not attempt predictions in evolution is my understanding at any rate.

Similar notions within the context of science is how I see our evolution as well as our Christianity’s understanding of itself (its own evolution).

p.s. You did catch the “Goodbye, Mr. Chips” allusion right? The novel/movie.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

we are not the ultimate objective of evolution


[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of ultimate objective is contradictory with the concept of evolution by chance. Objective implies goal, motive, mind. Chance is blind and impersonal. You're trying to exclude God and save purpose when God is the only possible source for ultimate meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, entirely (with both the the quote and the reply).