Was Darwin just following God's evolution rules?

[rov1200]

Should the question be science or belief?

http://www.theanswerb...y/Question822670.html

If you disagree with some of the arguments stated please add your comments.

[beso]

A Gos was not necessary to invent the rules of evolution as they are self evident.

1. Natural selection. Those individuals that prosper and reproduce the most will dominate the population.
2. Mutation. There is an optimum propensity to mutate. Genetic lineages which do not mutate will stagnate. Those which mutate too much will waste resources on unviable off spring.

Religion itself persists due to slection. Cultures which refused to adopt the beliefs were ruthlessly massacred by the feverent believers. Some well known examples. Conversion by the Sword is a well rehearsed strategy by the Moslems while the Hebrews simply massacred anyone who was in the way of their grab for land. The Roman Catholic church tortured and killed anyone who refused to comply leaving societies dominated by their stupid philosophy.

The same thing happened in many revolutions including the French, Cambodian and the Maoist revolutions. The intellectuals are targetted immediately because they resist the murderous onslaught. Consequently we see societies dominates by those too stupid or too frightened to think.

[Seadragon]

My personal belief is that of Darwin's natural selection and it having nothing to do with a God. I mean this question is, I think incompatible as a whole in the sense that part of it is based on science and fact and the other part on belief and faith. One can hold both beliefs individually as some Scientists do without a conflict. It's like saying that a white piece of paper is 'white' and it is also 'not-coloured', no answer I would say is incorrect. And although I believe in a God, I don't believe he has such a dominance over the natural world.

[Ankou]

some things that coiuld not move existed and they ate all the food, so they needed to move to survive. some grew legs and were able to go somewhere else to find more food, others didn't and they died. then the food ran out so those that had survived needed to cross the water to find more food to survive so they grew wings, others didn't and they died. the ones that grew wings flew across the ocean and landed upon new pastures, where they were eaten by a new species that couldn't move. they couldn't believe their luck.

if this god had anything to do with it, then he made it pretty bloody tough for them to survive in this world that he is said to have created. if he did do it all, then he must have been a pretty mean bastad to kill off all those species that didn't make it. he could have least given the first lot a a few legs and a bit of a chance. the big old meanie.

[LazyGun]

The argument over whether or not life originated through divine intervention or thorugh abiogenesis and then evolution can be debated in either science or belief sections. I interpreted your original question, posted in Science, as asking for opinion on whether it was still intellectually compatible to hold a belief in God whilst at the same time agreeing with Evolution. I would say that it is - barely - as several eminent scientists and indeed ,several eminent religious authorities do, but essentially it is believing in the idea of a "God of Gaps" - a divine entity initiating the Big Bang, or perhaps providing the spark that kickstarted evolution - but those Gaps are reducing all the time as science progresses.

The article you link to in your original question talked about a survey asking respondents their opinion on teaching creationism mythology alongside evolution in science class - and that most definitely should not happen.You can debate all you want about origination myths in Religous Education - just keep it away from science classes.

[rov1200]

Thanks Lazygun for your interesting replies.

Unfortunately you cannot separate religious teachings from science. There is not positive proof either way whether a god existed and at present only relies on faith. To many evolution is not complete and does not answer fully the critics.

The idea of a God of Gaps is interesting and have not come across this before, maybe because its not widely used. All you seem to get is one idea or the other, black or white, and you fall into one of these camps. I cannot agree with you when you said as we get more info from science it tends more to evolution. I would have thought the opposite.

We can now build up a picture from the DNA and how it differs from different species. Rather than concentrate on the whole scientists are looking at differences that separate us. Isn't this the way we check for genetic diseases.

Therefore in the not too distant future we could see how a species evolved at the genetic level not by external viewing as done by Darwin. It may prove that a jump in evolution could not have occurred by accident but by divine intervention.

[beso]

Religion has nothing to do with science and those who believe there is room for debate are just plain ignorant.. Despite masses of evidence that conflict with religious doctrine (teaching is not an appropriate word) the faithful elect to ignore it and even claim that advances in science have tended toward religion as the more likely answer. That is just plain ridiculous. Science fills in more and more gaps in the chain of evolution every year and nothing has ever challenged the predictions made by evolution. It is one of the most robust theories in all of science.

The critics are not answered by science because they do not engage with the knowledge and are incapable of contemplating the facts. Such is the nature of dogma as evidence by rov1200's intransigence.

[rov1200]

There are religious nutters and there are bigots beso. Intransigence is not a word to replace our lack of understanding on the subject. You may know for certain but I don't. Maybe our knowledge can only come from prodding the established views of either camps. Personally I am swayed by creation with a bit of evolution thrown in. Evolution may be okay for the simple mind but life is too complicated in form to put our eggs in one basket. Lazygun has offered a way out by the God of Gaps theory and I would fall into this category.

[beso]

Religion is OK for the simple mind that cannot be bothered contemplating sensibilities. Intransigence is the word for denial of the extensive scientific understanding of the subject.

The very foundations of science are skepticism and come from the prodding of established views. Religion denies the validity of investigation and upholds the doctrine of ignorance.

The God hypothesis explains nothing and is worthless rubbish.

[Ankou]

"Religion is OK for the simple mind that cannot be bothered contemplating sensibilities."

i think its all bonkers and made up, but it does irritate me when someone just tries to place themself on a higher pedestal and spit down upon those below. fine take the educated highground, but cheap insults are just a bit 'playground bully' aren't they ?

[naomi24]

No, he wasn't. Religion dictates that we MUST separate religion from science. It tells us specifically that God created man in his own image, in which case, if science is to be believed, God must have been a very primitive life form indeed.

[beso]

Ankou:
You seem to be selectively blind.
Why did you not criticise rov1200 for "Evolution may be okay for the simple mind" ?

My commnet was not a cheap insult but intended as a rebuttal for this ridiculous claim.

Religion is built on assuming the moral and intellectual high ground.
We have been bulied by religion since before recorded history. Only they didn't limit themselves to verbal insults. Blasphemy was (and still is in some places) punishible by death.

[123everton]

I thought the church founded Oxford university (or was it Cambridge?) and the earliest astological universities (in Italy) Keyplus (and many historians) will tell you about the early breakthroughs in science made by Muslims.

[naomi24]

We've had the conversation before about the supposed breakthroughs in Science claimed by Islam. Most of them were already known in the ancient world by the Greeks and other early civilisations, so in fact Islam filched the ideas from others, just as it filched the basis of the Koran from earlier works.

Beso is right. Religion is built on assuming the moral and intellectual high ground.

[beso]

The establishment of educational and research institutions by churches was intended to extend the knowledge of the golry of God. Any researcher who found anything that slighly contradicted the doctrine would have quickly lost support. Those who did would have kept quiet knowing that their life would have been in danger should they promote the heresy.

Islam's greatest breakthroughs were the perfection of plagiarism.

[123everton]

But the church did found Oxford (or Cambridge) and it's still standing and it's still a seat of learning is it not?

[naomi24]

Yes, both are still standing and both are still seats of learning, but as far as I can ascertain, it isn't true to say either was founded by the church. Although Cambridge's first formal college, Peterhouse, was founded by the Bishop of Ely, scholars had been studying there for years before.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/...istory/centuries.html

http://www.ox.ac.uk/a...university/index.html

[123everton]

That may be it, I saw it on a programme (B.B.C 2?) about astrology and the exploration of the stars.
It is true that the church thought that the expansion of science would prove the bible to be the exact recipe for creation, and was a little dismayed to find out to the contrary.
I just disagree with the contention that religion wants people to stay stupid.

[keyplus90]

What scientists call "evolution" is another name given to adaptability God has given to his creation. Even Darwin himself did not say what few people say today. Its only because at the time of Darwin church rules were so severe against anyone who opposed them that even the scientists who never agreed with Darwins theory (which still is in fact a theory) backed him up for the sake of opposition to the church. Even today theory of evolution is taught as fact only because of that enmity.

Naomi is right about saying that Islam filched a lot from Greeks. I wonder why so many Nobel prize winners never thought about that. I wonder why they are still teaching certain things as pioneered by Muslim scientist. Greeks had two legs and two arms. I wonder if Muslims filched that too. Having said that all, as far as Islam is concerned, its not all against evolution anyway.

[123everton]

To be fair religion is a theory also, Buddhists believe in one creation story Hindus and Christians another.
It becomes rational, reasonable and logical to whichever sphere whether it be theist or non-theist one belongs too.
Alas on all sides of this divide there are unreasonable people whose expressions of belief benight us all.

[LazyGun]

If Keyplus is going to cross-post answers, I will too ;)
@Keyplus - "Darwins theory (which still is in fact a theory)". No, it isnt just a theory. Darwins original theory to describe the speciation he observed around him in the natural world has only been strengthened over the years with the advances and finds from paleontology, molecular biology and genetics.

You then claim that Evolution is only taught as a theory because of the enmity between, well I can only assume you mean all of the scientific establishment and those fundamentalist fringe religious types ( "Even today theory of evolution is taught as fact only because of that enmity".) This assertion is, frankly, laughable.

The reason that Evolution is taught in science is because there is a vast array of scientific evidence from many different scientific disciplines, building and reinforcing the evolutionary view of nature. Those minority fringe religious believers are however on shaky ground.
1.Which evolutionary myth do you teach? Because pretty much every major religion has its own distinct version.
2.Point me in the direction of any empirical evidence supporting the claim that evolution is in error.

If you want to teach the creation myth in schools, fine - just make sure you restrict it to Religous Education, rather than attempting to dignify out of date notions by affording them any time in a science lesson.

Your assertion that Islam is not "all against evolution" is puzzling. You spend the majority of your post saying evolution is wrong and religion is right, then make the statement above. Now, the Roman Catholic church has finally said that Catholicism is not incompatible with a belief in Evolution, but i have yet to hear that same comment from any leading Islamic religious leader - I would be interested in any links you show to that.