Which Religion(s) Are Most Compatible With the Theory Of Evolution? (rituals, Earth)

[Sunstone]

Are all of the world's many religions equally at odds with the Theory Of Evolution? If not, which of the worlds religions are most compatible with the Theory Of Evolution? Why? Which of the worlds religions are least compatible with the Theory Of Evolution? Why?

[Green Gaia]

I would say UU is completely compatible with evolution - heck, we teach classes on it.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Are all of the world's many religions equally at odds with the Theory Of Evolution? If not, which of the worlds religions are most compatible with the Theory Of Evolution? Why? Which of the worlds religions are least compatible with the Theory Of Evolution? Why?

Mine isn't at all opposed to evolution, and there is no anti-evolutionary strain.

afaik, Christianity has the toughest time with evolution, but only because of a narrowly literalistic interpretation of Creation stories in Genesis. I have no idea if Islam has a similar strain, given their drawing from the same texts.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Booko

Mine isn't at all opposed to evolution, and there is no anti-evolutionary strain.

afaik, Christianity has the toughest time with evolution, but only because of a narrowly literalistic interpretation of Creation stories in Genesis. I have no idea if Islam has a similar strain, given their drawing from the same texts.

Some forms of Christianity has such a problem. Orthodoxy certainly does not. You'll find Orthodox Christians with any of a wide spectrum of beliefs from Young earthers to Theistic Evolutionists but the Church makes no dogmatic stance.

James

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

The Baha'i Faith is a religion most compatible with evolution, as it not only stresses the essential harmony of science and religion, but states that religion itself evolves over the Ages! . . .

Best, :-)

Bruce

[robtex]

Any religion that doesn't present a personal deity that micro-manages the universe. That is in conflict with genetic drift and random mutation.

Any religion that doens't propose a soul or afterlife. This is in conflict with the biological constraints of what defines life and death.

Any religion that does not propose the existance of non-organic (carbon based) life forces.

Any religion that supports the idea that RNA can and does become DNA.

Any religion that does not hold man as the zenith of creation as evolution views man as just another species in the evolutionary process.

[kiwimac]

Zoroastrianism is possibly the first of the 'green' religions and is thus compatible with Evolution. I do, of course, take note of Robtex's comments and simply wonder when anyone proved that there was / was not life after death?

Kiwimac

[Booko]

Originally Posted by robtex

Any religion that doens't propose a soul or afterlife. This is in conflict with the biological constraints of what defines life and death.

I don't see how this poses a conflict. Biological constraints only address the physical aspect of life. *If* there is a supernatural aspect, it would have nothing to do with biological constraints.

Any religion that does not propose the existance of non-organic (carbon based) life forces.

We don't specifically propose that, but then Baha'i Writings aren't in the habit of making scientific pronouncements anyway, seeing as that is better left to science. There is a passage I joking refer to as "Baha'i Sci Fi" though, which pretty much says there's life on other planets.

Any religion that does not hold man as the zenith of creation as evolution views man as just another species in the evolutionary process.

We hace no problem with evolution, but hold that man, at least on the Earth, is the zenith of creation here. What's the problem with that, as long as there is not dropping of the other shoe that says, "...and that means evolution didn't happen?"

There may be a problem in that it assumes that humanity will always be top of the heap, and you never know mad llamas may overtake us. But should that happen, I expect we'll just invite them for tea and get over it, rather than deny evolution happens.

[arthra]

Baha'i ideas on man are that he has not always been in his present form which implies "he" may change into other forms in the course of time...also "he" is not limited to this earth.

"For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man—"

~ Abdul-Baha

The Baha'i view is though that "man" as a specie is human whether it is in another form or not.

I have also seen though some Sufi statements that similarly seem to be exploring the concept of evolution...

Fariduddin Attar (Nishapur, Iran, early 13th C) and Jalaluddin Rumi (Balkh, Afghanistan, 13th C) were amongst those whose writings dealt with the theme of romantic love.

Both spoke of various stages of human evolution in terms of spiritual progress and Attar noted: "To abandon something because others have misused it may be the height of folly; the Sufic truth cannot be encompassed in rules and regulations, in formulas and rituals - but yet it is partially present in all these things."

Rumi appeared to endorse a theory of social evolution that resembled earlier Indian spiritual theories: "I died as inert matter - and became a plant; And as a plant I died and became an animal; And as an animal I died and became a man; So why should I fear losing my human character? I shall die as a man, to rise in angelic form" - in Mathnavi, Story 17

Source:

http://india_resource.tripod.com/sufi.html

[St0ne]

Buddhism teaches that all conditioned things are ever changing, there is most definately no conflict IMO with Evolution and Biddhism.