Science/Environment Explaining evolution and natural selection.

[jaaack]

I don't personally see any reason I can't be both a Christian and accept theory of evolution by natural selection. I am fascinated by evolution. I understand anger towards people who would try to stamp out evolution in schools and teach creationism instead - these people are the enemies of anyone with a brain in their head. But IMO the dichotomy of evolution vs Christianity is false and blown wildly out of proportion.

 

[Total Power]

I don't personally see any reason I can't be both a Christian and accept theory of evolution by natural selection. I am fascinated by evolution. I understand anger towards people who would try to stamp out evolution in schools and teach creationism instead - these people are the enemies of anyone with a brain in their head. But IMO the dichotomy of evolution vs Christianity is false and blown wildly out of proportion.

I dont care what a person believes in, evolution is not even up for debate, majority of the christians and now a large chunk of Muslims also believe in it. People like p35 raise issues (like evolution of intelligence) which has been addressed many times, intelligence of humans didnt just pop into existence, it took millions of years to develop and we are still evolving. Heck even the vatican admitted that evolution is true, but P35 has secret knowledge of creation from somewhere

 

[Eastern Rangers]

From John Gray's Atheist Delusion:

''In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.''

He's confused religion and reason. Religion is culturally and historically contingent, reason exists at least in some form or another independent of that.

Similarly Dawkins does the same, even though rational explanations for the universe can and have included religious explanations when no other alternative exists. Ultimately the more of the world you explain through independent natural phenomena the smaller the role that religion can play in ones day to day life.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Nah....Not a put-down of science.....More a specification of context.

There's the scientific approach & there's the religious approach to cosmogony....I prefer the latter....Which is not to say, I ignore the former.

Besides, you guys are always here to remind me.

Religion lacks an "approach" all together.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Religion lacks an "approach" all together.

Wrong:.... The religious approach is always psychological & is looking for meaning/purpose in life....Nice try but.

 

[CM86]

Wrong:.... The religious approach is always psychological & is looking for meaning/purpose in life....Nice try but.

Wrong:.... The religious 'approach' is to have an answer, and then try and find ways to justify it.

Religion hates questions, because questions have an adverse effect on the answers that they want everyone to live by.

 

[Pie eyed]

You'd have to assume his existence to start talking about his demeanour, so the argument still fails.


Anyway, back to thread topic. I'm eyeing off this book: https://www.amazon.com/Runaway-Brain-Evolution-Human-Uniqueness/dp/0465031315 which purports to explain how humans came to be so much more intelligent than can be explained by natural selection alone. It was referred to a lot in books by Pinker and others that I used to read.

I wouldn't have to assume anything, unless it was me posting...I'll leave the assuming to you.
I was merely trying to help you understand the post in question.

 

[Total Power]

Wrong:.... The religious approach is always psychological & is looking for meaning/purpose in life....Nice try but.

You should never stop asking questions, rational thinking is all about questioning. Religion has it upside down like CM mentioned. The moment criticism of a certain ideology is considered an "attack" or an offense you know theres much wrong in it. I dont care what you believe in, be critical. Atheism might be whatever but it encourages critical thinking. So many people take "god" for granted, they cant think for themselves. You only need to visit a 3rd world country to see the effects of religion

 

[little graham]

 

[M Malice]

everyone is entitled the their opinion.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/darwin-day/

 

[Illinois Nazi]

“Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott.” as cited in Ulrich Hildebrand: "Das Universum - Hinweis auf Gott?", in "Ethos. Die Zeitschrift für die ganze Familie", Berneck, Schweiz: Schwengeler Verlag AG, No. 10, Oktober 1988, p. 10

• • The quote can not be found in Heisenberg's published works, and Hildebrand apparently does not declare his source. The renowned journalist Eike Christian Hirsch PhD, a personal aquaitance of Heisenberg, whom he interviewed for his 1981 book „Expedition in die Glaubenswelt“, informed de.wikiquote on 22. June 2015, that content and style of the quote was completely foreign to Heisenberg's convictions and the way he used to express himself. Heisenberg's children Dr. Maria Hirsch, Feldafing, and Prof. Dr. Martin Heisenberg, Würzburg, did not recognize their father in this quote. Dr. Hirsch suggests the quote could be fabricated by a fundamentalist English speaking Christian seeking support for his faith from

• Francis Bacon#Essays (1625) „Of Atheism“ (1601): „A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion“, and
• Alexander Pope: „An Essay on Criticism“ (1709): „A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: 
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.“

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg

 

[little graham]

everyone is entitled the their opinion.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/darwin-day/

When you break your jaw, forced you are to drink from the bottom of the glass through a straw. Its alot less painful taking drugs. you get the same knowledge.

 

[M Malice]

When you break your jaw, forced you are to drink from the bottom of the glass through a straw. Its alot less painful taking drugs. you get the same knowledge.

? less ambiguity would be appreciated LG.

 

[little graham]

? less ambiguity would be appreciated LG.

Thats something boxed in people complain about a lot. its something people drinking from the top of sciences well complain about alot but something those that drink from the bottom, do not.

 

[little graham]

One day you'll learn science is nothing but a tool. Thor likes his hammers. With that tool you can build a house but you can also smash someones head in. So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science claiming evolution? Is it building a house or smashing someones head in? i would say its smashing someones head in because it still hasnt proven there was no creator.

 

[M Malice]

Thats something boxed in people complain about a lot. its something people drinking from the top of sciences well complain about alot but something those that drink from the bottom, do not.

thanks i think.

One day you'll learn science is nothing but a tool. Thor likes his hammers. With that tool you can build a house but you can also smash someones head in. So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science claiming evolution? Is it building a house or smashing someones head in? i would say its smashing someones head in because it still hasnt proven there was no creator.

so you are saying it's up to science to prove there is no creator but not vice versa?

 

[jaaack]

One day you'll learn science is nothing but a tool. Thor likes his hammers. With that tool you can build a house but you can also smash someones head in. So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science claiming evolution? Is it building a house or smashing someones head in? i would say its smashing someones head in because it still hasnt proven there was no creator.

Firstly, science doesn't revolve around a singular goal of proving or disproving a creator. The value of the science of evolution isn't measured against a scale of how far it goes in proving or disproving a creator.

Secondly, science treats with the natural world. No scientist, and no Christian, should want science to answer religious questions. They are separate realms.

 

[Chief]

Firstly, science doesn't revolve around a singular goal of proving or disproving a creator. The value of the science of evolution isn't measured against a scale of how far it goes in proving or disproving a creator.

Secondly, science treats with the natural world. No scientist, and no Christian, should want science to answer religious questions. They are separate realms.

Is the Non-Overlapping Magisteria idea valid, though?

When there are competing ideas in how to run things, either through rationality or religion, they surely must clash.

And this isn't just "atheist" vs "religious".

You have some economists giving solutions that are simply unpalatable to the general public.

How to solve organ donation shortages? Pay a person's estate for their organs? It would probably work but is that a path society wants to go down? Religious or not, most people have a strong aversion to selling human organs.

An economist with this idea can say "why are you denying people a chance at life just to salve your own emotional reaction to an idea?"

 

[Partridge]

You should never stop asking questions, rational thinking is all about questioning. Religion has it upside down like CM mentioned. The moment criticism of a certain ideology is considered an "attack" or an offense you know theres much wrong in it. I dont care what you believe in, be critical. Atheism might be whatever but it encourages critical thinking. So many people take "god" for granted, they cant think for themselves. You only need to visit a 3rd world country to see the effects of religion

Yep. And you only need visit somewhere like Scandanavia to see how society thrives without it.

 

[little graham]

Firstly, science doesn't revolve around a singular goal of proving or disproving a creator. The value of the science of evolution isn't measured against a scale of how far it goes in proving or disproving a creator.
Secondly, science treats with the natural world. No scientist, and no Christian, should want science to answer religious questions. They are separate realms.

A athiest can't use science to prove thier is no creator when science hasnt proved there is no creator. You have to be some sort of religous nutter to do that.

 

[jaaack]

Is the Non-Overlapping Magisteria idea valid, though?

When there are competing ideas in how to run things, either through rationality or religion, they surely must clash.

And this isn't just "atheist" vs "religious".

You have some economists giving solutions that are simply unpalatable to the general public.

How to solve organ donation shortages? Pay a person's estate for their organs? It would probably work but is that a path society wants to go down? Religious or not, most people have a strong aversion to selling human organs.

An economist with this idea can say "why are you denying people a chance at life just to salve your own emotional reaction to an idea?"

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here so feel free to correct me if I seem to have misunderstood.

Science doesn't have any say on moral principles or how we should act, it only says what is. Sure, science can be taken into account in deciding a course of action.

 

[Pie eyed]

Thats something boxed in people complain about a lot. its something people drinking from the top of sciences well complain about alot but something those that drink from the bottom, do not.

"fabricated by a fundamentalist English speaking Christian seeking support for his faith"

 

[Pie eyed]

A athiest can't use science to prove thier is no creator when science hasnt proved there is no creator. You have to be some sort of religous nutter to do that.

The assumption that a creator needs to be disproved is yours.
I ask for no proof, don't require it.
I need no more proof of Gods than unicorns.
As an anti-theist I ask only reprieve from the religious who ask I provide something for them they claim I should have.

 

[darth_timon]

One day you'll learn science is nothing but a tool. Thor likes his hammers. With that tool you can build a house but you can also smash someones head in. So ask yourself, what is the purpose of science claiming evolution? Is it building a house or smashing someones head in? i would say its smashing someones head in because it still hasnt proven there was no creator.

The flipside of that statement is that science hasn't proven there IS a creator.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

 

[Long Live HFC]

I don't personally see any reason I can't be both a Christian and accept theory of evolution by natural selection. I am fascinated by evolution. I understand anger towards people who would try to stamp out evolution in schools and teach creationism instead - these people are the enemies of anyone with a brain in their head. But IMO the dichotomy of evolution vs Christianity is false and blown wildly out of proportion.

yep. i posted much the same earlier in the thread. luckily, it tends to be (mostly) a USA problem. P35's posts though might make me change my mind