Evolution | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

Evolution

Do your research this has recently been questioned by science

Doing it right now. I have some recent papers on my desk at the moment and you´re right. It has been questioned. There seems to be two different kinds of views, energy-scale and time-space based, one possible observation on the former, and nothing conclusive yet. Very interesting stuff indeed. Thank you for the tip.

It has come up a few times, notably in 1999 and 2004, but as far as I know the findings have been subsequently debunked. Do you have a source from the last year or two?

If you have access you can look for recent papers by Joao Magueijo and George F. R. Ellis on google scholar for example.
 
So as not to be misunderstood as being divisive on the subject, I chose only to look for evidence from religious leaders on their views regarding evolution. My understanding is that not all faiths, indeed not all Christian faiths view the theory of evolution as "atheistic dogma". Many seem to find it possible to embrace both evolution and creationism as non-conflicting, even convergent events.

The Origins of Life: An Episcopal View

by Katharine Jefferts Schori
Katharine Jefferts Schori, Ph.D., is the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Nevada. She received a degree in marine biology from Stanford and a doctorate degree in oceanography at Oregon State University.
“We are compelled to use all of the resources God has given us. Not to use our brains in understanding the world around us seems a cardinal sin.”

Human beings are meant to be stewards of creation. Everyday, creation and revelation continue in divine-human partnership as God works in the minds of scientists, inviting us all to share in discovering the wonderful mysteries of creation. In this light, I find no difficulty in holding together my faith and the best of recent science.
Scientists employ Darwin's theory of evolution as the best framework for understanding the complexity of creation and its ongoing development. It seems to be objectionable in some religious circles because of its fundamental assumptions that the Earth is ancient, has changed radically over geologically lengthy eras, and that one form of life has led to another, in processes that in some cases have been gradual and in others very rapid.

The vast preponderance of scientific evidence, including geology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics and natural history, indicates that Darwin was in large part correct in his original hypothesis.


I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God's gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis. Making any kind of faith decision is based on accumulating the best evidence one can find – what one's senses and reason indicate, what the rest of the community has believed over time, and what the community judges most accurate today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4761130
 
Science is not my problem. evolution theory on the other hand is not science. It is atheistic dogma just read the humanist manifesto. The interpretation of scientific data by evolutionist is not objective but subjective obscured by their belief there is no God.

How is evolution not science? It's observations made and supported, a hypothesis and there also experiments to back it up. A large part of the theory evolution was made by discovery science, observing and making a conclusion, aka Darwin. Darwin was a Naturalist, he believed in God and believed evolution was God's doing. He did 8+ years of observation before even writing his book. And the only reason he wrote the book in the first place was because another naturalist, Alfred Wallace, had done research, had less evidence but published and sent an essay to friends in the science community, Darwin being one of them decided to get in gear and publish his findings.
 
My first biology teacher was Jewish and she stressed the evidence supporting evolution quite a lot. At that time I considered myself religious and attended a youth group at a Christian church. All of my "friends" at the church led me to believe that evolution had no credit and after my biology class I knew that they were wrong. I had never doubted evolution like I doubted my faith as a Christian.


(Just to make it clear, I did not lose faith based on my education of evolution. I lost faith for much different reasons.)

I had no problem believing in creationism and evolution. From that point of view, God himself could be causing it all.
 
How is evolution not science? It's observations made and supported, a hypothesis and there also experiments to back it up. A large part of the theory evolution was made by discovery science, observing and making a conclusion, aka Darwin. Darwin was a Naturalist, he believed in God and believed evolution was God's doing. He did 8+ years of observation before even writing his book. And the only reason he wrote the book in the first place was because another naturalist, Alfred Wallace, had done research, had less evidence but published and sent an essay to friends in the science community, Darwin being one of them decided to get in gear and publish his findings.

Evolution is not a science. it uses different scientific disciplines to try to prove itself. but it is not a scientific discipline in itself. It is a belief that enlist scientist to give it credibility but Christianity has many credible scientist too. Evolution as with Christianity as far as science goes is only the filter that data is interpreted through.
 
I make no pretense I have a bias. Unfortunately evolutionist can't see their own bias. I love science very much! Science is not my problem. evolution theory on the other hand is not science. It is atheistic dogma just read the humanist manifesto. The interpretation of scientific data by evolutionist is not objective but subjective obscured by their belief there is no God. Science is used on both sides to support argument and can not be claimed by evolutionist saying "we have science and you hold to a myth" this is offensive and condescending.

I feel it is worth noting that there are Christians who believe in evolution. So I don't think it is fair to call it "atheistic dogma" when there are those who believe that it falls within God's plan and choose to interpret the information in that way. Perhaps it is not fair for some atheistic evolutionists to interpret the information in such a way as to argue that those who believe in creation believe in only in a myth. The reality of science though, is that it does seek to answer questions without simply saying, "God did it" and so many of the answers that are derived from it will seem completely un-Christian. But as you have said, the facts are up to interpretation.

"Do you feel that man's interpretation of scripture is superior to knowledge derived from science?" I don't look to man's interpretation. I see the discoveries of man and than see the bible had already revealed it. eg. Just like the world is a sphere the bible revealed it way before Columbus. Just like the heavens are being stretched out like we are finding out in science today. and many more things that science is well behind in.
That is interesting. I learned that the Bible taught that the world is flat and the center of the universe, and that is why people like Galileo who said otherwise were condemned by the church. Where in the Bible does it say that it is spherical? I had never heard that before. And what other discoveries has the Bible supported? This is very interesting.
 
Last edited:
I learned that the Bible taught that the world is flat and the center of the universe, and that is why people like Galileo who said otherwise were condemned by the church.

Not quite. The Bible contains plenty of references to the "four corners of the earth," the "ends of the earth," and the "circle of the earth," and it says that the earth "hangs on nothing." In the context(s), these references are fairly normal uses of figures of speech, and not presented as literal depictions of any of the earth's properties.
Galileo was persecuted for his heliocentric views, because in the description of Joshua's "long day," the sun was said to have stopped in the sky. The Catholic church decided that this meant that the sun revolved around the earth, since it was the thing described as having stopped.
 
A few excerpts from statements made by various religious organizations (list below) who strongly state that they believe there to be no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution.

In a nutshell: Christian leaders who feel the teaching of evolution (and science) is not in conflict with religious teaching, i.e. Evolution is not "Atheistic Dogma" in the eyes of the majority of Christians.

188 WISCONSIN CLERGY

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Text of letter signed by 188 pastors from Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and other churches sent to school officials in Grantsburg, Wisconsin criticizing a policy containing the expectation that students be able to explain "the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory."

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AFFILIATION
A Voice for Evolution As Science


... After polling the membership on its views, the Executive Council of the American Scientific Affiliation hereby directs the following Resolution to public school teachers, administrators, school boards, and producers of elementary and secondary science textbooks or other educational materials:

Because it is our common desire to promote excellence and integrity in science education as well as in science; and

Because it is our common desire to bring to an end wasteful controversy generated by inappropriate entanglement of the scientific concept of evolution with political, philosophical, or religious perspectives;

We strongly urge that, in science education, the terms evolution and theory of evolution should be carefully defined and used in a consistently scientific manner; and

We further urge that, to make classroom instruction more stimulating while guarding it against the intrusion of extra-scientific beliefs, the teaching of any scientific subject, including evolutionary biology, should include (1) forceful presentation of well-established scientific data and conclusions; (2) clear distinction between evidence and inference; and (3) candid discussion of unsolved problems and open questions.

Adopted by the Executive Council of the American Scientific Affiliation on December 7, 1991. ASA was founded in 1941 as a nationwide fellowship of evangelical Christians trained in science. Its vision is "To have science and theology interacting and affecting one another in a positive light." The 1991 resolution was preceded by a background statement citing various definitions of evolution and identifying "scientific creationism" at one extreme and "evolutionary naturalism" at the other as "essentially religious doctrine masquerading as science." First published in ASA's journal, Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith (Vol. 44, No. 4, p. 252, Dec. 1992), the resolution and its background statement also appear in the 1993 edition of Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, a guidebook for high school teachers from ASA, P.O. Box 668, Ipswich, MA 01938.

CENTER FOR THEOLOGY AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES

The universe is more mysterious than either science or religion can ever fully disclose, and the urgencies of humankind and the natural environment demand an honest interaction between the discoveries of nature, the empowerment afforded us by appropriate technology, the inherent value of the environment, and the demand that we commit ourselves to a future in which all species can flourish. We can no longer afford the stalemate of past centuries between theology and science, for this leaves nature Godless and religion worldless. When this happens, our culture, hungering after science for something to fill the void of its lost spiritual resources, is easy prey to New Age illusions wrapped in scientific-sounding language -- the 'cosmic self-realization movement' and the 'wow of physics' -- while our 'denatured' religion, attempting to correct social wrong and to provide meaning and support for life's journey, is incapable of making its moral claims persuasive or its spiritual comfort effective because its cognitive claims are not credible. Nor can we allow science and religion to be seen as adversaries, for they will be locked in a conflict of mutual conquest, such as "creation science" which costs religion its credibility or a philosophical stance of "scientific materialism" which costs science its innocence....

Excerpted from the Mission Statement of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, Berkeley, California

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH - USA (2002) *

The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA):

1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.

2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator.

3. Encourages State Boards of Education across the nation to establish standards for science education in public schools based on the most reliable content of scientific knowledge as determined by the scientific community.

4. Calls upon Presbyterian scientists and science educators to assist congregations, presbyteries, communities, and the public to understand what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so called "balanced treatment" laws requiring the teaching of "Creation-science" whenever evolutionary models are taught; and

Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such "balanced treatment" laws; and

Whereas, the terms "Creationism" and "Creation-science" as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and

Whereas, the dogma of "Creationism" and "Creation-science" as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and

Whereas, "Creationism" and "Creation-science" is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement, and be it further

Resolved, That we affirm our support of the scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this creation that God has given and entrusted to us.


67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982.

LEXINGTON ALLIANCE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS

The following ministers and religious leaders are very much concerned with and opposed to the possibility of "Scientific Creationism" being taught in the science curriculum of Fayette County Schools.

As religious leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical witness to this God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form.

We understand that you may shortly receive considerable pressure from groups advocating the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" alongside of the theory of evolution. However, we feel strongly that to introduce such teaching into our schools would be both divisive and offensive to many members of the religious community of Fayette County, as well as to those not identified with any religious group.

Please be assured of our continuing interest in this issue, and of our strong desire that the Fayette County Public Schools not permit the teaching of "Scientific Creationism" as an alternative "theory" to evolution in science courses.

1981; signed by 78 Kentucky ministers and religious leaders.

188 Wisconsin Clergy (2004)
American Jewish Congress
American Scientific Affiliation
Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences
Central Conference Of American Rabbis
Episcopal Bishop Of Atlanta, Pastoral Letter
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002) *
The General Convention Of The Episcopal Church
Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders
The Lutheran World Federation
Roman Catholic Church (1981)
Roman Catholic Church (1996) *
Unitarian Universalist Association (1977)
Unitarian Universalist Association (1982)
United Church Board For Homeland Ministries
United Methodist Church
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1982)
United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A. (1983)
Source: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp
 
Evolution is not a science. it uses different scientific disciplines to try to prove itself. but it is not a scientific discipline in itself. It is a belief that enlist scientist to give it credibility but Christianity has many credible scientist too. Evolution as with Christianity as far as science goes is only the filter that data is interpreted through.

I never said evolution was a science in and of itself. It is based on science. And nothing is ever proven in science, it is only supported or not supported.

Christianity has no real credibility, it's based on stories that have been rewritten hundreds of time and passed on over years, and the stories have no evidence of actually happening besides the Bible saying they did. And the Bible, has no credibility, it was completely rewritten by Constantine when he was emperor because he didn't like it all the other Bibles were discarded.
 
Creation is held by non Christians too eg. Muslims it is a statement of affiliation.

I think pretty much most if not all religions support one view of Creationism or another, since belief in a supernatural or divine power is what a religion is.
 
A few excerpts from statements made by various religious organizations (list below) who strongly state that they believe there to be no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution.

In a nutshell: Christian leaders who feel the teaching of evolution (and science) is not in conflict with religious teaching, i.e. Evolution is not "Atheistic Dogma" in the eyes of the majority of Christians.


Source: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp

I never said that there are not Christians that accept evolution. I am sad for their ignorance or gone for the path of lest resistance. What ever there are non Christians that don't believe in evolution too. It does nothing to evolutions case.
 
I am sad for their ignorance or gone for the path of lest resistance.

Let it be noted that you have declared that Christians who believe in evolution are ignorant or misguided.

I await to see how you support this assertion.

It does nothing to evolutions case.
True. As is, who believes in Creationism does nothing for its case.
 
I never said evolution was a science in and of itself. It is based on science. And nothing is ever proven in science, it is only supported or not supported.

Christianity has no real credibility, it's based on stories that have been rewritten hundreds of time and passed on over years, and the stories have no evidence of actually happening besides the Bible saying they did. And the Bible, has no credibility, it was completely rewritten by Constantine when he was emperor because he didn't like it all the other Bibles were discarded.

Than you don't know Christianity and talk out of ignorance. I could quote your statement about evolution and apply it to Christianity. Your babble about Christianity has no credibility is just tripe. The bible of all historical documents has been the most historically accurate and has been the source used on many archeology digs because of its accuracy. It has been the source and inspiration of many scientific discoveries as a starting point in exploration of theories. So don't give me BS
 
Last edited:
Than you don't know Christianity and talk out of ignorance. I could quote your statement about evolution and apply it to Christianity. Your babble about Christianity has no credibility is just tripe. The bible of all historical documents has been the most historically accurate and has been the source used on many archeology digs because of its accuracy. It has been the source and inspiration of many scientific discoveries as a starting point in exploration of theories. So don't give me BS

Instead of making ad hominem after ad hominem, why don't you just show us some of these scientific discoveries that have originated from or have been inspired by Christianity? Show us some of these archeological digs which used the Bible for historical accuracy.
 
Last edited:
Let it be noted that you have declared that Christians who believe in evolution are ignorant or misguided.

I await to see how you support this assertion.

True. As is, who believes in Creationism does nothing for its case.

Satya please don't play that game. I have a difference of opinion with some of my christian friends what you are trying to do is incite hatered and devision.
 
Satya please don't play that game. I have a difference of opinion with some of my christian friends what you are trying to do is incite hatered and devision.

All I am doing is stating what you have stated. Unlike before, it is your own words that have to be justified.
 
All I am doing is stating what you have stated. Unlike before, it is your own words that have to be justified.

Yes but the twist is there is a difference between ignorant and ignorance. I quite like being in ignorance about somethings but I don't being referred to as ignorant that is inflammatory. You can be in ignorance but not be a ignorant person.
 
Yes but the twist is there is a difference between ignorant and ignorance. I quite like being in ignorance about somethings but I don't being referred to as ignorant that is inflammatory. You can be in ignorance but not be a ignorant person.

That is an interesting way of defining it. I generally find it very offensive when someone makes the assertion that I have "ignorance". The insinuation is that I am an "ignorant person". Either way, it comes off as nothing but an ad hominem if they don't support it with information which demonstrates what knowledge I am lacking.

With that in mind, allow me to rephrase my post.

Let it be noted that you have declared that Christians who believe in evolution do so in ignorance or because they are misguided.

Is that closer to what you believe?

If so, I await to see how you support this assertion. I also would love to hear of some of these scientific discoveries and archeological digs of which you have spoken since you seem to be basing your conception of others "ignorance" on this knowledge.
 
What purpose is the conversation serving? If you are trying to convince others that their take is wrong it doesn’t seem to be working, if you are trying to find new ways of looking at it than please do so in a less abrasive manner, in other words please stick to the topic without taking digs at other members.