Please discuss....
jan.
jan.
Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Why would you believe in God as a darwinist? Evolution entirely explains the origin, structure and development of lifeforms thru natural processes. Invoking a God would be like still believing Santa Claus works thru your parents after you find out THEY are actually leaving you the presents.
If "darwinist" = "accepts the tenets of evolution" and "believe in God" means any religious beliefs, yes, you certainly can. Christians who strictly interpret the Bible are not the only people who believe in God.
Actually, no, it doesn't. Evolution says nothing about how life first began; abiogenesis is another field entirely. Evolution doesn't get involved until you have reproduction and heritable traits, both of which occur after the first instance of biological life.
"Darwinist" is a poor term to use here. Darwin proposed a theory (explanation) for the fact of evolution. That theory has since been expanded to incorporate new evidence so it doesn't make sese to speak of the current Theory of Evolution as "Darwinism".
Certainly, it is possible to accept the fact of evoution and believe in God, just as it is possible to accept the fact of France and believe in God.
Possible, but not recommended.
The way I look there is agreement between evolution and Genesis one . I grant you it does not go in very detail but , the evolutionary process is there
Firs vegetation appear the life in the sea then small animals then larger animals the Men . The same way you can see on how land was prepared during separation of waters and how to prepare dry land . Please don't reply about universe reply only about earth.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I said the origin of lifeforms, as in one species originating from a previous species, and so on and so forth.
Nope. First came the Earth without any plants (Genesis 2:5.) Then came Man (Genesis 2:7) Then God created gardens and trees. (Genesis 2:8 and 2:9.) Then animals (Genesis 2:19.) THEN women (Genesis 2:22.)
I think the term "Darwinist" should be restricted to the conversations in biology in which Darwin's theory is being compared to any of several updates to his actual statements. The problem with using the label in the science v. religion culture war is that the man becomes a target of character assassination by the fundamentalists.
Those folks ought to try to read Darwin. That's one of their huge shortcomings. Here he cites Bacon on his title page:
‘To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both.’
And here he juxtaposes God, faith and evidence:
He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.
I do.
But, I decided to read up on Darwin's thoughts on religion and faith. He was very well read on the bible and was very influenced by Christianity in his younger years. It is interesting how and why he began to renounce the OT first and then the NT.
I was dismayed to read he didn't believe in miracles. :/ but he explains why.
He always explained his position. And I admire that.
From a faith perspective, I still believe that "we" have a Creator.
But, I decided to read up on Darwin's thoughts on religion and faith. He was very well read on the bible and was very influenced by Christianity in his younger years. It is interesting how and why he began to renounce the OT first and then the NT.
I was dismayed to read he didn't believe in miracles. :/ but he explains why.
He always explained his position. And I admire that.
From a faith perspective, I still believe that "we" have a Creator.
Please don't mix up I said Genesis one no 2 ( two ) Genesis two it is beyond for me to accept, I would need a lot of explanation, for me is a metaphor
That assumes that all theists believe that their god(s) created the universe a la an Aristotelian prime mover.
This is not the case.
You know why? Because we should believe in Santa Claus and magic of christmas. Because Santa Claus represents happiness and joy that is brought to the house and is shared between children and their parents. And frankly it does not matter if Santa Claus exists or does not, what matters is the idea is powerful enough to unite families together...irregardless of their hectic work/study lifestyles. God is the same way.
If you don't believe in God how do you know what I feel? This is quite an insulting "interpretation" to someone who believes but if that is how you see it, it is how you see it.
Most religious people do not believe in darwinian evolution, and it appears that those that do, do so because they want to be seen as open-minded and smart. IOW, belief in both is a trend, that is my opinion.
The theory of evolution does not need a concept of God for it to work, and this to me is the point of why it is so fiercely defended, and fanatically pushed to be taught to children. Once the theist accepts the darwinian theory of evolution, he/she accepts the idea that God's sovereignty can be diminished. This means there is no belief in God, but an idea of God that fits with their worldview. That position is not a theist one.
So I don't think it is possible to believe both points of view as a simultaneos reality.
jan.
I'm not talking about ''the fact of evolution'' rather the ''theory of evolution'' as proposed by Darwin, hence the term ''darwinism''.
The analogy you gave is invalid in that France is the name of a country, and God is a term that defines a Supreme Being.
So with that in mind....
jan.