• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baha'is and Evolution

lunamoth

Will to love
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. :confused:

Laurie
 

9harmony

Member
lunamoth said:
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. :confused:

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

Will to love
9harmony said:
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

Will to love
9harmony said:
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

Will to love
Apparently I'm just talking to myself here :D 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

Member
Hi Laurie,

sorry, for making you talk to yourself. :D

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

Will to love
9harmony said:
Hi Laurie,

sorry, for making you talk to yourself. :D

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

New Member
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

Will to love
lehket said:
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

New Member
Laurie,

lunamoth said:
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.

lunamoth said:
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.
 

lunamoth

Will to love
lehket said:
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.
It would be good to see you pop in here once in a while. :) Thank you again for answering my question.

Laurie
 

arthra

Baha'i
It was probably my statement that prompted this thread and you can find a reference in "Some Answered Questions" to the human species as in the following:

Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the beginning which has no beginning, to the end which has no end, a Perfect Manifestation always exists. This Man of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man. (SAQ 196)

But from the beginning of man's existence he is a distinct species. ... admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist [in the human body], this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed. Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal. -- Some Answered Questions, pp. 211, 212, 213, 214.

I also came across an interesting quote from Abdul-Baha which I doubt many Baha'is have seen as follows:
Abdu'l-Bahá writes:

"Moses taught that the world was brought into existence in the six days of creation. This is an allegory, a symbolic form of the ancient truth that the world evolved gradually. Darwin can refer to Moses for his theory of evolution. God did not allow the world to come into existence all at once, rather the divine breath of life manifested itself in the commanding Word of God, Logos, which engendered and begot the world. We thus have a progressive process of creation, and not a one-time happening. Moses' days of creation represent time spans of millions of years. From Pythagoras to ibn-i-Sina (known as Avicenna) to the 'faithful brothers of Basra', through Darwin and to the blessed Manifestations of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh, both scholars and Prophets have testified to the progressive creative action of the Logos (divine breath of life). The Darwinian and monistic theories of evolution and the origin of species are not materialistic, atheisitic ideas; they are religious truths which the godless and the deluded have unjustifiably used in their campaign against religion and the Bible."

That citation is as follows:
Quoted in Anjam Khursheed, Science and Religion: Towards the Restoration of Ancient Harmony,
(London, Oneworld Press, 1987) p. 91, from a conversation between Abdu'l-Bahá and Dr. Fallscheer,
recorded in Sonne der Warheit, No. 1, March 1921, p.9
This is found in an essay at
http://bahai-library.com/?file=jones_environmental_crisis&chapter=7#_ftn306

I also own a copy of Khursheed's book and it's worth obtaining.

Baha'i belief is that there are ancestors of human beings who are potentially human... and yet are not necessarily in a "human" form as we see them today

From a practical standpoint that is from the point of view of probably most scientists I think there would be little observable difference say between say an ape like creature who is potentially human and one who is not.

The Baha'i view of "man" also to me is that we have not always been in"this" form so it would be appropriate maybe to use a term like sentient being as applied to the universe.

- Art
 

oneness

Member
The Baha'i Faith teaches that religious truths, just as scientific concepts, are relative and our understanding is evolved and perfected by each revelation. The essence of religion and science are in harmony and it is only our perception of one or the other that may seem as a conflict. As the primary purpose of both is the pursuit of perfection and knowledge, nothing scientific or religious should be perceived or portrayed as absolute and undeniable truth. One scientific example that comes to mind is "the ether" the existence of which seemed certain until recently. Therefore, progress and evolution are not possible if we perceive our current understanding of "evolution" to be absolute and perfect.

Generally speaking, it can be said that "knowledge" is transferred in four ways. Traditions, values passed on to future generations, intellection or science the source of new discoveries and progress, inspiration manifested in the form of great discoveries and inventions, or beautiful writings and poetry, and revelation; and arguably the first three are various manifestations of the last which is the true source of knowledge in this world.

It is my humble understanding of the Baha'i writings that man has always existed and has no beginning and no end, that it has been created in the likeness and image of God and the dawning place of all His perfections, even if on distant planets or evolved from other forms, but always as its own species and not a random selective evolution of another. Since our perceptions of revelation, the source of guidance for every age may vary on the issue, the best approach may always be to refer to the writings and fortunately the writings of 'Abdul'-Bahá discuss this topic quite well:

"MAN AND EVOLUTION
Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed, for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet; but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed it was no longer of use, and therefore it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground, and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed; and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change, and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterwards. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.

Secondly, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology, that is to say the knowledge of the composition of the members, records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black, so as to attract the rays of the sun; for if it were another color, that is, uniformly white, it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.

Thirdly, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. 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; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the fetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color, and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.

To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period -- in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species, that is, man, and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, "We will make man in Our image and likeness." He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful, and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener became finer, sweeter, and acquire more freshness and delicacy.

The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God."

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu’l-Bahá Section, p. 307)
 

Cosmos

Member
The "official position" of the Baha'i Faith is that science and religion are harmonious.
As a Baha'i I must state this is undeniably the facts. :yes:


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 evolved over long periods of time. ...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.
While it is essential to respect other people's opinions, I am going to take a definitive stance as a Baha'i and base my opinion on the divine philosophy of Abdu'l-Baha. While stating the evolutionary facts that biological life and inorganic matter evolves throughout time, He makes it emphatically clear that the Darwinian supposition of speciation (i.e. the transformation of one species into an entirely new species) is rejected:no:, though common ancestry is affirmed. Therefore the Baha'i philosophical view is that we cannot see creation evolving from a stone to a tree, from a tree to the ape, to the man, but that all of these gradients of Nature coexist and cohabit each other. This would be the creationist aspect of the Baha'i Faith metaphysics.



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.
Here it would be prudent to note that Baha'i theology states what I mentioned above. The Baha'i view, at least from Abdu'l-Baha, is that though all biological nature shares common ancestry, this is not the same as mixing this scientific fact with the belief that human beings evolved from apes or that the animal kingdom evolved from the vegetable, etc. There are Baha'i scholars who expand upon this, such as Gary L. Matthews in his book, "The Challenge of Baha'u'llah".

As I said before, not all Baha'is will agree with me on that point, but, well, that's how I personally see it.
You did a great job of at least bridging concepts through dialogue! :D
 
Last edited:
Top