Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[spidergoat]

God doesn't exist by happenstance.
I think we can agree that quantum fluctuations could have been the root cause of the Big Bang.
But lets say someone "solves" that mystery conclusively.
Then what?
What caused the quantum fluctuations?
We could dub this eternity.
I do. Because it will never end.
You solve one theory...then you must solve another.
And so on.

This is what I believe.
You can take science and unravel it and you end up with eternity.
And if given enough time, could we figure "everything" out?

Interesting no?

Simple quantum effects can be uncaused. Intelligence cannot.

 

[wegs]

Simple quantum effects can be uncaused. Intelligence cannot.

So the universe "might" have begun from no cause?
I know that theory and always thought how convenient.

 

[wegs]

I meant it doesn't have a root cause to exist.
Correction.

 

[spidergoat]

So the universe "might" have begun from no cause?
I know that theory and always thought how convenient.

You are suggesting a similar thing when you claim that god is uncaused. Which is more likely, the spontaneous existence of a god with thoughts, feelings, purpose, and intelligence, or a sub-atomic particle?

 

[wegs]

You are suggesting a similar thing when you claim that god is uncaused. Which is more likely, the spontaneous existence of a god with thoughts, feelings, purpose, and intelligence, or a sub-atomic particle?

In order to create an eternity, and not in the religious sense, something tangible (I don't think) could be the cause. (particle)
You believe uncaused.
I believe in a higher power.
We I think can agree that eternity may exist?
(scientific realm)

 

[spidergoat]

In order to create an eternity, and not in the religious sense, something tangible (I don't think) could be the cause. (particle)
You believe uncaused.
I believe in a higher power.
We I think can agree that eternity may exist?
(scientific realm)

I don't believe the universe had to be uncaused, but it is one possibility. It's possible that the universe is eternal. It could also be eternal AND had a beginning.
I believe in a lower power (interactions between particles), everything we know seems to emerge from this.

 

[arauca]

I don't believe the universe had to be uncaused, but it is one possibility. It's possible that the universe is eternal. It could also be eternal AND had a beginning.
I believe in a lower power (interactions between particles), everything we know seems to emerge from this.

All those big words Universe ,particles and so on .

I have a female parrot she have not been among adult parrots only after hatching . Yet she is preparing herself to weave a nest to lay her eggs , What do you thing this inheritance come from . A bunch of enzymes got together and say lets program-me this DNA in the brain cell so this parrot will build a nest
Can you tell me is this programmed or is it coincidental ?

 

[spidergoat]

All those big words Universe ,particles and so on .

I have a female parrot she have not been among adult parrots only after hatching . Yet she is preparing herself to weave a nest to lay her eggs , What do you thing this inheritance come from . A bunch of enzymes got together and say lets program-me this DNA in the brain cell so this parrot will build a nest
Can you tell me is this programmed or is it coincidental ?

What happened is that parrots are born with variations in their DNA, some of which might result in nest building behavior, some might have resulted in non-nest building behavior. Those parrots who were not born with some idea to build a nest died (given environmental conditions that would result in non-nesting bird's eggs dying), and their DNA was lost. Those parrots who had DNA which resulted in an instinct to build a nest became successful parents, and their DNA went on to produce new variations and even stronger nest building behavior. So, no active decisions were ever made on the part of DNA or enzymes. Nest building probably began during dinosaur times with a shallow depression in the dirt, and evolved from there.

 

[Magical Realist]

Algerbra or grammer isn't fanatically forced on children, and you certainly don't need to use the government to impliment laws to force children to learn them.

"Algerbra" and "grammer" are mandatory subjects in school. So yes they are forced on students. And the govt is in charge of that.

If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact, you wouldn't need to lobby government to force it into the classrooms. It's obviously not an established fact.

Noone's lobbying congress to teach evolution in school because it's already being taught in school. The only ones lobbying congress to force their views on kids are religious nuts who want their creationist fairy tale taught as science. And that ain't gonna happen. The courts have ruled on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

[arauca]

What happened is that parrots are born with variations in their DNA, some of which might result in nest building behavior, some might have resulted in non-nest building behavior. Those parrots who were not born with some idea to build a nest died (given environmental conditions that would result in non-nesting bird's eggs dying), and their DNA was lost. Those parrots who had DNA which resulted in an instinct to build a nest became successful parents, and their DNA went on to produce new variations and even stronger nest building behavior. So, no active decisions were ever made on the part of DNA or enzymes. Nest building probably began during dinosaur times with a shallow depression in the dirt, and evolved from there.

You forgot to tell me those nest builders that survived how they become nest builders, and does a chick have to sit on the eggs for incubation , ( that is pretty uncomfortable )

 

[arauca]

" The courts have ruled on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Courts come and go it depends on future society

 

[spidergoat]

You forgot to tell me those nest builders that survived how they become nest builders, and does a chick have to sit on the eggs for incubation , ( that is pretty uncomfortable )

There is a gradation of improvement in nest building. You can imagine that the first behavior that was selected was laying eggs in a protected place (probably on the sea floor, since they were fish). Next would be building up some kind of structure to protect them.

Eggs are smooth, they aren't uncomfortable to sit on.

 

[Aqueous Id]

jan ardena:
My posts are preceded by a dash.

Most religious people do not believe in darwinian evolution,
-Just glancing at a few surveys, that appears to be false.
Care to share?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

-More than likely they took enough science to understand that it's a matter of science, not religion.
If it was simply a matter of science there would be no contraversy

Evolution is a matter of science. The controversy you are addressing is a matter of religion, esp. fundamentalism.

IOW, belief in both is a trend, that is my opinion.
-I have no idea since the surveys I've seen don't explore that hypothesis.
You don't need surveys for that.

I understood you meant 'fad' when you said 'trend'. If you mean many people tend to believe both, I agree.

-[Evolution] merely explains what is happening in Nature.
It extropolates from what happens in nature.

If by extrapolation you mean 'theory', then I agree. If you mean the science is flawed, I couldn't disagree more.

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.
-The degree to which you perceive any defense is proportional to the extent of the attacks.
Using that logic explain the brutal attacks made by Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on.

In this case we would examine the history of attacks on science by Christian fundamentalists.

and fanatically pushed to be taught to children.
-It's the law. Children must receive an education. There really is no alternative.
I'm not disputing that children must have an education.

You are advocating against the teaching of science, which is a vital part of the curriculum.

Once the theist accepts the darwinian theory of evolution, he/she accepts the idea that God's sovereignty can be diminished.
-That appears to the represent the Fundamentalist view, which is a minority view.
It's neither fundamentalist or non fundamentalist, it is a truth based on the fundamentals of the said concepts.

Only a strict literal interpretation of the Islamic/Protestant* creation myths leads to that conclusion, hence Fundamentalism.

*by population, the largest relevant groups

-As far as I knew every survey ever done always shows a large population who accept science and religion.
Science isn't darwinian evolution so don't even go there.

Darwin's work is pure science.

This means there is no belief in God, but an idea of God that fits with their worldview.
-Every idea of God fits within the believer's personal world view.
No it doesn't.

Every idea of God held by the believer to be true fits into that person's personal world view.

That position is not a theist one.
-I suspect most of the folks you are calling theists do not call themselves theists and would not submit to the characterizations of what they do or should believe.
A theist is a person who believes in God, and I've given the definition of God. If you don't believe in God, you're not a theist.

You mean monotheism. Your remarks are advocating for Fundamentalism, which narrows the definition further.

-Yet so many people say they believe in God and they accept evolution. I think you're probably wrong.
People say lots of things, which is why surveys aren't a good way of collection accurate information. So please give a link to these surveys so we can scrutinise how they come to the conclusions they do.

The surveys will not reach far from Fundamentalist strongholds, so you will gain some advantage from that.

-I think it would help to clarify that what you are advocating is the Fundamentalist position, which can't reconcile science with the strict literal -interpretation of the religion's myths, particularly their creation myths. By world population, that appears to be Islamic Fundamentalists,- -Hindu Fundamentalists, and Christian Fundamentalists. I'm not at all sure about the Hindu demographic, so it may in fact fall in third place.
I don't know what you mean by ''fundamentalist position''.

When I said "what you are advocating is the Fundamentalist position", it means you are advocating against evolution in favor the Fundamentalism, which can't reconcile science with the strict literal interpretation of the religion's myths, particularly their creation myths.

If by that you mean ''God'' is the essential component in ''theism'', then the very definition of ''theism'' speaks for itself.

Theism subdivides into many sects. Fundamentalism in Islam is primarily relegated to a portion of Shi’ism. In Christianity it's primarily a subgroup of Protestants, the Anabaptists, further subdivided into many sects. Here are some of them.

The intelligent thing for a theist to do, is to enquire about God, going from a spiritual notion that there is an superior intelligence behind the cosmic machine, to learning more about it from sources who are advanced in that realisation.

In order to inquire about the underpinnings of cosmic machinery, an intelligent person would study science. It would entail the study of evolution. Monotheists can find such a program at an accredited seminary or college of Theology.

There is no way that dismisses any discipline which can help with that process.

Accredited seminaries offer exegesis, ancient history, physical science and life science to promote the student's study of the cosmic machinery.

Science is born out of theistic religion.

Modern science is traced to ancient polytheistic Greece. Christianity & Islam were born under the Greco-Roman cultures which already had some science.

-The largest of these then is the Islamic Creation Myth. From what I can tell, it looks like about 40% of Muslims in the older traditions do in fact -take their creation myth literally. This amounts to about 8% of the world population. Without numbers for the Hindus we canestimate the -Protestants (about 10% of world population) among whom it seems around 30% take their creation myth literally, or about 3% of the world -population. That takes us to 11% of the world population plus the Hindus. They are 13% of the world population. But if we take the "orthodox" -Hindu view of creation as given in the Rig Veda, we note that it states

And you trust these surveys.......why?

I glanced at a few surveys to test your statement that most religious people reject evolution.

-Who really knows, and who can swear,
-How creation came, when or where!
-Even gods came after creation’s day,
-Who really knows, who can truly say
-When and how did creation start?
-Did He do it? Or did He not?
-Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
-Or perhaps, not even He.

What do you think is meant by this verse?

It says several things. The relevant part says
........"not even He" [knows] "when and how ... creation start[ed].
and/or:
....... "perhaps not even He" [knows] [if he] [created the universe].

 

[youreyes]

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.

Well who is Santa Claus for you?

 

[billvon]

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.

Generally the people who accept evolution ARE smarter. Acceptance of evolution tracks both education level and IQ.

The theory of evolution does not need a concept of God for it to work

Correct. Nor does it require its absence.

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.

In your opinion. I know a lot of theists who believe in God and who accept evolution. Heck, even the previous Pope accepted it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

billvon;

Generally the people who accept evolution ARE smarter. Acceptance of evolution tracks both education level and IQ.

Yep, and so also are the chimps brougnt up under a certain controlled environment (a false world), compared to their real world counterparts.
But try putting them back into their real world and see how long they last, and how much their ''smartness'' helps them.

Intelligence leads to wisdom, smartness can lead to the disease Headupyourarseollitis, if it gets out of hand

Correct. Nor does it require its absence.

That's because those that are fully emersed in it hath doth said in their heart, there is no God.

In your opinion. I know a lot of theists who believe in God and who accept evolution. Heck, even the previous Pope accepted it.

How is this relevant to my point.

How can you believe God to be the crreator, but has nothing to do with the origin of species. Especially when every scripture explains how he created the different speicies. Answer, you can't without diminishing God's sovereignty.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Intelligence leads to wisdom, smartness can lead to the disease Headupyourarseollitis, if it gets out of hand

I think you'll find that there's just one "l" in Headupyourarseolitis.
Tsk! Does nobody know how to spell these days?

How can you believe God to be the crreator, but has nothing to do with the origin of species. Especially when every scripture explains how he created the different speicies. Answer, you can't without diminishing God's sovereignty.

Deism does just that.
And your scriptures are with regard a non-deistic god - I.e. the variety that does have something to do with the origin of the species.
But not all flavours do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Deism does just that.
And your scriptures are with regard a non-deistic god - I.e. the variety that does have something to do with the origin of the species.
But not all flavours do.

Tsk! Does nobody know there is a difference be Deism, and, Theism these days? Aside from the different spelling, one believes in God, and one believes in nature whom they call God.

jan.

 

[billvon]

Yep, and so also are the chimps brougnt up under a certain controlled environment (a false world), compared to their real world counterparts.

Right. And people who live in our world (a false world) don't do well when confined to a valley in the middle of the Sahara Desert (i.e. the "real world.")

That's because those that are fully emersed in it hath doth said in their heart, there is no God.

No. Just because you cannot understand how there can be a God and still have evolution proceed does not mean that no one understands it.

How is this relevant to my point.

The Pope is perhaps the leading theist in the world. He understood evolution.

How can you believe God to be the crreator, but has nothing to do with the origin of species. Especially when every scripture explains how he created the different speicies. Answer, you can't without diminishing God's sovereignty.

Well, no. The answer is that YOU can't figure it out.

 

[sideshowbob]

How can you believe God to be the crreator, but has nothing to do with the origin of species. Especially when every scripture explains how he created the different speicies. Answer, you can't without diminishing God's sovereignty.

Since when is micromanaging an indicator of sovereignty? I'd say it's more likely an indicator of insecurity.