Baha'is and Evolution (ritual, reject, Creator, Darwin, Earth)

[lunamoth]

Hi Friends,

I'm curious about something a Baha'i said in another thread in this forum:

"We also accept evolution generally within the species but would question the idea of "missing links" as say traditional Darwinists would believe."

Is this an official Baha'i view? This would seem rather problematic for Baha'i scientists. You believe in microevolution but not macroevolution?

Added in edit: I must admit this is not what I believed when I was a Baha'i; I was a working geneticist at the time. I was introduced to the Faith by a Baha'i scientist as well and it was not my impression that he rejected macroevolution.

Laurie

[9harmony]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Friends,

I'm curious about something a Baha'i said in another thread in this forum:

"We also accept evolution generally within the species but would question the idea of "missing links" as say traditional Darwinists would believe."

Is this an official Baha'i view? This would seem rather problematic for Baha'i scientists. You believe in microevolution but not macroevolution?

Added in edit: I must admit this is not what I believed when I was a Baha'i; I was a working geneticist at the time. I was introduced to the Faith by a Baha'i scientist as well and it was not my impression that he rejected macroevolution.

Laurie

Hi Laurie,

I confess being ignorant of what microevolution and macroevolution are, could you state it in layman's terms please.

As for the Baha'i view of evolution, we believe that all of creation evolves. But that man did not evolve from apes, man has always been a distinct species. So in that sense there is no missing link, as ape and man have always been two distinctly different species.

have a great day!

-Amy

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by 9harmony

Hi Laurie,

I confess being ignorant of what microevolution and macroevolution are, could you state it in layman's terms please.

As for the Baha'i view of evolution, we believe that all of creation evolves. But that man did not evolve from apes, man has always been a distinct species. So in that sense there is no missing link, as ape and man have always been two distinctly different species.

have a great day!

-Amy

Wow, I am very surprised by this!

From Wiki:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.
Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.

What I asking is whether you believe that life could have originated from a single common ancestor, or that humans and apes could have shared a common ancestor? I'm not putting these hypotheses to you as indisputable facts, but as possibilities. Can you accept these possibilities, or must you reject them based upon your religious beliefs?

The way my Baha'i scientist friend put it was that he thought there could have been a line of organisms that was destined always to evolve into humans, but that did not rule out the possibility that humans and apes both came from that same line. Or at least I thought that was what he was saying, but now I wonder...

For the record, I am not talking about ID, or whether God's tweaking was required to guide evolution, but just about the idea of exactly how much change in species Baha'ia can accept.

So, do you believe then that God created all the "kinds" of animals and also humans, but then there were small changes to account for what we see in the fossil record?

Laurie

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by 9harmony

But that man did not evolve from apes, man has always been a distinct species.

Evolution does not posit that man evolved from apes. It does postulate that man and apes shared a common ancestor.

So in that sense there is no missing link, as ape and man have always been two distinctly different species.

Perhaps this answers my question above. Is this an official Baha'i view? It's important to be rigorous here because really this does suggest disharmony between science and religion. It would be problematic for a Baha'i scientist because they could not approach the question of evolution objectively--they would need to a priori reject any evidence that suggests that perhaps apes and humans did derive from a common ancestor, or else keep coming up with alternative hypotheses that explain the evidence to fit their belief (not exactly a great way of doing science).

Laurie

[lunamoth]

Apparently I'm just talking to myself here but I must say that the more I ponder this the more perplexed I become!

How would you interpret the fossile record that indicates eras on earth where there is no mammalian life? Were humans present in a non-mammalian form? Were they created independently at a later date? Or were they only considered humans once they made the split from a common ancestor and took on some certain human trait? And if that's the case why couldn't apes come from that same common ancestor? If the probablities of evolution by descent with modification are very low as currently postualted, they would be even lower if each Genus we find on earth today had to evolve independently, with no common ancestors.

There's actually the only way I think I could merge the statement made by Art, what you say Amy, and what we have learned about evolution. That technically there were no humans right up to the point where humans became self-conscious of themselves, and had the ability to recognize the Creator. But I would also expect that those humans were very much as we are today, not like amphibians and the forms observed during embryo develeopment.

Very puzzling.

[9harmony]

Hi Laurie,

sorry, for making you talk to yourself.

I just don't feel competent to address your questions sufficiently, plus i'm sooo tired today and not thinking too clearly. I was hoping one of the others would drop by and help out.

You have Ocean don't you? type in 'distinct species' and several passages come up regarding this topic.

perhaps tomorrow i will be more coherent and can lend something of merit.

-Amy

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by 9harmony

Hi Laurie,

sorry, for making you talk to yourself.

I just don't feel competent to address your questions sufficiently, plus i'm sooo tired today and not thinking too clearly. I was hoping one of the others would drop by and help out.

You have Ocean don't you? type in 'distinct species' and several passages come up regarding this topic.

perhaps tomorrow i will be more coherent and can lend something of merit.

-Amy

Hi Amy, OK, I hope perhaps another Baha'i will help us out here. I've read much of what Abdul Baha wrote about evolution and I must say I've always taken what he said spiritually and metaphorically, rather than literally. Because of the principle of harmony between science and religion I never considered that a Baha'i would be constrained in accepting the Theory of Evolution. But, Art's statement implies Baha'is can't accept the possibility that humans and apes had a common ancestor, "the missing link."

Laurie

[lehket]

Laurie,

Amy asked me to offer my thoughts on this question. I've done a lot of reading and talking with others on the subject, so I hope maybe I can clear up some of the confusion--although quite honestly a lot of Baha'is seem to disagree with me anyway.

The "official position" of the Baha'i Faith is that science and religion are harmonious. There is and can be no fundamental disagreement between them. Of course, science is an evolving body of knowledge, but so is religion (as a consequence of progressive revelation and of our individual efforts to understand revelation), so we have to accept that sometimes there will be some tensions between our current understandings of each. Overall, however, religion should be in conformity with science and reason in order to prevent it from descending into superstition, while science can and should look to religion for guidance on ethical and moral issues, and should allow that religion can provide a larger context in which our scientific understanding of physical phenomena can be interpreted.

As to evolution generally, there is little doubt that the Baha'i Writings agree with the notion that life, and in fact the universe as a whole, have evloved over long periods of time. The devil for many Baha'is is in the details. It should be noted, however, that this particular devil is one of personal interpretation, NOT offical Baha'i doctrine. There are Baha'is who think there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of Darwinian evolution. There are some who think it is basically right, but that evolution has proceeded along parallel tracks, one leading to humans and one leading to everything else. And then there are those like myself who don't have any reservations at all about accepting the scientific view that all life on Earth is evoloved from a common ancestor.

We could get into quite a discussion of WHY different Baha'is hold these rather startlingly different views, but if the question is simply a matter of what Baha'i doctrine is, then I would have to say that Baha'i doctrine is that science and religion are fully harmonious, and the rest of it just depends on how one wants to interpret certain specific passages.

Myself, I'm an evangelist for the idea that there is absolutely no problem with accepting what the best available science tells us and what the Baha'i Writings tell us. As I said before, not all Baha'is will agree with me on that point, but, well, that's how I personally see it.

I hope this helps.

--Dale

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by lehket

Laurie,

Amy asked me to offer my thoughts on this question. I've done a lot of reading and talking with others on the subject, so I hope maybe I can clear up some of the confusion--although quite honestly a lot of Baha'is seem to disagree with me anyway.

The "official position" of the Baha'i Faith is that science and religion are harmonious. There is and can be no fundamental disagreement between them. Of course, science is an evolving body of knowledge, but so is religion (as a consequence of progressive revelation and of our individual efforts to understand revelation), so we have to accept that sometimes there will be some tensions between our current understandings of each. Overall, however, religion should be in conformity with science and reason in order to prevent it from descending into superstition, while science can and should look to religion for guidance on ethical and moral issues, and should allow that religion can provide a larger context in which our scientific understanding of physical phenomena can be interpreted.

As to evolution generally, there is little doubt that the Baha'i Writings agree with the notion that life, and in fact the universe as a whole, have evloved over long periods of time. The devil for many Baha'is is in the details. It should be noted, however, that this particular devil is one of personal interpretation, NOT offical Baha'i doctrine. There are Baha'is who think there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of Darwinian evolution. There are some who think it is basically right, but that evolution has proceeded along parallel tracks, one leading to humans and one leading to everything else. And then there are those like myself who don't have any reservations at all about accepting the scientific view that all life on Earth is evoloved from a common ancestor.

We could get into quite a discussion of WHY different Baha'is hold these rather startlingly different views, but if the question is simply a matter of what Baha'i doctrine is, then I would have to say that Baha'i doctrine is that science and religion are fully harmonious, and the rest of it just depends on how one wants to interpret certain specific passages.

Myself, I'm an evangelist for the idea that there is absolutely no problem with accepting what the best available science tells us and what the Baha'i Writings tell us. As I said before, not all Baha'is will agree with me on that point, but, well, that's how I personally see it.

I hope this helps.

--Dale

Hi Dale, Good to see you here! I was actually thinking that perhaps I should ask you to reply to this because I recall that I've seen very good answers from you about this before over at Planet Baha'i. What you've said above does jive with what I previously thought and I find it a very acceptable view. Yes, my main question was whether Baha'i doctrine allows you to accept the Theory of Evolution without making special constraints, realizing that like other scientific theories it too is constantly devloping. It is interesting but I guess not surprising that various Baha'is view this differently. Actually if the comment had not been made by a Baha'i whom I generally have found to be very knowledgable and cautious about making statements regarding Baha'i doctrine I probably would not have questioned my understanding of this.

Hey, did you actually join this forum just to answer my question!? I'm honored. Perhaps we will have the pleasure of seeing more posts by you here.

Peace,
Laurie

[lehket]

Laurie,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Actually if the comment had not been made by a Baha'i whom I generally have found to be very knowledgable and cautious about making statements regarding Baha'i doctrine I probably would not have questioned my understanding of this.

Yeah, I've found this to be one of the more vexing issues among Baha'is. Most of the problem stems from the difficulty of understanding certain of 'Abdu'l-Baha's statements on the subject. I feel He was primarily speaking about philosophical and spiritual issues (for example, the human reality is spiritual, therefore it did not evolve from animal ancestors; however, the human body still could have), but others have understood Him more physically than that, and thus have been more or less forced to contrive schemes such as "parallel evolution" that to my mind just don't make any scientific or rational sense. Fortunately Baha'is do not usually allow such minor differences of opinion to divide them.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hey, did you actually join this forum just to answer my question!? I'm honored. Perhaps we will have the pleasure of seeing more posts by you here.

Well, yeah. I don't get out much, but when someone calls for help and I can offer it, I try to put in an appearance. I don't know that I will be here that often because of time constraints, but I'll keep the place bookmarked.