If evolution is fact.....

[sherminator]

Do you think that god evolves as well (obv assuming there is one)

[keyplus90]

I never knew that a theory can be called fact as well. I always thought theory and fact were two entirely different things.

But then English is not my first language, is it?

May we all go back to where we have come from. Monkeys to monkeys and human to human.

[mibn2cweus]

God has evolved so that believers dont have to

[naomi24]

^^ Ha ha.

Keyplus, it's a bit complicated to explain, but a theory can indeed be considered a fact - so now you know.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I suspect you need to look up what 'theory' means when used as a scientific term, Keyplus (I know it's hardly a definitive source, but Wikipedia does cover this quite adequately). It doesn't mean 'an idea which may or may not be true' (that's what a scientist would call a hypothesis) even though that how most non-scientists would use the term.

It is a problem, because it does lead to a lot of confusion; creationists are very keen to exploit the two meanings of the word to imply that evolution isn't cut and dried.

There's a further confusion because evolution is a fact in the sense that there's no doubt (among people with any credibility to comment, at least) it happens, but the exact mechanisms by which it happens are not entirely understood, so there's still some hypothesies there.

[DrFilth]

on the eighth day, God created Harley Davidson

if this is true why do we only have 7 days in a week ?

[jno]

Waldo, doesn't that beg the question of who has credibility to comment? Credibility in whose eyes, exactly?

I ask this in the light of the climate change kerfuffle, in which it appeared (regardless of the facts about climate change itself) that scientists simply give each other credibility by recommending each other.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Credibility in the sense that they understand the concepts, regardless of whether they accept them, for a start. Most creationists don't understand even the basics of the theory they're criticising. They have no credibility (for example, Answers in Genesis where Theland gets his ideas is totally intellectually dishonest. Ditto the Islamic Creationist Adnan Oktar (better known as Harun Yahya) who famously printed a book decrying evolution featuring pictures of fishing lures that were labelled as real caddis flies)

Opposition to evolution is pretty much grounded in one of two things; 1) religious conviction or (but often *and*) 2) scientific ignorance.

I'm not quite sure what aspect of the recent climate change debacle you're referring to - do you mean the recent UEA kerfuffle (which didn't discredit climate change whatsoever, but did reveal academics talk to each other like children and that records management in universities is cack)? In the long term, it doesn't really matter if scientists recommend each other, does it? It could waste some time and money in the short turn, but if you make claims, other people are going to test them. If they're massively false, they'll be found out. If they're egregiously wrong the scientist will be discredited, otherwise you're simply talking about the progression of science.

[naomi24]

Waldo and Birdie, good posts - but you've made me feel incredibly lazy in my response. :o)

[guyrkp]

Interesting topic. From the replies given by certain god defenders i can only assume they havent even read about Charles Darwin or his theory of evolution.

In my opinion 'God' is man made and a man made figure in some peoples' very imaginative brain which has a combination of history and updating. So with this in mind, to answer the question...yes i think in this context god will evolve because it is man made. If we evolve (which we are) then our thoughts, imagination and brain power will also, along with our 'God'

As far as evolution goes....well.........maybe now the scientists have a bit further to go but for sure there is trouble ahead for the failthful as at the moment test after test after test that scientits do keeps consistant with this theory of evolution.

I have spent much time in the US, particuarly along the bible belt and what i find now is that the theory of evolution is so strong that some religious people are thinking proactive (as not to lose any ground) and now saying that yes evolution my be true but again only work of God.......how convienient ?!!!

Also i agree, really annoying when someone asks " why are there still monkeys if we are evolved from them" Just read Darwin.

[jake-the-peg]

Of course this whole question has been approached from a rather one dimensional Abrahamic perspective.

It becomes more interesting in a polytheistic context

It becomes really interesting if we ask if the [Idea/understanding] of God evolves.

(delete as per your particular standpoint)

[guyrkp]

Yes jake. I think i know what you mean. This would be an interesting question.

I would say there is only going to be one direction when it comes to the idea of God, and that is down. To me its amazing that anyone can still believe in any supernatural being without being shown any evidence. I can understand how it has happened, because we will always be scare of death, but still amazed we cannot overcome this.

Yes the idea of God will evolve and i fully expect that in even 100 years time it will be so ridiculous to believe in such a thing. Imagine 1000 years time. This is why i always urge atheists to keep calm and dont worry too much. Our natural progression will take care of this temporary lapse in our human progress and irrational thiking. Atheists there are around now are just unlucky they are not alive 100 years later as they would be able to laugh at such stupid faith.

[mibn2cweus]

I must be a hundred years ahead of my time because I already laugh at such stupid faith. It's the devastating consequences of such faith that I refuse to sit back patiently and ignore. In that regard we as a species are no less than a thousand years behind in the evolution of our thinking.

[guyrkp]

mibn2cweus. you are right. You and I know this, as atheists, but i'm afraid large groups of our species may take some time. How it takes time to demand evidence....who knows !! For me its simple.

Totally agree, I think the human species is a long was behind where we are meant to be because of irrational and illogical thought. The day we can get rid of such nonsense is the day we can improve as a species and think for ourselves, question, analyse, research and conclude without being told by someone else that they know what has and will happen without a shred of evidence.

The process of praising a simple person or supernatural god for fear of punishment and/or hope of an eventual reward without requiring any evidence but on wish and faith alone can only damage the very best asset that we have....our brains and intelligence......its an insult to our species as being the most advanced on the planet.

[WaldoMcFroog]

What do you mean by "where we are meant to be"? That seems to imply design or predestination, which, er, leads back to a deity/creator of some sort and puts us no further forward.

If you'd said, "where we could be" then that would have been better in my book, though I would advance the perhaps controvertial notion that religion is not likely to die out any time soon. We can but hope for secular societies so that people's religious views do not permeate into national and local governance too much. Anything else strikes me as highly unrealistic, and a securlar society is going to be difficult enough.

[WaldoMcFroog]

And I also - and I am being arch and pedantic about this - with your characterisation of humans as the most advanced species on the planet.

Define 'advanced'. If you mean in terms of knowledge and technology, then ok. If you mean to characterise humans as the apex species, then you're committing a grave error and will have to be taken off for message-reinforcement in one of our new Atheist Re-education Camps. (Damn, have I just let the cat out of the proverbial?)

[WaldoMcFroog]

Eeek - add 'take issue' before "with your characterisation". Curse the lack of an edit facility!

[naomi24]

You called? ;o)

[mibn2cweus]

Waldo, Remember, that admission must take place through proper channels (in spite of how you yourself gained entry). You are of course welcome at any time to forgo the process of obtaining unanimous approval by opening any of the many available annexes adjacent to The Sanctuary for private discussions.

[mibn2cweus]

. . . although I can't say I not intrigued by what you have in mind.