What is Christianity support?

[loverofhumanity]

It is not as simple as that
I am a Christian
The word evolution is not in the Bible, because the concept had not been discovered when it was written.

I believe God started the process that we know as the "big bang" when the universe came into being.
He set the scientific principals necessary for it to continue.

He did not create us or the other animals.
They evolved under the scientific principals he had set up.

Evolution does not need God to do anything for it to continue.
He set it in motion.
therefore it must continue.

The word EVOLUTION is not in the Bible but the PROCESS of evolution IS in the Bible.

A new creation on consecutive days is creation over a period. Who knows what to God is a 'day'?? In prophecy its at least a thousand years but in creation each day could have been a cycle lasting millions of years so if we look intently not just at the words but at the 'processes' in Genesis, we find evolution is there as a process as creation happened over a period of time given as days that may well have been cycles lasting a billion years or more.

The Bible is full of mysteries not just a literary novel to read and jump to a quick conclusion.

It requires pondering and reflection to learn more than just what it says literally. Genesis is fully compatible with science and evolution except God created man as a separate species in Genesis and did not evolve him from lower species. God made only man in His image nothing else.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The word EVOLUTION is not in the Bible but the PROCESS of evolution IS in the Bible.

A new creation on consecutive days is creation over a period. Who knows what to God is a 'day'?? In prophecy its at least a thousand years but in creation each day could have been a cycle lasting millions of years so if we look intently not just at the words but at the 'processes' in Genesis, we find evolution is there as a process as creation happened over a period of time given as days that may well have been cycles lasting a billion years or more.

The Bible is full of mysteries not just a literary novel to read and jump to a quick conclusion.

It requires pondering and reflection to learn more than just what it says literally. Genesis is fully compatible with science and evolution except God created man as a separate species in Genesis and did not evolve him from lower species. God made only man in His image nothing else.

Man is not an exception. It is only genesis that suggests that he is one. Primitive man did not get everything right by a long way. by the time his verbal tradition was written down around the time of the second temple, Ideas and thoughts had changed probably many times.
It would be foolish to depend on Genesis as factual or science.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Man is not an exception. It is only genesis that suggests that he is one. Primitive man did not get everything right by a long way. by the time his verbal tradition was written down around the time of the second temple, Ideas and thoughts had changed probably many times.
It would be foolish to depend on Genesis as factual or science.

All that's being said here is man was a,ways a distinct species.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All that's being said here is man was a,ways a distinct species.

Which is clearly not true.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Which is clearly not true.

You're entitled to your opinion. But there are no other species that have been able to fly in planes and surf the Internet so until then for me at least man is unique.

When you come across a monkey that can take a mathematics class let me know and I'll listen but until then man is unique as a species for me.

 

[Windwalker]

The word EVOLUTION is not in the Bible but the PROCESS of evolution IS in the Bible.

It can best be seen in the evolving concepts of God from early concepts of God as a tribal deity to the God of universal Love as seen in the NT, as a great example of that.

A new creation on consecutive days is creation over a period.

That is NOT an example of evolution. That's simply saying on day 3, "bang" here's a new species. On day 4, "bang", here's another. That's not evolution. That's simply planned population, like the DNR introducing fingerlings into the lake before fishing season.

Who knows what to God is a 'day'?? In prophecy its at least a thousand years but in creation each day could have been a cycle lasting millions of years so if we look intently not just at the words but at the 'processes' in Genesis, we find evolution is there as a process as creation happened over a period of time given as days that may well have been cycles lasting a billion years or more.

To read that into the Genesis myth is a very stretched reading, to say the least. What is vastly more simple is to recognize that these early accounts are prescientific. To try to force-fit them into science is a travesty against the Bible, faith, and science as well. It's not allowing your beliefs to evolve, which they really should and need to.

The Bible is full of mysteries not just a literary novel to read and jump to a quick conclusion.

While I agree there are layers of depth to be unfolded, force-fitting modern science into it is not one of those depths! It's just taking a scissors to it, or trying to see patterns in the clouds in order to make sure your beliefs don't have to evolve. That's a travesty to faith. Faith necessitates evolving beliefs.

It requires pondering and reflection to learn more than just what it says literally.

Sure, but what you doing isn't that. What you are doing is trying to make a prescientific text a magical book of prophetic science. That's not plumbing its depths at all.

Genesis is fully compatible with science and evolution except God created man as a separate species in Genesis and did not evolve him from lower species. God made only man in His image nothing else.

This of course is scientifically untrue. While I agree man is a unique species, ALL species are unique! But they also all are related to each other and share common, inherited traits. But the reason they are considered a species, is that uniqueness.

Man being able to fly an airplane, does not in any way, shape, or form, deny that we evolved from an earlier species. Why in your mind would it?

 

[loverofhumanity]

It can best be seen in the evolving concepts of God from early concepts of God as a tribal deity to the God of universal Love as seen in the NT, as a great example of that.


That is NOT an example of evolution. That's simply saying on day 3, "bang" here's a new species. On day 4, "bang", here's another. That's not evolution. That's simply planned population, like the DNR introducing fingerlings into the lake before fishing season.


To read that into the Genesis myth is a very stretched reading, to say the least. What is vastly more simple is to recognize that these early accounts are prescientific. To try to force-fit them into science is a travesty against the Bible, faith, and science as well. It's not allowing your beliefs to evolve, which they really should and need to.


While I agree there are layers of depth to be unfolded, force-fitting modern science into it is not one of those depths! It's just taking a scissors to it, or trying to see patterns in the clouds in order to make sure your beliefs don't have to evolve. That's a travesty to faith. Faith necessitates evolving beliefs.


Sure, but what you doing isn't that. What you are doing is trying to make a prescientific text a magical book of prophetic science. That's not plumbing its depths at all.


This of course is scientifically untrue. While I agree man is a unique species, ALL species are unique! But they also all are related to each other and share common, inherited traits. But the reason they are considered a species, is that uniqueness.

Man being able to fly an airplane, does not in any way, shape, or form, deny that we evolved from an earlier species. Why in your mind would it?

I'm just saying that Genesis shows what can be identified as a 'process' begun by God to create humanity.

The lower species do not have any share in human attributes. We can become doctors, Pilates, engineers, and so on. An animal is always an animal and cannot advance towards being higher than its own level. Man is the only one who can do that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm just saying that Genesis shows what can be identified as a 'process' begun by God to create humanity.

The lower species do not have any share in human attributes. We can become doctors, Pilates, engineers, and so on. An animal is always an animal and cannot advance towards being higher than its own level. Man is the only one who can do that.

Man like all animals is still evolving, there is no way of knowing which if any existing species will end up top of the tree we all evolved from the same bit of primordial slime mould...

 

[Windwalker]

I'm just saying that Genesis shows what can be identified as a 'process' begun by God to create humanity.

I do not see these types created on this day, and other types on another day as the species themselves evolving over time. That was my point. You can't ever really force-fit that into it. The only "process" was just listing which types on which days, but that's not actually a process at all. It's more a schedule. It doesn't say he made the mammals from fish, which would be true in evolution. The only "process" is making a female human from the side of a male human, but that of course is anything but scientific, wouldn't you agree?

The lower species do not have any share in human attributes.

Uhhhh, no... yes they do share in human attributes! Let's start with the body plan. They are bilateral, so are we. They have lungs, so do we; eye, ears, noses, hair, toenails, toes, feet, legs, similar organs, and on and on and on and on and on the list would go! Our bodies are modified forms of these earlier bodies. No doubts at all.

But what about human societies? Surely those are unique! No, not them either. Our social orders, and our cultures even, are simply more sophisiticated systems of what was evolved before us in other species, and simply evolved into our own forms, and made more complex simply because our brains are more complex. And so on and so forth.

We can become doctors, Pilates, engineers, and so on. An animal is always an animal and cannot advance towards being higher than its own level. Man is the only one who can do that.

And a dragonfly can fly with wings attached to their bodies, and humans can't. So what? That only means that's our unique adaptations. Big deal. Other species has other adapatations, that frankly, are actually far better for survival than anything we have!

To believe humans are the pinacle of creation, is a really bad understanding of species! We are not at the top, by any means as far as well suited to survial goes. What we have going for us in our brains. But given the way so very many of us use them, it's a wonder we'll survive for long as a species. I think our mass suicide we're committing as a species doesn't say anything all that flattering about us, and in a lot of ways insults God to say we're his "best".

Here's something I think you do not understand about evolution. It is not an event that happened in the past. Creation, from God, is not a past event either. Creation is happening in every single moment. God is Creativity itself. Evolution creates. Creation is in every single tick of your clock. Evolution frankly, is God creating. We are "being created".

You're problem is you are married to an outdated interpretation of Genesis, trying to fit modern science into it. You first need to learn what evolution actually is, then secondly understand that literalism of scripture has to go. There's no reason to abandon belief in God because you abandon your faith in a particular, bad interpretation of scripture, religion, and faith. Faith allows for beliefs to be abandon. It actually demands it, believe it or not.

 

[Deidre]

Evolution, but this doesn't conflict with my belief in God

 

[loverofhumanity]

I do not see these types created on this day, and other types on another day as the species themselves evolving over time. That was my point. You can't ever really force-fit that into it. The only "process" was just listing which types on which days, but that's not actually a process at all. It's more a schedule. It doesn't say he made the mammals from fish, which would be true in evolution. The only "process" is making a female human from the side of a male human, but that of course is anything but scientific, wouldn't you agree?


Uhhhh, no... yes they do share in human attributes! Let's start with the body plan. They are bilateral, so are we. They have lungs, so do we; eye, ears, noses, hair, toenails, toes, feet, legs, similar organs, and on and on and on and on and on the list would go! Our bodies are modified forms of these earlier bodies. No doubts at all.

But what about human societies? Surely those are unique! No, not them either. Our social orders, and our cultures even, are simply more sophisiticated systems of what was evolved before us in other species, and simply evolved into our own forms, and made more complex simply because our brains are more complex. And so on and so forth.


And a dragonfly can fly with wings attached to their bodies, and humans can't. So what? That only means that's our unique adaptations. Big deal. Other species has other adapatations, that frankly, are actually far better for survival than anything we have!

To believe humans are the pinacle of creation, is a really bad understanding of species! We are not at the top, by any means as far as well suited to survial goes. What we have going for us in our brains. But given the way so very many of us use them, it's a wonder we'll survive for long as a species. I think our mass suicide we're committing as a species doesn't say anything all that flattering about us, and in a lot of ways insults God to say we're his "best".

Here's something I think you do not understand about evolution. It is not an event that happened in the past. Creation, from God, is not a past event either. Creation is happening in every single moment. God is Creativity itself. Evolution creates. Creation is in every single tick of your clock. Evolution frankly, is God creating. We are "being created".

You're problem is you are married to an outdated interpretation of Genesis, trying to fit modern science into it. You first need to learn what evolution actually is, then secondly understand that literalism of scripture has to go. There's no reason to abandon belief in God because you abandon your faith in a particular, bad interpretation of scripture, religion, and faith. Faith allows for beliefs to be abandon. It actually demands it, believe it or not.

You've failed to take into account human virtues of which animals are bereft. Animals do not become Prophets, Philosophers or scientists inventing and making discoveries.

Two things I stated about Genesis is that it shows there was a process in how creation came about and that only man was created in God's image.

Of course we have physical comparisons but not spiritual or scientific and that is undeniable as there are no such thing as animal pilots or engineers or lawyers or prophets and scientists.

I'm not saying Genesis is a carbon copy of evolution just that it gives subtle hints that evolution occurred over a period of time, God's time so a quite lengthy period.

Scientists have discovered plenty and I don't see any contradiction except we are definitely not evolved spiritually and scientifically from the lower species.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Man like all animals is still evolving, there is no way of knowing which if any existing species will end up top of the tree we all evolved from the same bit of primordial slime mould...

So far the odds don't look good.

 

[Windwalker]

You've failed to take into account human virtues of which animals are bereft. Animals do not become Prophets, Philosophers or scientists inventing and making discoveries.

First, those are not virtues. Those are roles or human occupations. But I did very clearly state that humans have some unique traits which makes them distinct from other animal species. However, ALL species have traits that distinguish them from other species. This is why in part they are considered separate species. I stated that quite clearly. Humans can't breathe underwater using only their mouths. Does this mean fish are the pinnacle of God's creation? So why should humans using their brains to do science make them that?

But actually you're wrong. Animals do become prophets. Humans are an animal species, in case you didn't know that. Do you think we're from another planet, or are rocks or vegetables, or something other than animals? What exactly do you imagine human beings are biologically? Please explain? If we're not animals, nor vegetables, nor minerals, what are we then?

Two things I stated about Genesis is that it shows there was a process in how creation came about and that only man was created in God's image.

It doesn't show a process. It does not show that man evolved. It does not show evolution at all. It simply chronicles which day certain lifeforms were created, like if I were to keep a diary. "Dear Diary, on Monday I mowed the lawn. On Tuesday, I did my laundry. On Wednesday, I filled my car with gas.", and so forth. That's not a record showing a process of evolution, is it? If you think that is, then it's understandable why you read that in Genesis. You don't understand what evolution means.

Of course we have physical comparisons but not spiritual or scientific and that is undeniable as there are no such thing as animal pilots or engineers or lawyers or prophets and scientists.

Again, those are simply higher levels of sophistication of what has come before us in evolution. We simply evolved tools. The use of tools, figuring out how to use stuff to do other stuff with them, is something clearly seen in a very great many non-human species! Ravens, Chimpanzees, and lists of other tool users can be researched. Their minds can figure out how stuff works, then manipulate it for their purposes and goals. That's all that humans are doing, just to a far higher level of sophistication than a chimp, solely because of the power of our brains. But using our brains that way is nothing unique to humans! Only the types of things we do with it and the level of sophistication is. But that actually proves evolution, not challenge it!

Now, as far as spirituality goes... who are you to know what is going on inside of other animals spiritually? If all animals are created by God, they come forth from God's Word (which is what the Bible teaches - John 1:1-3), then they are not void of Spirit. The only thing that distinguishes humans from other species in this regard is our "sin", if we want to talk about it this way. It is humans who in their level of self-awareness experience separation from God. But an animal does not have self-awareness as we do, as the myth of the Garden of Eden touches upon when it says we became aware of our nakedness. Animals don't have shame that separates them from the world. They are very much part of the earth, and I'll argue enjoy whatever Light of Spirit is available to them in the degree that their conscious awareness allows them to know. In this sense, animals are in touch with God more than most humans are!

From this point forward, I would be opening a far deeper conversation about God and spirituality that I believe you are ready for, so I'll leave it at this for the moment.

I'm not saying Genesis is a carbon copy of evolution just that it gives subtle hints that evolution occurred over a period of time, God's time so a quite lengthy period.

Do you truly believe the authors of Genesis had any idea whatsoever about Evolution, or that God somehow magically encoded it on its pages for us in the 21st century to uncover in order for us to feel comfortable about our religious beliefs being compatible with modern science? That's just so, "magical" to me. I don't find that very inspiring spiritually, as for one thing it's something my rational mind cannot accept. I have to torture logic too much, and that harms my spiritual life and growth. I can't imagine denial or forced-logic is spiritually helpful to anyone. I see it as clinging to the past of "thinking as a child", not opening yourself to God in growth through letting go of the things of our childhood.

Scientists have discovered plenty and I don't see any contradiction except we are definitely not evolved spiritually and scientifically from the lower species.

Why definitely? What proofs, or even logic arguments do you have to deny the evidence that we in fact have? I've explained how our science is predicated upon earlier uses of the brain in "figuring stuff out".

Spiritually speaking, I believe our spirituality is also a more highly evolved form of what is seen in all of nature without exception. We in our depths of conscious awareness, simply plumb those Waters more deeply, even though the Water is the same in all that is Created from God. It's the same thing as with every other level of sophistication evolution has bestowed upon us, both rationally and spiritually. We are not so distinct from this world that we are not part of it. I wonder sometimes if modern religious thought that denies this, that denies evolution is itself a form of rejecting God? I do believe it can be understood that way. It's a fear of growing up, I believe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

These are some explanations from Baha'i teachings that go into depth on these subjects.

The reality of man is his thought, not his material body. The thought force and the animal force are partners. Although man is part of the animal creation, he possesses a power of thought superior to all other created beings. - Abdul-Baha


"We Bahá'ís do not believe in Genesis literally. We know this world was not created in seven days, or six, or eight, but evolved gradually over a period of millions of years, as science, has proved. Shoghi Effendi

“For example, let us suppose that man once bore a resemblance to the animal and that he has since evolved and transformed. Accepting this statement does not prove the transformation of species, but could instead be likened to the changes and transformations that the human embryo undergoes before reaching its full development and maturity, as was earlier mentioned. To be more explicit, let us suppose that man once walked on all fours or had a tail: This change and transformation is similar to that of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Even though the fetus develops and evolves in every possible way before it reaches its full development, from the beginning it belongs to a distinct species”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

 

[Windwalker]

“For example, let us suppose that man once bore a resemblance to the animal and that he has since evolved and transformed. Accepting this statement does not prove the transformation of species, but could instead be likened to the changes and transformations that the human embryo undergoes before reaching its full development and maturity, as was earlier mentioned. To be more explicit, let us suppose that man once walked on all fours or had a tail: This change and transformation is similar to that of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Even though the fetus develops and evolves in every possible way before it reaches its full development, from the beginning it belongs to a distinct species”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.”

But the error of this Bahi teaching is that it assumes modern "man" was just evolved from an earlier form of man. That's it's always been man from the beginning, even if it was a fish at some point. That is simply not scientific, and flies straight into the face of it! We "became" man from an earlier species. And other species branched off from that same earlier non-human species. We are just one branch off from that species, alongside chimpanzees. This is the fact of what science has demonstrated. We came from a non-human species.

Do you accept or reject this? And if you reject this, upon what basis do you justify that rejection of science?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But the error of this Bahi teaching is that it assumes modern "man" was just evolved from an earlier form of man. That's it's always been man from the beginning, even if it was a fish at some point. That is simply not scientific, and flies straight into the face of it! We "became" man from an earlier species. And other species branched off from that same earlier non-human species. We are just one branch off from that species, alongside chimpanzees. This is the fact of what science has demonstrated. We came from a non-human species.

Do you accept or reject this? And if you reject this, upon what basis do you justify that rejection of science?

Thank you for being so tolerant and patient and giving me a fair hearing. Even if we have different understandings I consider you try to be fair and hear everyone out and that is a quality I very much admire.

First science is always learning and progressing. Today it may accept something that tomorrow with new evidence it may reject.

You are correct in saying that Baha'is believe man evolved from an earlier form of man. That is the official Baha'i view. And one with which I fully agree because ..........

We believe that knowledge we have been given comes from a Divine Source. That is it is without error and science will confirm it to be true in future even if today science thinks the opposite.

There are some truths that only time can reveal.

Here is an example.

Baha'u'llah, Founder of our Faith said:

"Every star hath it's fixed planet and every planet its own creatures who no man can compute.

Now this cannot be proven yet. We are currently searching for life. But when life is found it will confirm what Divine Knowledge has stated as Divine Knowledge cannot err. It is absolute.

The science about evolution is not final yet. There's much more to come that will agree with the Baha'i view in time.

What you see in the Baha'i Writings is how science will see these things in the future.

Here is some more Divine Knowledge...

“For man, from the conception of the embryo until the attainment of maturity, assumes different forms and appearances. His appearance, form, features, and colour change; that is, he passes from form to form and from appearance to appearance. Yet, from the formation of the embryo he belongs to the human species; that is, it is the embryo of a man and not of an animal. But at first this fact is not apparent; only later does it become plain and visible.”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í

 

[Windwalker]

Thank you for being so tolerant and patient and giving me a fair hearing. Even if we have different understandings I consider you try to be fair and hear everyone out and that is a quality I very much admire.

We all should aspire to listen to another's point of view, as much as we often wish to surge forward to our own first.

First science is always learning and progressing. Today it may accept something that tomorrow with new evidence it may reject.

I would advise caution to not use this to say there is no gravity to what science says. When it comes to things like the Theory of Evolution, this is not some light hypothesis. It would take the entire planet flipping upside down, the stars jumping out of the places in the night sky, and birds suddenly talking in human language to unseat such a deeply grounded and supported theory as Evolution. It would be like overturning the law of gravity. That's how strongly supported the theory is.

And for your information if you are not aware of this, "theory" in science does not mean "opinion". It is not a hypothesis, a guess, or a speculation. It is best understood as a "model". The Theory of Evolution is the "Model of Evolution", which model explains the origins of the species. This is no light thing that we do not have to take with the utmost gravity of support from nearly the entire scientific community. And it is so well-established, it would take some cosmic event that destroyed our understanding of pretty much anything at all to change it.

You are correct in saying that Baha'is believe man evolved from an earlier form of man. That is the official Baha'i view. And one with which I fully agree because ..........

We believe that knowledge we have been given comes from a Divine Source. That is it is without error and science will confirm it to be true in future even if today science thinks the opposite.

I appeciate your honesty. Even though I feel it is an error, and one that puts you at risk for either destroying your faith, or keeping you out of touch with the modern world we have fairly well-established reasons to accept as actually true and real, a lot of people try to mask it by trying to say their faith is compatible with science when it's not. In your case, just here, right now, you are admitting your religious beliefs take priority over science. In this case, you are choosing to reject science, and in fact are not concerned with what science teaches, because you already have your beliefs dictating to you. You do not investigate truth for yourself at all, under those conditions. You already have your belief dictated to you ahead of time. That's not true inquiry, of course, and anything but scientific.

Again, I appreciate that that's honest, but I do think it puts you at risk for a potential serious, if not death-blow to your faith at some point. The rise of modern atheism is predicated on exactly your premise you say here. It makes the person of faith ill-equipped to weather the storm of evidence that contradicts one's religious belief held tightly against advancing knowledge.

There are some truths that only time can reveal.

Evolution has been revealed. We did come from another species. Science revealed it. This is not one of those things we "don't know yet". We do know it, just like we know the earth revolves around the sun. It's that well-established.

Here is an example.

Baha'u'llah, Founder of our Faith said:

"Every star hath it's fixed planet and every planet its own creatures who no man can compute.

Now this cannot be proven yet.

This is clearly in error! Mars has no life. Mercury, most certainly has no life. Jupiter has no life. Pluto has no life. Furthermore, not every star necessarily has a planet. That someone in the 18th century makes a poetic statement, that you take with scientific literalism, is to say the least, not a very good hermeneutic. Again, I would advise a very loose understanding of these things, lest you paint yourself into a corner you cannot escape from and your faith come crashing down like a flaming airplane hitting the ground.

We are currently searching for life. But when life is found it will confirm what Divine Knowledge has stated as Divine Knowledge cannot err. It is absolute.

No, not at all! That someone in history made some metaphoric statement, and some modern tries to force-fit it into modern science and finds some loose, connect the dots, vague similarities, does not qualify as divine knowledge. Not at all! What divine knowledge is, frankly, does not give a damn about such things! I cannot stress that enough. You are trying to bolster your faith against your own doubts assailed by modern science. That's all this futile exercise is you are doing here. Divine Knowledge, has to do with Love, not science. God surpasses such questions we have here down on this little planet.

The science about evolution is not final yet. There's much more to come that will agree with the Baha'i view in time.

Most definitely not. Your faith is poised for crisis. I can feel it right now at the door.

What you see in the Baha'i Writings is how science will see these things in the future.

I don't believe you believe that. And you shouldn't. It's not valid.

Let me be clear. I'm all for religious traditions. However, I'm not for them being maintained by science-denial, which is what you are doing here. That's not faith. That's fear. That's fear of having to reevalutate and reimagine the meaning of your tradition. But that's a good thing! That's what allows faith to grow! The more you trying to make it fit some ideas of the past, the less valid the religion becomes. It will eventually be brought to a death by those who refuse to let go of the past in favor of new, evolving understandings. In other words, it's the "true believer" who kills their own religion and God for themselves. Mark those words.

Here is some more Divine Knowledge...

“For man, from the conception of the embryo until the attainment of maturity, assumes different forms and appearances. His appearance, form, features, and colour change; that is, he passes from form to form and from appearance to appearance. Yet, from the formation of the embryo he belongs to the human species; that is, it is the embryo of a man and not of an animal. But at first this fact is not apparent; only later does it become plain and visible.”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í

Yes, this is wrong. Sorry, it's just wrong. It's prescience, trying to sound like science. No offense, but it's not beyond science, but before it developmentally, on an evolutionary scale. You are wrong to believe science will someday confirm this. It's already surpassed it, and this view belongs in the past, yet with honor for what it was in its day.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We all should aspire to listen to another's point of view, as much as we often wish to surge forward to our own first.


I would advise caution to not use this to say there is no gravity to what science says. When it comes to things like the Theory of Evolution, this is not some light hypothesis. It would take the entire planet flipping upside down, the stars jumping out of the places in the night sky, and birds suddenly talking in human language to unseat such a deeply grounded and supported theory as Evolution. It would be like overturning the law of gravity. That's how strongly supported the theory is.

And for your information if you are not aware of this, "theory" in science does not mean "opinion". It is not a hypothesis, a guess, or a speculation. It is best understood as a "model". The Theory of Evolution is the "Model of Evolution", which model explains the origins of the species. This is no light thing that we do not have to take with the utmost gravity of support from nearly the entire scientific community. And it is so well-established, it would take some cosmic event that destroyed our understanding of pretty much anything at all to change it.


I appeciate your honesty. Even though I feel it is an error, and one that puts you at risk for either destroying your faith, or keeping you out of touch with the modern world we have fairly well-established reasons to accept as actually true and real, a lot of people try to mask it by trying to say their faith is compatible with science when it's not. In your case, just here, right now, you are admitting your religious beliefs take priority over science. In this case, you are choosing to reject science, and in fact are not concerned with what science teaches, because you already have your beliefs dictating to you. You do not investigate truth for yourself at all, under those conditions. You already have your belief dictated to you ahead of time. That's not true inquiry, of course, and anything but scientific.

Again, I appreciate that that's honest, but I do think it puts you at risk for a potential serious, if not death-blow to your faith at some point. The rise of modern atheism is predicated on exactly your premise you say here. It makes the person of faith ill-equipped to weather the storm of evidence that contradicts one's religious belief held tightly against advancing knowledge.


Evolution has been revealed. We did come from another species. Science revealed it. This is not one of those things we "don't know yet". We do know it, just like we know the earth revolves around the sun. It's that well-established.


This is clearly in error! Mars has no life. Mercury, most certainly has no life. Jupiter has no life. Pluto has no life. Furthermore, not every star necessarily has a planet. That someone in the 18th century makes a poetic statement, that you take with scientific literalism, is to say the least, not a very good hermeneutic. Again, I would advise a very loose understanding of these things, lest you paint yourself into a corner you cannot escape from and your faith come crashing down like a flaming airplane hitting the ground.


No, not at all! That someone in history made some metaphoric statement, and some modern tries to force-fit it into modern science and finds some loose, connect the dots, vague similarities, does not qualify as divine knowledge. Not at all! What divine knowledge is, frankly, does not give a damn about such things! I cannot stress that enough. You are trying to bolster your faith against your own doubts assailed by modern science. That's all this futile exercise is you are doing here. Divine Knowledge, has to do with Love, not science. God surpasses such questions we have here down on this little planet.


Most definitely not. Your faith is poised for crisis. I can feel it right now at the door.


I don't believe you believe that. And you shouldn't. It's not valid.

Let me be clear. I'm all for religious traditions. However, I'm not for them being maintained by science-denial, which is what you are doing here. That's not faith. That's fear. That's fear of having to reevalutate and reimagine the meaning of your tradition. But that's a good thing! That's what allows faith to grow! The more you trying to make it fit some ideas of the past, the less valid the religion becomes. It will eventually be brought to a death by those who refuse to let go of the past in favor of new, evolving understandings. In other words, it's the "true believer" who kills their own religion and God for themselves. Mark those words.


Yes, this is wrong. Sorry, it's just wrong. It's prescience, trying to sound like science. No offense, but it's not beyond science, but before it developmentally, on an evolutionary scale. You are wrong to believe science will someday confirm this. It's already surpassed it, and this view belongs in the past, yet with honor for what it was in its day.

Everything I have stated is well within reason. There is nothing I have said which is not possible. There are simply too many possibilities that haven't been taken into account.

Harmony between science and religion is a basic Baha'i Teaching.

“There is no contradiction between true religion and science.”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Paris Talks.” Bahá’í

The Unity of Religion and Science

We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance—for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Paris Talks.”

You emphasised how wrong I was about the planets but did you factor into your reasoning other possibilities such as this?........
"The earth has its inhabitants, the water and the air contain many living beings… then how is it possible to conceive that these stupendous stellar bodies are not inhabited? Verily, they are peopled, but let it be known that the dwellers accord with the elements of their respective spheres. These living beings do not have states of consciousness like unto those who live on the surface of this globe: the power of adaptation and environment molds their bodies and states of consciousness, just as our bodies and minds are suited to our planet. – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, pp. 114-115.

 

[Windwalker]

Everything I have stated is well within reason.

When you, or your religion claim humans have been a distinct species from the beginning and that they did not evolve from an earlier, distinctly different species, such as let's say a sea sponge, then you are flying into the face of all accepted science. That is not within reason. That is anti-reason. It is science-denial. And in doing that, it is also faith-denial, IMO.

There is nothing I have said which is not possible. There are simply too many possibilities that haven't been taken into account.

There are several things you've said that are impossible, and I've gone to lengths to articulate clearly why they are.

Harmony between science and religion is a basic Baha'i Teaching.

"There is no contradiction between true religion and science.”

Bahá, Abdu’l. “Paris Talks.” Bahá’í

I agree this should be true. However, in practice what you are doing is not harmonizing faith and science at all. What you are doing is denying science, saying one day it will validate your prophet's ideas! That is NOT harmonization at all. I cannot stress that more strongly. Harmonizing would be to modify your religious beliefs to take into account what science has established. You are not modifying your beliefs at all! You are saying they take priority over science. That is a false-harmonization. It's a charade.

"We may think of science as one wing and religion as the other; a bird needs two wings for flight, one alone would be useless. Any religion that contradicts science or that is opposed to it, is only ignorance—for ignorance is the opposite of knowledge.”

Again, I completely agree with the sentient. I argue for that myself, and I am arguing for that here against what you are doing. What you are doing is not this, but saying that science is wrong when the prophet says something different. Why can't you just say the prophet was wrong --- or, how you understand what the prophet meant may be wrong? I do not hear any concessions at all. There is no compromise, no evolution of ideas, and as a result, no growth. You are not doing what is being said here in this quote.

You emphasised how wrong I was about the planets but did you factor into your reasoning other possibilities such as this?........
"The earth has its inhabitants, the water and the air contain many living beings… then how is it possible to conceive that these stupendous stellar bodies are not inhabited? Verily, they are peopled, but let it be known that the dwellers accord with the elements of their respective spheres. These living beings do not have states of consciousness like unto those who live on the surface of this globe: the power of adaptation and environment molds their bodies and states of consciousness, just as our bodies and minds are suited to our planet. – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, pp. 114-115.

Yes, I did factor that in. There are planets which simply cannot support any life as they are far too close to the sun to allow any form of organic life to exist. Organic life cannot exist on the surface of the sun, for instance. So let's just look at the planet Mercury in our solar system alone. First, there is no atmosphere, which alone make life impossible on it. Secondly, it's surface temperatures hit over 800 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, and -280 at night! Not even "extremophile" can exist on what amounts to a red-hot burning hunk of iron floating inside a total vacuum. There is nothing possible there to breathe, let alone eat to survive, if it were possible at all for any elements to form into organic matter in the first place!

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally do believe life is prolific throughout the universe. I believe it is an inevitability. But I do not believe as your prophet put that every star has a planet, nor that every planet has life on it. That's pretty specific, and all it takes is one single example to make it wrong. My citing Mercury for one tiny example is enough to make that whole house of cards collapse. If he had said what I say, that life exists everywhere in the universe, just like it evolved on this planet where the conditions were right for it, I would agree with him. But that's not the same as saying every star has a planet, which they don't, nor that every planet has life, which they don't. Understand?

If you want to take his statement "figuratively" in the way I said it, not literally that every star has a planet, and every planet has life, then sure. "Life exists all over the place in the universe". Make his statement a non-literal metaphor, a figure of speech, then I can accept it. But if you mean to then argue, "Science will one day confirm they all do", then you are in denial, and not harmonizing science and religion at all.

Again, I am all for harmonizing these things. I insist upon it in order to have a healthy faith. But what are doing is not that at all. You're saying junk like "science has been wrong many times in the past", suggesting that your prophet is right and don't trust science over the prophet. This is a serious problem for your religion and your faith. It is not allowing science to challenge you at all. It's denial, a burying of the head in the sand, denying both faith and reason. You are placing a demand on followers to deny science in favor of the prophet, and that can only be sustained for so long before it destroys the viability of your religion altogether.

It's the same issue for Christianity, Islam, Baha'i', and any other so-called "revealed religions". The elevation of prophets as infallible teachers of magical scientific knowledge in a prescientific era is dooming them to irrelevance. There's only so long one can sustain holding back the floodwaters of knowledge with these lame excuses or twistings of their scriptures such as are offered by apologists for the faith. My strong recommendation is to let go of this unnecessary deification of prophets and understand they did not know about these things, nor is it really ultimately relevant to their message of faith and love.

All of these apologetic antics, such as you are engaging in, are only for one purpose, to elevate the prophet to mythic proportions in order for you to "believe", or have faith. And that, doing that, is not faith. That's where the conversation really needs to go here. Why is it necessary for your prophet to be viewed a beyond reproach? Why is it necessary they be infallible? I do not believe it is necessary, and that that belief actually limits potential growth spiritually.

 

[loverofhumanity]

When you, or your religion claim humans have been a distinct species from the beginning and that they did not evolve from an earlier, distinctly different species, such as let's say a sea sponge, then you are flying into the face of all accepted science. That is not within reason. That is anti-reason. It is science-denial. And in doing that, it is also faith-denial, IMO.


There are several things you've said that are impossible, and I've gone to lengths to articulate clearly why they are.


I agree this should be true. However, in practice what you are doing is not harmonizing faith and science at all. What you are doing is denying science, saying one day it will validate your prophet's ideas! That is NOT harmonization at all. I cannot stress that more strongly. Harmonizing would be to modify your religious beliefs to take into account what science has established. You are not modifying your beliefs at all! You are saying they take priority over science. That is a false-harmonization. It's a charade.


Again, I completely agree with the sentient. I argue for that myself, and I am arguing for that here against what you are doing. What you are doing is not this, but saying that science is wrong when the prophet says something different. Why can't you just say the prophet was wrong --- or, how you understand what the prophet meant may be wrong? I do not hear any concessions at all. There is no compromise, no evolution of ideas, and as a result, no growth. You are not doing what is being said here in this quote.


Yes, I did factor that in. There are planets which simply cannot support any life as they are far too close to the sun to allow any form of organic life to exist. Organic life cannot exist on the surface of the sun, for instance. So let's just look at the planet Mercury in our solar system alone. First, there is no atmosphere, which alone make life impossible on it. Secondly, it's surface temperatures hit over 800 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, and -280 at night! Not even "extremophile" can exist on what amounts to a red-hot burning hunk of iron floating inside a total vacuum. There is nothing possible there to breathe, let alone eat to survive, if it were possible at all for any elements to form into organic matter in the first place!

Now, don't get me wrong, I personally do believe life is prolific throughout the universe. I believe it is an inevitability. But I do not believe as your prophet put that every star has a planet, nor that every planet has life on it. That's pretty specific, and all it takes is one single example to make it wrong. My citing Mercury for one tiny example is enough to make that whole house of cards collapse. If he had said what I say, that life exists everywhere in the universe, just like it evolved on this planet where the conditions were right for it, I would agree with him. But that's not the same as saying every star has a planet, which they don't, nor that every planet has life, which they don't. Understand?

If you want to take his statement "figuratively" in the way I said it, not literally that every star has a planet, and every planet has life, then sure. "Life exists all over the place in the universe". Make his statement a non-literal metaphor, a figure of speech, then I can accept it. But if you mean to then argue, "Science will one day confirm they all do", then you are in denial, and not harmonizing science and religion at all.

Again, I am all for harmonizing these things. I insist upon it in order to have a healthy faith. But what are doing is not that at all. You're saying junk like "science has been wrong many times in the past", suggesting that your prophet is right and don't trust science over the prophet. This is a serious problem for your religion and your faith. It is not allowing science to challenge you at all. It's denial, a burying of the head in the sand, denying both faith and reason. You are placing a demand on followers to deny science in favor of the prophet, and that can only be sustained for so long before it destroys the viability of your religion altogether.

The Baha'i Faith is a religion not a science so you will find only rarely is a scientific comment made by Bahaullah. His Son Abdul-Baha mentioned more about things like evolution but that was because He was asked about these topics.

The Baha'i Faith cannot make any judgements on any science. You will find that for instance our House of Justice will always refer Baha'is to science if they ask a scientific question. The thing about life on other planets is a very rare scientific statement by Baha'u'llah. He also mentioned nuclear power and that the transmutation of copper into good was known by God and God would reveal the secret if He chose. But mostly about God and morals.

In rare cases where a topic which is the domain of science is mentioned, such as evolution, we will agree with Baha'u'llah because current day evolution denies there is a God and we believe there is a God.

But we uphold all sciences except when a science denies God we don't accept its conclusion.