Evolution Validates My Belief In God.

Some people say you must be Christian or believe in the Darwinism (i.e., the "Theory of Evolution"). But you can't be both. But I strongly disagree with the assessment. I may be both. And I know many others who feel just like me.

First some background, on the Book of Genesis. In the creation story, some older versions speak of a "firmament". This is significant, because ancient Hebrews (and others) believed the world was flat, with a geodesic dome covering it. Jerusalem, naturally, was in the center of this flat-earth model. This view is repeated, when the Book of Genesis talks of the Great Flood. It says God opened the "floodgates". Floodgates. This was what held back the water, that covered this dome, and surrounded the earth. (Some ancients, to their credit, did realize water was necessary for motion and life. But it certainly does not cover the earth, in this dome.) Furthermore, following the biblical model, the earth accordingly, must be about 6000 years old. (At this point, I needn't tell you, radioactive decay samples alone show the earth to be billions of years old. Some may disagree on the exact age. But the earth/universe is certainly not 6000 years old in any event!)

Anyways, if a christian fundamentalist were reading this, by now, he would be saying "You villain! You cad!" But who says to be a good theist/christian, you have to accept this (ridiculously erroneous) model? I believe in Darwinism, an earth that is billions (not thousands) of years old--and God.

(At this point and time, I should say there is a faction of Christians who say the Genesis creation myth was what God "wanted" us to believe. But to that, you have to wonder, then why did God give us such a magnificent brain?)

Actually, the Roman Catholic religion is typically on the forefront of these things. And presently, Catholics are allowed to believe in both too. I don't agree with all the RC church teaches (I support gay marriage, animal rights and other stuff). But I do still consider myself a Catholic. That will never change. And I do certainly believe in God.

In fact, when I hear of the theory of evolution, or even just some discourse on cosmology, by Stephen Hawking, my belief in God is not challenged. It is inspired. Validated even. We live in a marvelous universe. Surely such a complex design, must have an equally complex Designer behind it.

What do the rest of you think?

 

Why would you believe in both? Evolution has evidence to back it up. Nothing about evolution does anything but expose the Bible as erroneous! The Bible ( and Judeo-Christianity) dogmatically state that humanity was "made" by God....not evolved! (It portrays us as having been descended from a man made from "clay" ( a "golem")....not evolving from the slime of the sea.

 

I think you believe more in Intelligent Design which is not really compatible with Darwinian Evolution.

For instance,

This comment as well as the designer remark undermine natural selection, which is an undirected process of nature and a key component to The Theory of Evolution.


As for my views, scientific evidence seems to be mounting for the existence of multiverses. I pretty much throw in the towel at that point in regards to trying to figure out about the ultimate or primary source of the universe(s). I don't feel obliged to worship anything or really have any existential fears about like heaven or hell. I occasionally meditate from time to time, which is about the most spiritual practice I do, along with psychedelics (entheogens).

 

You mentioned in your almost last paragraph, such a complex design

Why is it a complex design?

Whether it is creationism or evolution, what is the end goal to all of this?

If we or something else evolves into a far more complex and intelligent species....so what?

Why and how is any other things existance, purpose, what they accomplish....in any way more worthy, more important than say a dog spending half the day licking its balls?

 

I was saying something along this line the other day when talking about the multiverse theory - humans always need to ask why, because we're human, but just because we ask why doesn't mean the why matters or there is a reason for it at all. Things just are and none of it is specifically important or unimportant outside of our need to know.

 

Actually if you read the section of Genesis dealing with the creation of life it does a pretty good job of outlining evolution if you read it half literally. As it names off the God created in kind of a cliff notes fashion and each is more complex than the last.

Regarding the Earth being made in 7 days. Is that 7 human days or 7 God days? When you are dealing with an infinite being the concept of time is on a different scale. Old joke: A man sees God in a dream and asks him "God how long is a million years to you?" God replies "1 second" . The man then asks God "How much is $1 million to you?" God replies, "$1." The man then asks God "Can I have a dollar?" God replies, "In a second."

I don't regard myself as Christian but I see Jesus as what the Buddhists call "An Enlightened Master". I watched "Cosmos" and it actually reinforced a lot of my spiritual beliefs. As vast as the universe is it is so thoroughly interconnected with so many repeated patterns that I can't believe that it is randomly thrown together. Science and Religion to me are just different ways of understanding the same thing. An example is Karma. Karma is actually defined as, "For every action there is a reaction." There is nothing mystical about that, it cannot be refuted.

The problem arises from the fact that people haven't allowed their belief systems to evolve with the knowledge that is gained. The Dalai Lama has said that when it comes down to an argument where Science disproves Faith that Science is correct. I believe that society and humanity will evolve once the majority accepts this viewpoint.

C/S,
Rev J

 

Uhmmm, so why couldn't the process of evolution be the methodology that God employs in the creation of a biome?
there is nothing whatsoever in the theory of evolution that negates anything but the most rudimentary and juvenile comprehension of the Biblical creation account.

have you ever heard of allegory and metaphor?

Literally speaking it can be said we are made from "clay" or did the matter that comprises your body come from some other planet or dimension?

 

but is natural selection an undirected process or is it a methodology that achieves the best solution for any given environment?
Seems like a pretty efficient and concise method and I see no reason at all to think it negates the concept of a creator.

Not really arguing for or against, just trying to point out that the theory of evolution and related does not negate the concept of a creator, it only calls into serious doubt the STRICT LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Biblical creation account, that's all.

 

Only if you take Genesis literally, which is a practice of rather recent origin--mostly characteristic of Protestant fundamentalism and Evangelicals reacting to the Enlightenment and modern science. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have never been into literalism, nor opposed to evolution: nor is it followed by mainline Protestant denominations. The Genesis creation story is metaphor, added during or after the Babylonian captivity and reacting to Babylonian creation myths. Instead of the Babylonian account of a struggle between Marduk and Tiamat, we have God creating the earth by verbal command. And instead of the heavenly bodies and vegetation being gods, they become mere creations and ornaments. The point being that the Hebrew God is bigger than their gods. The Christian churches accounting for a majority of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally and have no problem with evolution.

 

Yes but it is never presented as a "metaphor" is it? It's categorically stated that "God made man from the dust of the ground" and breathed into his nostrils and the man became "a living soul". No evolution there friend, just magic......like a "golem".

 

as I said "the most rudimentary and juvenile comprehension"

 

According to Karen Armstrong, it was understood as metaphor. The third century theologian Origen ridiculed literal interpretations of Genesis: "Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will accept as fact the statement... that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood,so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it." (Origen obviously hadn't met counterparts of today's Bible Belt believers). The great Jewish theologian of the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria , and the Christian theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo, both argued that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, not in six days. The Jewish mystic Isaac Luria, in the 16th century, announced an entirely new creation myth that bore no relation to Genesis, and it gained wide acceptance among Jews from Poland to Iran. John Calvin, not ordinarily regarded as a liberal in matters of theology, said the Bible has nothing to do with cosmology, and that "frantic" people who try to impede science because it doesn't agree with the bible are confused.

BTW the idea of a golem is probably based on the Genesis account rather than vice versa. The golem, as an animated figure of clay, appears first in the Talmud, a post-Jesus work, and yes it was based on an analogy to God's creation of Adam.,

 

Maybe from the standpoint that natural selection is thought of to make a species better adapted I can understand the idea of some methodology but We're talking about a process that occurs over thousands of generations, I think I'd need to be smoking some pretty potent shit to view that as "efficient and concise"...


I don't think Darwinism and Natural Selection inherently rejects certain concepts of "God", like an entity that could have started the universe and then just let it go, however it seems apparent that the notion of a creator that would meddle in the universe and do things such as "give us brains" like the op mentioned is not compatible with Darwinism.

An excerpt from ​On the Origin of Species:

 

All I know is that I don't really like the direction that humanity seems to be evolving into.

C/S,
Rev J

 

What is that evidence? Have any other universes besides ours actually been found?

 

What is humanity evolving into?

With all due respect to the Dalai Lama, on the surface that seems like quite the deepity. Perhaps the context of how it is used might provide some more insight but it seems either way I read it, there are glaring oversights here. If I am to read that as when Science disproves Faith, Faith has to yield to Science, that makes me wonder why hold onto Faith? At what point do we just have to let go of the Faith that is continually leading us to erroneous conclusions? if I read it at where Science has an obligation to disprove Faith and until that point then Science cannot be viewed as completely accurate, well that seems like a serious obfuscation of the dichotomy of these two approaches as one relies on evidence and the other does not need any evidence at all.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140318-multiverse-inflation-big-bang-science-space/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/06/the-dark-flow-the-existence-of-other-universes-new-claims-of-hard-evidence.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientist-may-have-discovered-alternate-universesyes-really_563a1212e4b0307f2cab4d14


None of them explicitly find other universes, they all seem to have to do with unusual activity that supposedly doesn't really fit with our current understandings of our universe, which implicitly suggests other universes. This is why I said evidence is mounting, rather than making any proclamations that these are in fact findings of other universes.

Aside from perhaps error in the tech, the only other explanation I can conjure up from my laymen perspective with no working formulas to go on ... is somehow dark matter/energy was far more prominent in a way in the early universe than scientists can really account for. That is admittedly crude speculations though

 

What is the evidence of a god?
I have faith and belief in the multi universe theory just as you have faith in a god.
Hopefully, science will be able to prove the existence of multi universes. Has it proven the existence of any God in all of this time?