Can theists really reconcile evolution with their beliefs?

[michel]

I wanted more abrhamic input on this thread. Anbody got speculations on reconcilations of the OP?

I do. I guess I am no "ordinary Christian", so my input may be totally redundant, but I have no problem whatsoever reconciling Evolution with my beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

I do. I guess I am no "ordinary Christian", so my input may be totally redundant, but I have no problem whatsoever reconciling Evolution with my beliefs.

No doubt the ease with which you reconcile evolution with your religious beliefs is due to having profoundly reflected that the common symbol of Christianity, and the very distant ancestors of Jesus, on his human side, are both fish?

Or, am I the only one who stays up late into the night deeply pondering meaningless coincidences because I have no other hobbies?

 

[Nehustan]

I believe in the God of Abraham, and I recognise evolutionary theory to have enough evidence to support it, I don't have to reconcile. I might if I thought they were opposing views, but they do not appear that way to me. Genesis will always be sticky when it comes to evolution, but I think I even have an answer to that good enough for myself, at least when I view the 'bible' in its entirety it appears to be telling a very specific story. Let's just say my understanding of the 'Bible' would hinge on a few things...Pillars of fire and smoke, a city descending made from precious metals and stones etc. So let's call the captain of this city Jahweh, as far as I am concerned he has instructed me to attempt to understand the progression we have in the bible, respect the messengers, but ultimately cling to the Quran. I think that when one considers the creation story one should always be aware that we are within four dimesions we know of, and my God is without (of) dimension. I think even with the most basic understanding of physics the posited dichotomy of biological science and at least Ibrahimic faith falls away.

 

[BruceDLimber]

> Can theists really reconcile evolution with their beliefs?

OF COURSE we can!

I'm surprised this is even a question.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[michel]

No doubt the ease with which you reconcile evolution with your religious beliefs is due to having profoundly reflected that the common symbol of Christianity, and the very distant ancestors of Jesus, on his human side, are both fish?

Or, am I the only one who stays up late into the night deeply pondering meaningless coincidences because I have no other hobbies?

No, you're not, and I stay up late at night thinking of absurdities.

Just to show how much I am interested in evolution, I am very much looking forward to this (which is on tonight) :-

Prepare to be mesmerised by a combination of computer generated and live-action footage revealing what goes on in the inky-black depths of the underwater abyss. It's a strange world, where sperm whales struggle to the death with 15m-long squid while shoals of scavenging hagfish - regarded as one of the most repulsive-looking creatures in the deep ocean - feast on fishy carcasses. There's a city of "stalagmite" formations reminiscent of Barcelona's Sagrada Familia cathedral, and a range of underwater mountains covered in marine snow. On this evidence, Ocean Odyssey seems likely to do for deep-sea exploring what Walking with Dinosaurs did for prehistoric life.

RT reviewer: Jane Rackham

Followed (unfortunately) by this:-

Just two words are all that's needed to convince you to watch this: David Attenborough. As part of the Climate Chaos season of programmes, he undertakes a personal investigation to find out what he, and everyone else, has been doing to contribute to the planet's climate change. What he discovers is shocking. Whether it's drought-stricken trees in what should be the Amazon rainforest or Australia's Great Barrier Reef, where the coral's been bleached by warming seas, he concludes that humans have to take responsibility for causing these devastating changes. "Man has become a force of nature," he says. "What happens next is really up to us."

RT reviewer: Jane Rackham

</IMG>

 

[linwood]

I`ve been thinking about this, from a Judaic standpoint

How can one believe man was made in the image of God while at the same time believe man has evolved into what he is today?

The concepts seem contradictory, we were either created as we stand today or we slowly evolved into what we are today.

How can it be both?

I understand the usual Christian harmonization that evolution is simply Gods tool for the creation of mankind but this harmonization directly contradicts Biblical verse.

The Biblical verse in question isn`t what I would consider figurative either.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The "image" of the beginnings of mankind that evolution implies is nothing even close to that of "Gods image".

 

[Quiddity]

I`ve been thinking about this, from a Judaic standpoint

How can one believe man was made in the image of God while at the same time believe man has evolved into what he is today?

The concepts seem contradictory, we were either created as we stand today or we slowly evolved into what we are today.

How can it be both?

I understand the usual Christian harmonization that evolution is simply Gods tool for the creation of mankind but this harmonization directly contradicts Biblical verse.

The Biblical verse in question isn`t what I would consider figurative either.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


The "image" of the beginnings of mankind that evolution implies is nothing even close to that of "Gods image".

When you read "In God's image" how do you understand that exactly?
Do you imagine God with 2 hands, 2 feet, etc.?

To catholics it is the "nature" that God replicated in humans.

 

[linwood]

When you read "In God's image" how do you understand that exactly?
Do you imagine God with 2 hands, 2 feet, etc.?

I understand it as it reads..."In Gods image".."After our Likeness"
The context of the text in these verses gives me no reason to take them figuratively.

To catholics it is the "nature" that God replicated in humans.

I`m not really too sure about that Victor.
Considering the vast amount of Christian/Catholic art portraying God in the usual anthromorphic image.

In fact I`d be hard pressed to find a Catholic/Christian who didn`t think of God as having human form.

I understand that this may not be how you interpret the verses but there is no denying that the majority of Christians (Including Catholics) interpret them literally.
How do these theists harmonize the two without becoming intellectually dishonest?

 

[evearael]

The concepts seem contradictory, we were either created as we stand today or we slowly evolved into what we are today.

Time is a dimension, like height, width and length. It is also something God is not constrained by... so fussing about the difference between time a and time b doesn't make any more sense to me than it would to fuss about the difference between point a and point b.

 

[Quiddity]

I understand it as it reads..."In Gods image".."After our Likeness"
The context of the text in these verses gives me no reason to take them figuratively.

Sure you do. First and foremost God doesn't bother to describe any anthromorphisms of Himself at all. Everything else named can be related to a tangible species.

I`m not really too sure about that Victor.
Considering the vast amount of Christian/Catholic art portraying God in the usual anthromorphic image.

Are you talking about the Christ images? Or actual figures of God the Father?

In fact I`d be hard pressed to find a Catholic/Christian who didn`t think of God as having human form.

So what? That is only man's attempt to relate to the subjective and add physical qualities. He may only have one leg and one eye.

I understand that this may not be how you interpret the verses but there is no denying that the majority of Christians (Including Catholics) interpret them literally.

Perhaps your are right, and for the sake of the conversation, let's say you are. But you are already aware that I don't submit to "majority interpretation". So the majority can interpret pink unicorns out of a verse and it would do little to shake me up.

How do these theists harmonize the two without becoming intellectually dishonest?

Beats me, you'd have to ask someone who holds to it.

 

[linwood]

Time is a dimension, like height, width and length. It is also something God is not constrained by... so fussing about the difference between time a and time b doesn't make any more sense to me than it would to fuss about the difference between point a and point b.

Do you have any empirical evidence to support the assertion that the concept of time is anything other than a human construct?

It makes perfect sense to "fuss" about the difference between two obviously contradictory concepts.

First and foremost God doesn't bother to describe any anthromorphisms of Himself at all. Everything else named can be related to a tangible species.

Thats not the point nor is it entirely true.
God himself gives descriptions of his anthromorphic qualities in Biblical text.

Gen 6:4

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
(Gods children could mate with and have offspring with humans)


Exodus 21-23

Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
(God at the very least has a hand, a back, and a face.That seems pretty humanlike to me)


Ezekail 8:18
Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them."
(He`s got ears too)


Isiah 16:11
Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh.
(He`s got intestines and what seems to be a bad case of flatulence)


There are many many more Biblical references to Gods anthromorphic state from the motuh of God himself.


There are a few of possibilities here.
* Either God made us in his likeness and we evolved into something different and no longer hold gods likenesss.
or
* God made us in his likeness, we still maintain Gods likeness and evolutions implications are wrong
or
*God didn`t make us, we were brought about by the processes of abiogenesis and evolution and the Bible is wrong.

Perhaps your are right, and for the sake of the conversation, let's say you are. But you are already aware that I don't submit to "majority interpretation". So the majority can interpret pink unicorns out of a verse and it would do little to shake me up.

As I`ve already said, you are not the Christian I am speaking of.

 

[Quiddity]

There are many many more Biblical references to Gods anthromorphic state from the motuh of God himself.

Sorry, I don't submit to the bold. The Bible is indirect communication. Burning bush is direct communication. Any anthromorphisms noted by the writers are only an attempt to explain the "nature". Not necessarily to physical qualities. For example: Some mammals can hear just fine without having "ears", etc.

There are a few of possibilities here.
* Either God made us in his likeness and we evolved into something different and no longer hold gods likenesss.
or
* God made us in his likeness, we still maintain Gods likeness and evolutions implications are wrong
or
*God didn`t make us, we were brought about by the processes of abiogenesis and evolution and the Bible is wrong.

Or:
* God made us in his likeness thru the process of evolution while still maintaining our nature.

 

[linwood]

Or:
* God made us in his likeness thru the process of evolution while still maintaining our nature.

Please be patient with me here.

Are you saying that God set us on an evolutionary course towards our physical bodies now?
Or are you saying God set us on an evolutionary course towards our "nature" now?

Because either way we weren`t originally made in "The Likeness" (physical,emotional, or spiritual)of God but set on a path to become "The Likeness" of God.

Our "Nature" hasn`t always been the way it is now.
In fact "Our Nature" changes even now from person to person, culture to culture.

Either way we don`t now nor ever have fit into any "mold" as a species.

 

[Quiddity]

Please be patient with me here.

Will do....

Are you saying that God set us on an evolutionary course towards our physical bodies now?

In short yes. Although I have no idea "how" He did it. I'm quite content with submitting to sciencetific conclusions and instead of using the "God of the Gaps" argument I just say "I don't know".

Or are you saying God set us on an evolutionary course towards our "nature" now?

I don't see why it can't be both. But I think (just my wild theory) that it was our "software" or soul or whatever you want to call it that triggered inner changes. Kind of how light (which is not matter) triggers the eye and the eye triggers the brain to react.

Because either way we weren`t originally made in "The Likeness" (physical,emotional, or spiritual)of God but set on a path to become "The Likeness" of God.

The "Likeness" can mean no more then qualities that have the ability to grow into something.

Our "Nature" hasn`t always been the way it is now.
In fact "Our Nature" changes even now from person to person, culture to culture.

That's true...that's why I noted what I did above. "Ability to grow"

Either way we don`t now nor ever have fit into any "mold" as a species.

No we don't and this is just me taking a stab at it. My intention was only to hopefull show that both my belief and science can remain in tact. Not that I'm afraid or hesitant to disregard Science. It's just the freedom that I have based on my belief system.

 

[Nehustan]

Please be patient with me here.

Are you saying that God set us on an evolutionary course towards our physical bodies now?
Or are you saying God set us on an evolutionary course towards our "nature" now?

Because either way we weren`t originally made in "The Likeness" (physical,emotional, or spiritual)of God but set on a path to become "The Likeness" of God.

Our "Nature" hasn`t always been the way it is now.
In fact "Our Nature" changes even now from person to person, culture to culture.

Either way we don`t now nor ever have fit into any "mold" as a species.

I wasn't going to answer this thread as it appeared to be going toward justification of the book of Genesis, and as a Muslim I am not bound by that book. It's not that its untrue, and I'm not going to critique why I think it may only tell part of the truth. I will however draw upon the word 'mold' you have used. In Islam we are told that Allah 'molded' Adam from clay. Inherent within this term is an implication of the passage of time. In the Quran we are also told that God merely says 'Be' and it is, which could be seen as opposite inferring no passage of time but instantaneous creation. However they are not strictly opposites. As God is beyond time (as we perceive it), time being part of creation (i.e. space and time) what appears to be one 'moment' (i.e. known at one time, everything that has, is and will occur), when God says 'Be' it is. As Muslims we are taught generally that nothing occurs in creation without means. Let me give you an example. You pray to god to ask him for money for good causes, God wishes you to become rich, do you wake up tomorrow and find that suddenly you have $10,000,000, in your account, or do the events (and presumably your own actions) in life lead you to a place where you manage to accrue wealth? So I'll apply the same logic to man. Did Adam appear in a single moment in our time, or as was sugggested was he molded, with, upon completion of the clay, ruh (spirit) breathed into him. As I said I see no contradiction between my faith and evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

for me there is no need to justify anything, science doesn't harm my faith, if anything it helps it.
I know there others that don't agree with that. (especally about the origins of the people)

but for me personally, I find no conflict what so ever.

wa:do

 

[robtex]

*bump*