Why is it Assumed Evolution and Creation are mutually exclusive?

[TravisW]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

 

[74x12]

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

It's rhetoric. It's over top arguments to justify their position.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

I honestly applaud your insights.

However, the answer to you question lies here: Evolution Vs. Creationism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

How do you use science to understand God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

There are many Christians that do not take Genesis literally. There is no need to do so to be a Christian. Genesis works much better when treated as allegory and morality tales than as history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Granted, I understand why YEC cannot fit within the context of Evolution (part of why I don’t adhere to a literal faith, I think scripture and religion often speaks in Metaphors as a way to display God in a more simplified fashion).

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?

They are not mutually exclusive, unless you cling to the ancient literal religious paradigms of Judatism, Christianity and Islam, and selectively dismiss science based on a religious agenda.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't find'm mutually exclusive.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not my assumption. As to why, beats me. I guess you'd have to ask those that do make that assumption why.

 

[re-jewvenate]

Reply to :"I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is. Yet I can’t view it as a method of proving or disproving God, simply a way of better understanding our natural world. How do others view this?"
My view: Semantically, "God" may be thought of as the initial and ongoing causal source of the creation of the Universe, including both living and non-living aspects; while "science" is the totality of accepted knowledge about the Universe, past and present.
So, the two words have different meanings. In any case, whether the ultimate cause of the existence of the world should be conceived of as sort of an abstract superhuman mind-- or something else-- is a matter of individual preference that is mainly of value in clarifying discussion.
So, here's to clarifying discussion [clink!]


#1

 

[TravisW]

How do you use science to understand God?

I think the best way for me to answer this question is to direct you to here:

Work

He goes fairly in-depth in how science helped him to find God, and many of his explanations parallel to how I view it. Simply though, when I see science I see a better means to understanding who God is, as I see God in everything.

There are many Christians that do not take Genesis literally. There is no need to do so to be a Christian. Genesis works much better when treated as allegory and morality tales than as history.

I agree with this, especially when you consider that the creation story likely started as an oral tale among the Jews, with a major purpose in reconciling with their Babylonian exile, contrasting God with the gods of the Babylonians (or other nations that surrounded them), and a way to speak about how God's temple is all of creation and that God is not confined to any building (which would especially be a thought of comfort when considering the destruction of the first temple).

 

[Sunstone]

@TravisW, as I understand it, there is nothing logically incompatible with evolution and the notion that life (or the universe) got its start through an act of deity.

However, that position is not compatible with all religious notions. For instance, the Christian doctrine of original sin seems to require that, at some point in history, there was a couple who incurred the sin through their actions and then went on to become the founders of the entire human race. Evolution not only fails to support that, but also seems to contradict it. But without original sin, there is for many Christians no reason for Christ's sacrifice.

Again, evolution does not support, and even contradicts, the notion that humans are the acme of life on earth. There is nothing in evolution that suggests it is progressive. But the notion that humans occupy a special place in the universe is key to some Christian views of humanity.

Those are two thorny issues that would need to somehow be resolved for Christianity and evolution to be a perfect fit for many Christians.

 

[Sunstone]

How do you use science to understand God?

Historically, if you go back far enough, NM, one of the primary motives for science was to understand nature in order to understand God. You see, nature was thought to be the reflection of how God's mind worked. That is, it was seen as logically arranged, just like God's mind was thought to be logically arranged, etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the best way for me to answer this question is to direct you to here:

Work

He goes fairly in-depth in how science helped him to find God, and many of his explanations parallel to how I view it. Simply though, when I see science I see a better means to understanding who God is, as I see God in everything.



I agree with this, especially when you consider that the creation story likely started as an oral tale among the Jews, with a major purpose in reconciling with their Babylonian exile, contrasting God with the gods of the Babylonians (or other nations that surrounded them), and a way to speak about how God's temple is all of creation and that God is not confined to any building (which would especially be a thought of comfort when considering the destruction of the first temple).

The link really isn't saying anything other than a plug-in for a book from science Mike.

I can't seem to find any credentials and most of the videos he plugs in his book even more.

He seems more like somebody in the same genre as Ray comfort.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Historically, if you go back far enough, NM, one of the primary motives for science was to understand nature in order to understand God. You see, nature was thought to be the reflection of how God's mind worked. That is, it was seen as logically arranged, just like God's mind was thought to be logically arranged, etc.

I never thought about it in that respect.

It would seem it comes to a point that the more we discover with science, the more complex and mysterious it becomes. It seems however that people conclude it has to be designed rather than naturally-formed even when science doesn't point out in anything in particular that can be further explained that would support any notion that one has about God or the mind of God.

I tend to think of Galileo and how he was condemned by the church and subsequently suppressed.

I think with some theists there is a limitation as to how far they're willing to go with scientific discovery perchance it conflicts with their theology that they do not wish to cross any boundaries set by their respective religion and dismiss the reality of the findings.

 

[WalterTrull]

original sin,

We have a problem with "beginning" and "original" requiring a temporal context.

 

[sun rise]

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I view science as a means to have a better understanding of who God is.

As do I. There are those who have an emotional need to define themselves in terms in opposition to others.

For instance, the Christian doctrine of original sin seems to require that, at some point in history, there was a couple who incurred the sin through their actions and then went on to become the founders of the entire human race.

From a different perspective souls achieved the human state through a process of evolution through other forms. So "original sin" can be thought of as the carrying over of animal impulses into the human form. Granted this is not a popular belief in the least. The apple tree can then be thought of as achieving full self-consciousness and becoming self-reflective.

Needless to say this is my idea melding Eastern ideas with Christian theology which probably will annoy any number of people.

 

[George-ananda]

But what is it that leads people to the assumption that faith and science cannot exist in harmony with each other?

I agree and I believe in evolution and creationism. I believe intelligence and intent was involved in it all.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you use science to understand God?

Our physical existence is the reflection of God's attributes. Science is a window into God's attributes in our physical existence. Science - BahaiTeachings.org

God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 239.

Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with science is mere tradition…. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life. – Abdu’l-Baha in London, p. 28-29.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't find'm mutually exclusive.

Barbecue flavored chicken tastes the same whether it is done in the name of religion or in the name of science.

 

[Draka]

When one believes that the Divine is the spark of all life and creation and is an active part within everything...evolution IS creation. We are still in the process of becoming.

Then again, I'm not of any Abrahamic belief so my look is a wee bit different. I don't have the evolution vs creation hang ups many do. Evolution is, and I have no issue with that nor my beliefs.