Evolution and the Existence of God

[antagon]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

 

[Nosmo King]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

Good question. But, I'm with you. I can't understand how evolution invalidates the existence of God either.

The theory of evolution gives mankind a quantifiable basis to understand the development of species. I think some of the faithful misunderstand this. I further think that those faithful find it hard to admit to being qualified as a species and not as the unquestioned masters of life on earth. Being a mammal seems dicey to some religious zealots.

And it's that pride that prevents them from accepting a scientific explaination of the development of mankind.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can reconcile both religion and what passes for "evolution" with the greatest of ease.

The whole point of the Universe, of creation is our very existence, is our awareness. We're here to experience and report back our findings as we go, we're here to grow and learn. Evolution is the physical manifestation of a beings urge to grow and experience.

Alligators haven't evolved opposable thumbs or wings because they're fine as they are; if the day ever came that they needed to be more proactive about surviving then some alligator would get thumbs or wings. Since the impetus is not there -- no alligators with thumbs, random mutations notwithstanding.

 

[FA_Q2]

I do not see science ever opposing the existence of God or vice versa. What I believe happens is individuals attempting to blur the lines by describing science with faith. The only people that seem to have a problem with evolution are those that look in the bible and see literal interpretations of how things came to be. This is taking faith and using it to accomplish sciences job and never turns out well. I would infer that it is those whose faith is not strong that cannot accept the bible may not be a specific history book and that causes them have their faith shaken. That will create a very strong dislike of evolutionary concepts.

Of course, there are always those aesthesis that don't seem to understand that this process also works in reverse. I find it interesting that some use evolution to attack faith since there is nothing in science that can EVER disprove God by the very nature of science. I believe the same is true for those individuals as well. For them, their beliefs are the same as a religion and the existence of any god shakes that faith.

That is why some attack faith with science, the same reason some attack science with faith - they need to be correct and firm in their faith and the existence of the other threatens that.

Understand that atheism is NOT a faith in of itself but some have made it a faith. I feel it necessary to point out because every time I go down this path someone feels the need to call atheism a faith when it is not.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

For the faithful it has no effect. Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species. There is NO evidence what so ever, of any verifiable scientific proof, that one species has ever evolved into 2 entirely different species or more. NONE. Those are unproven theories.

One can not compare viruses and plants to animal life they operate on different genetic make ups and function entirely different from one another.

Evolution with in a species has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It is simply a function of Nature which God provided on this planet when he created it and all life there in.

Now as to the THEORY that evolution does allow for animals to develop 2 or more different species from a single species, even that has nothing to do with disproving God. That would simple mean that is the method God chose to create those forms of life, including the potential for man.

In Genesis God created Adam and Eve from the earth or a rib. This does not preclude human life from having developed from Evolution. When Cain slew Able he was cast out and went to LIVE with other HUMANS. Yet no where does it say God created them as he created Adam and Eve. Thus we have 2 means of life to have been created. If evolutionary theory is to be believed it has no threat to Religion.

This could also explain the claim by some that Adam and Eve were created 6000 or so years ago. Though personally I do not subscribe to the 6000 year old theory.

 

[FA_Q2]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

Yes, they co-exist quite well. What they do not do is blend. Faith and science are completely, totally and unquestionably separate and must stay that way in order to coexist. That is not to say you cannot have beliefs about the physical world that stem from faith and beliefs about faith that stem from your observations but they are separate from each other. Faith requires NO proof, it is personal and spiritual. Science requires no faith, it is cold and without opinion and requires a fluidity in beliefs and findings. Science cannot prove what is outside of the natural world (aka God) and faith cannot describe science as faith does not require proof or evidence.

 

[konradv]

Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species.
-------------------------------

So what? That's the exact same thing evolutionists say.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the other hand, it is not blurring science with faith to acknowledge that religious convictions/beliefs/faith or whatever you want to call it does answer questions that science cannot, and there are billions of question that we cannot answer using science or faith.

The way I see it, any credible scientist acknowledges that we currently know a teensy fraction of all the science that there is to know and that science is no more adequate to prove or dispute religious faith than religious faith is adequate to prove or dispute science.

In my world science, incuding evolution, and religious faith coexist together quite comfortably. The way I see it, God was author of both.

Yes, they co-exist quite well. What they do not do is blend. Faith and science are completely, totally and unquestionably separate and must stay that way in order to coexist. That is not to say you cannot have beliefs about the physical world that stem from faith and beliefs about faith that stem from your observations but they are separate from each other. Faith requires NO proof, it is personal and spiritual. Science requires no faith, it is cold and without opinion and requires a fluidity in beliefs and findings. Science cannot prove what is outside of the natural world (aka God) and faith cannot describe science as faith does not require proof or evidence.

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'blend'. If you mean that faith is separate from science as a discipline that is taught or from scientific criteria used to support or falsify various theories/concepts etc. I would agree. Certainly neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design should be taught as science.

But if you mean that people of faith cannot see and understand God (or whatever religious concept) in nature and science, then I disagree. For instance, thinking ID people, of which I like to believe I am one, can easily believe that it is both logical and rational to conclude that there is intelligence behind the order within the universe and the universe itself and that in no way negates the scientific knowledge and theories that we have developed about that. Plato and Aristotle understood that. And more recently Albert Einstein, who did not believe in a personal God, understood and promoted that concept.

Science should never teach that Creationism or Intelligent Design are impossible or superstitious nonsense or whatever. When it presumes to do so, it becomes non-scientific and assumes a faith based position.

 

[antagon]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

 

[antagon]

For the faithful it has no effect. Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species. There is NO evidence what so ever, of any verifiable scientific proof, that one species has ever evolved into 2 entirely different species or more. NONE. Those are unproven theories.

One can not compare viruses and plants to animal life they operate on different genetic make ups and function entirely different from one another.

Evolution with in a species has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It is simply a function of Nature which God provided on this planet when he created it and all life there in.

Now as to the THEORY that evolution does allow for animals to develop 2 or more different species from a single species, even that has nothing to do with disproving God. That would simple mean that is the method God chose to create those forms of life, including the potential for man.

In Genesis God created Adam and Eve from the earth or a rib. This does not preclude human life from having developed from Evolution. When Cain slew Able he was cast out and went to LIVE with other HUMANS. Yet no where does it say God created them as he created Adam and Eve. Thus we have 2 means of life to have been created. If evolutionary theory is to be believed it has no threat to Religion.

This could also explain the claim by some that Adam and Eve were created 6000 or so years ago. Though personally I do not subscribe to the 6000 year old theory.

i could respect that. even though you have some skepticism about what the theory of evolution proposes, you and i agree that there's no threat to God in this or any legit scientific finding. i see there being some absolutes which i associate with God, whereby since God created everything, anything we can find out about it physically or spiritually is just that: a discovery.

i'd go further to say that we can learn a great deal about God through science and the study of the way nature and the universe function and how they were made.

i am curious, do you qualify "For the faithful it has no effect." with "Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species."? while we are both likely christians, we would hang a jury were it up to us to decide if evolution was the culprit for the vast biodiversity on the planet. the evidence, to include the ever incriminating DNA evidence, shows beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is guilty as charged, from where i sit.

 

[geauxtohell]

Some of my favorite threads here have been on the topic of evolution from both scientific perspectives and examining the implications the theory has with the faithful. I'd like to explore arguments made by proponents of evolution which proclaim that the theory somehow dispels the existence of God. On the opposite end of the spectrum, I'm curious as to what those faithful who contend that evolution is a threat or affront to the existence God base their beliefs on.

I can't reconcile a mutually exclusive relationship between the theory of evolution and the existence of God, and maintain that there isn't such a necessity between science and religion. Nevertheless, every discussion on the topic amounts to a fresh opportunity for atheists to lay into the religious on scientific bases, and for the religious to confront science with bases of faith.

Insight wanted:

How does the theory of evolution sway the plausibility deity or offend some religious communities?

Good question. But, I'm with you. I can't understand how evolution invalidates the existence of God either.

The theory of evolution gives mankind a quantifiable basis to understand the development of species. I think some of the faithful misunderstand this. I further think that those faithful find it hard to admit to being qualified as a species and not as the unquestioned masters of life on earth. Being a mammal seems dicey to some religious zealots.

And it's that pride that prevents them from accepting a scientific explaination of the development of mankind.

Evolutionary theory does not, nor has it ever, commented on the existence of God. That issue is outside of the scope of science.

There have certainly been people who have used ET to try and make larger theological arguments, but again, that steps outside of the scope of science and the scientific method which is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Foxfyre]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

I do not want Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom. It does not belong there.

But on the other hand, I don't want any science teacher telling his/her students that Creationism or Intelligent Design are bogus or unsupportable or delusional or in any other way that attempts to discredit a student's faith. I would think a good science teacher, if asked about such things by a student, would acknowledge that many people believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and there are in fact many things that science cannot explain and such concepts can. However, as neither Creationism or Intelligent Design can be supported by any known scientific concepts, they will not be part of the curriculum.

To the student who rejects evolution in favor of fundamentalist Creationism, all a good teacher need do is explain that the student's religion is respected and he doesn't have to believe evolution. But it will be on the test and he or she will be expected to know it.

If any parents object to that, they should take their kids out of school and make other arrangements for their education. It would be kind to advise the parents that the kids probably won't be able to get into a good college without a reasonable foundation in science though.
________________________________________________

As to the issue of 'playing God', how in the world would you incorporate social or religious ethics into science without 'blending' them?

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species.
-------------------------------

So what? That's the exact same thing evolutionists say.

It's the silly "macro" versus "micro" evolution semantics issue that only people who argue against evolution resort too.

To those who subscribe to evolutionary theory it's as absurd as saying "I believe in a penny but not a quarter".

 

[antagon]

Evolutionary theory does not, nor has it ever, commented on the existence of God. That issue is outside of the scope of science.

There have certainly been people who have used ET to try and make larger theological arguments, but again, that steps outside of the scope of science and the scientific method which is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural.

there was a time when many people looked to religion for explanations of the physical world. religion applied mysticism and common sense to people's satisfaction in particular regard to curiosity. they responded with faith.

while science and the scientific method have replaced this function for many people in many instances, i have noticed that some people respond with faith in science as well. that is no problem, in itself. laypersons wield that faith on the basis of science, speaking over the 'intentionally mute' stance to disavow the need for religion, granted science's function to 'explain all things.'

i've seen this on this board many times: that proponents of science, failing to uphold this indifference to god, God, or not god, drag on the credibility of science among faithful laymen.

 

[antagon]

thanks, for the discussion, folks. it figures that the middle-roaders who feel that there is place for religion and science to co-exist would be the ones to voice their opinions. maybe we could get lucky and hear from one of many atheists who've laid an argument against deity on scientific foundations, or a believer who rejects science which they feel contradicts their faith.

to pick a fight, though, what about areas where these realms do overlap. religious leaders have extended ethical boundaries on science for years. today, hot issues include stem-cell research, which is argued to be capitalization on sin by way of abortion. foxfyre brought up education, with christian fundamentalist leaders demanding that faith-based alternatives to evolution theory take a place beside science. lastly, how about 'playing God'? with genetic research probing deep and wide into ways we could alter the design of life on the planet, even as much as create our own, is there an ethical boundary which science should respect?

I do not want Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in the science classroom. It does not belong there.

But on the other hand, I don't want any science teacher telling his/her students that Creationism or Intelligent Design are bogus or unsupportable or delusional or in any other way that attempts to discredit a student's faith. I would think a good science teacher, if asked about such things by a student, would acknowledge that many people believe in Creationism and/or Intelligent Design and there are in fact many things that science cannot explain and such concepts can. However, as neither Creationism or Intelligent Design can be supported by any known scientific concepts, they will not be part of the curriculum.

To the student who rejects evolution in favor of fundamentalist Creationism, all a good teacher need do is explain that the student's religion is respected and he doesn't have to believe evolution. But it will be on the test and he or she will be expected to know it.

If any parents object to that, they should take their kids out of school and make other arrangements for their education. It would be kind to advise the parents that the kids probably won't be able to get into a good college without a reasonable foundation in science though.
________________________________________________

As to the issue of 'playing God', how in the world would you incorporate social or religious ethics into science without 'blending' them?

oh yeah. there's a blending point. i'm a blending point.

________________________________________________

i think i would get suspended if i were a science teacher faced with that concern. you know how i get, fox, when disagreed with.

the stretched implication for me is that these folks contend that God wants them to be ignorant to scientific discovery. if we didn't share the same God, it wouldn't bother me, but as i took up the argument on the side of evolution in other threads on the topic, fundies took aim at my faith in the retort!

 

[geauxtohell]

Evolutionary theory does not, nor has it ever, commented on the existence of God. That issue is outside of the scope of science.

There have certainly been people who have used ET to try and make larger theological arguments, but again, that steps outside of the scope of science and the scientific method which is intentionally mute about the existence of the supernatural.

there was a time when many people looked to religion for explanations of the physical world. religion applied mysticism and common sense to people's satisfaction in particular regard to curiosity. they responded with faith.

while science and the scientific method have replaced this function for many people in many instances, i have noticed that some people respond with faith in science as well. that is no problem, in itself. laypersons wield that faith on the basis of science, speaking over the 'intentionally mute' stance to disavow the need for religion, granted science's function to 'explain all things.'

i've seen this on this board many times: that proponents of science, failing to uphold this indifference to god, God, or not god, drag on the credibility of science among faithful laymen.

The difference is, we all acknowledge that science and the scientific method are man made ventures that are testable and falsifiable through objective measures. People may have "faith" in science in the proverbial since, they don't have "faith in science" in the religious sense.

Some people use the scientific explanations of matters to infer that God doesn't exist. Some people use the scientific explanations of matters to prove God's splendor.

Neither of those two people can prove anything about God through science. That's the only honest answer. So if you want to speak of true science, you can't comment either way on the supernatural force that can't be observed or tested.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species.
-------------------------------

So what? That's the exact same thing evolutionists say.

Wrong. it is claimed and taught that man descended from an ape like creature and that apes are the other form.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the faithful it has no effect. Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species. There is NO evidence what so ever, of any verifiable scientific proof, that one species has ever evolved into 2 entirely different species or more. NONE. Those are unproven theories.

One can not compare viruses and plants to animal life they operate on different genetic make ups and function entirely different from one another.

Evolution with in a species has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It is simply a function of Nature which God provided on this planet when he created it and all life there in.

Now as to the THEORY that evolution does allow for animals to develop 2 or more different species from a single species, even that has nothing to do with disproving God. That would simple mean that is the method God chose to create those forms of life, including the potential for man.

In Genesis God created Adam and Eve from the earth or a rib. This does not preclude human life from having developed from Evolution. When Cain slew Able he was cast out and went to LIVE with other HUMANS. Yet no where does it say God created them as he created Adam and Eve. Thus we have 2 means of life to have been created. If evolutionary theory is to be believed it has no threat to Religion.

This could also explain the claim by some that Adam and Eve were created 6000 or so years ago. Though personally I do not subscribe to the 6000 year old theory.

i could respect that. even though you have some skepticism about what the theory of evolution proposes, you and i agree that there's no threat to God in this or any legit scientific finding. i see there being some absolutes which i associate with God, whereby since God created everything, anything we can find out about it physically or spiritually is just that: a discovery.

i'd go further to say that we can learn a great deal about God through science and the study of the way nature and the universe function and how they were made.

i am curious, do you qualify "For the faithful it has no effect." with "Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species."? while we are both likely christians, we would hang a jury were it up to us to decide if evolution was the culprit for the vast biodiversity on the planet. the evidence, to include the ever incriminating DNA evidence, shows beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is guilty as charged, from where i sit.

All DNA shows is that everything on this planet came from the same pool of resources. Hardly shocking at all or proof that anything is descended from anything else all on its own. Hell using DNA we must have descended from a mouse like creature in the past as well.

Once again there is not one shred of evidence that man descended from an ape like creature and none to show that an animal has descended from an entirely different animal in the past. That is all speculation.

 

[antagon]

For the faithful it has no effect. Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species. There is NO evidence what so ever, of any verifiable scientific proof, that one species has ever evolved into 2 entirely different species or more. NONE. Those are unproven theories.

One can not compare viruses and plants to animal life they operate on different genetic make ups and function entirely different from one another.

Evolution with in a species has nothing to do with disproving the existence of God. It is simply a function of Nature which God provided on this planet when he created it and all life there in.

Now as to the THEORY that evolution does allow for animals to develop 2 or more different species from a single species, even that has nothing to do with disproving God. That would simple mean that is the method God chose to create those forms of life, including the potential for man.

In Genesis God created Adam and Eve from the earth or a rib. This does not preclude human life from having developed from Evolution. When Cain slew Able he was cast out and went to LIVE with other HUMANS. Yet no where does it say God created them as he created Adam and Eve. Thus we have 2 means of life to have been created. If evolutionary theory is to be believed it has no threat to Religion.

This could also explain the claim by some that Adam and Eve were created 6000 or so years ago. Though personally I do not subscribe to the 6000 year old theory.

i could respect that. even though you have some skepticism about what the theory of evolution proposes, you and i agree that there's no threat to God in this or any legit scientific finding. i see there being some absolutes which i associate with God, whereby since God created everything, anything we can find out about it physically or spiritually is just that: a discovery.

i'd go further to say that we can learn a great deal about God through science and the study of the way nature and the universe function and how they were made.

i am curious, do you qualify "For the faithful it has no effect." with "Evolution in animals is only proven to exist WITHIN a species."? while we are both likely christians, we would hang a jury were it up to us to decide if evolution was the culprit for the vast biodiversity on the planet. the evidence, to include the ever incriminating DNA evidence, shows beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is guilty as charged, from where i sit.

All DNA shows is that everything on this planet came from the same pool of resources. Hardly shocking at all or proof that anything is descended from anything else all on its own. Hell using DNA we must have descended from a mouse like creature in the past as well.

Once again there is not one shred of evidence that man descended from an ape like creature and none to show that an animal has descended from an entirely different animal in the past. That is all speculation.

i think that the genetic side of the argument goes beyond 'everything on this planet came from the same pool of resources.' because we understand that DNA is the basis of heredity, and that rather than a 'pool', these resources are allocated in inheritable patterns, DNA indicates that there is a relationship between animals which shows some to be descendant from others. The distance of ancestry, and its progression recorded in the genomes intermediate to mice and humans, not only show that we have common ancestry with mice, but that we share closer, more common ancestry with apes. this is just the tip of what genes from other, living creatures could tell about evolution, but it is enough to dispel your 'not one shred' conjecture.

an ape's genome shows common ancestry to humans in a similar, but proportionate way to what the genomes of a brother and sister indicate. this is a shred, to say the least.