*Spinoff* Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?

Drew_Ali

This question arose in my thread Rewriting evolution........

I want to keep that one scientific or evidence based...........

This one is more opinion........

Alot of similar points made in this BBC discussion and that thread.......

However, they failed to mention the dangers associated with evolutionary science.......

i.e. scientific racism........

Drew_Ali

Religion cannnot accept evolution

The ideas are polar opposites..............

Makaveli Joker

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

Evolution is a much better explanation that some magic genie snapping his fingers and now we have a human

alissowack

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

Oceanic

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

yes, it is time for you to accept evolution

Drew_Ali

Religion cannnot accept evolution

alissowack wrote: »

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

I agree......

And I have yet to hear a convincing argument that includes one species evolving into many and a supreme creator of mankind..............

ohhhla

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

alissowack wrote: »

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

Define what you mean by everything came to be.

Because Evolution only discuss change over time.

Not the origins of life, gravity, plate tectonics and etc.

This what creationists say to reject evolution.

Drew_Ali

Religion cannnot accept evolution

ohhhla wrote: »

alissowack wrote: »

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

Define what you mean by everything came to be.

Because Evolution only discuss change over time.

Evolutionists always pull this outta they asses.......

This illustrates the evolutionary theory where one species becomes many............

ohhhla

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

Drew_Ali wrote: »

ohhhla wrote: »

alissowack wrote: »

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

Define what you mean by everything came to be.

Because Evolution only discuss change over time.

Evolutionists always pull this outta they asses.......

This illustrates the evolutionary theory where one species becomes many............

No, it isn't.

Abiogenesis discusses the origin of life.

Evolution explains how life diversify

alissowack

ohhhla wrote: »

alissowack wrote: »

I think it depends on what is meant by the term evolution. If evolution is things changing over a period of time, then even the religious can accept that. But if evolution is suggesting that through random mutations and natural selection that everything came to be, then it is worthy of being questioned or have disagreement whether religious or not.

Define what you mean by everything came to be.

Because Evolution only discuss change over time.

Not the origins of life, gravity, plate tectonics and etc.

This what creationists say to reject evolution.

The creationists are not at odds with what evolution means...just what it is associated with. Creationists say that God created everything as opposed to "random changes and natural selection"...which is attached to the term evolution.

bambu

whar

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

Evolution is a fact. Just as atoms and the earth revolving around the sun are facts. While some creationist will not accept any evidence the amount of evidence supporting evolution is similar to the amount support atoms and the heliocentric solar system. That is there is such an overwhelming amount that to not accept evolution is either a perversion of logic or an act of genuine ignorance.

Therefore I do not believe it is inappropriate to ask religion to accept basic reality.

bambu

whar wrote: »

Evolution is a fact. Just as atoms and the earth revolving around the sun are facts. While some creationist will not accept any evidence the amount of evidence supporting evolution is similar to the amount support atoms and the heliocentric solar system. That is there is such an overwhelming amount that to not accept evolution is either a perversion of logic or an act of genuine ignorance.

Therefore I do not believe it is inappropriate to ask religion to accept basic reality.

Well.....

If you watch the video, you will see that there is not a consensus around the issue regarding religion or science......

So.....

To state one side as fact is either a perversion of logic or an act of genuine ignorance.......

whar

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

There is certainly a lack of consensus in the general public but there is virtually none in science.

If someone encountered a religion that stated atoms were a myth and that living matter is special and different from other matter most people would think the religion was a little nuts. An atom of carbon is the same if it is in a lump of coal or in the living tissue of an organism. It is just part of a molecule that is organized differently. Religion's that deny basic reality should be met with derision.

At the point we are now the amount of scientific support for evolution makes the denial of it illogical.

bambu

I think you are being biased........

You have seen the information posted here.......

To state that evolution is fact is illogical.........

Especially considering the amount of scientific support for intelligent design today as well as in the era of Darwin........

Dookie Wight

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

"God" is omni-powerful right? So why deny evolution being a part of it's creation? Science is merely looking back in time, to see the complexity of the creation and evolution is just a part of the process, IMO.

Say What

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

I take science as explaining Gods work. That was some of the original purposes from Newton and before. Some think if he didn't believe he could have gone further. We all notice things adapt or die. I'm thinking nothing was created just to die off quickly so we have some things to help us adapt but why did no other animal become real competition for humans

whar

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

Yes I am biased. Biased is not intrinsically wrong. No one would complain about a bias towards justice or fair play. The overwhelming evidence of evolution produces my bias.

There is no scientific support for intelligent design. In fact ID has yet to produce a cohesive theory to even test. While there exists organizations that support ID these are political lobbying groups rather than research groups.

In Kitzmiller v Dover the judge stated in his findings, "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

Say What

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

William A. Dembski created a theory for ID. The problem with creationism is they don't have a started of life. We know life is here but they can't recreate that. So just like all arguments if you prove A then B can't be proved to be true

whar

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

Dembski created a concept called specific complexity which attempted to show that certain complexity required a designer. This is not a theory of ID. It is just an attempt to show a designer is a requirement.

alissowack

@whar. Knowing what the evidences are doesn't make you biased. It's this assumption that ID's only goal is to promote a particular religious belief that makes you biased. It's no doubt that there are people out there that do think that because ID is more convincing, that it means they can enforce religious ideas, but ID isn't attempting to do that. Just as there are arguments for evolution there are also counter-arguments. If evolution is wrong on some instances then it should be addressed and not downplayed because a mere discomfort of giving the religious an edge. Proving that evolution wrong doesn't imply that the religious are right.

whar

It is time for all religions to accept evolution

I am not biased regarding ID. ID could mean god did it or advanced aliens did it. I am biased towards evolution but that is based on evidence. ID's origin was to promote christian creationism. It may yet develop meaningful ideas or theories but most of the current crop of people working on ID are there to undermine evolution and promote creationism.

There really are not counter-arguments to evolution left, at least not in science. This does not mean there are not issues or items that need more research within Biology but there is no significant hole that remains to be filled in for evolution. It is a particularly well establish and supported theory.

alissowack

@whar. There are people who would disagree with the origin or intention of ID as "Christian". There are people who are not of this particular religion who show an interest in the theory.

The "random mutation and natural selection" aspect of evolution is yet to explain the origins of how everything came to be and yet people have accepted as the answer. And sure, religion can't explain it either. But, there is the impression in the scientific community that if ID does present some viable alternative to it, then it means they are "forced" to accept what the religions say.

Me, personally, believe evolution is kept alive for financial interest. There's a lot of money being made in research and all someone needs is someone coming in and cutting off funds because they have the truth. And just to be fair, it's no different than a megachurch having someone ending a preacher's career to having the truth.