Heres the deal to accept religion (based around God or a purpose giving higher power) you must reject Darwinian evolution

[Helm]

The reason being that Darwinian evolution as we're familar with is no way directional toward a goal but is instead based on natural selection of the fitest and random mutation. What this would mean is that we as humans were made unintentionally as a biological byproduct of a purely physical process that did not intend for us to exist and wasn't advancing toward anything. That can't be made to fit with an Creator who made us for some kind of purpose. At most it allows for a deistic God who set of the original big bang but that isn't the God religions are based on. So are you in full agreement with this?

[Phier]

Nah, you would just have to invent a new religion, where you are not made in 'gods image'.

[Helm]

In a religion there has to be some kind of a objective purpose to life. If it can be conclusively demonstrated that we were created as a byproduct of a process that did not intend to make us (as Darwinian evolution suggests is the case) then there wasn't a purpose we are here through pure random chance. So if want to believe in God you will have to reject Darwinism.

[Phier]

In a religion there has to be some kind of a objective purpose to life. If it can be conclusively demonstrated that we were created as a byproduct of a process that did not intend to make us (as Darwinian evolution suggests is the case) then there wasn't a purpose we are here through pure random chance. So if want to believe in God you will have to reject Darwinism.

I'm not sure Hinduism really has a purpose to life beyond ultimately being free of the cycle. Its life and rebirth as ANY living creature. It seems to have done ok.

[Helm]

I'm not sure Hinduism really has a purpose to life beyond ultimately being free of the cycle. Its life and rebirth as ANY living creature. It seems to have done ok.

There would still have to be an actual cycle that we're a part of. If we're coincidental byproducts of an unintentional process as Darwinism states then that would be all we need to know. You have to demonstate that the universe has a purpose and we are an intentional result of that process for theistic religion to have genuine valdity.

[Phier]

There would still have to be an actual cycle that we're a part of. If we're coincidental byproducts of an unintentional process as Darwinism states then that would be all we need to know. You have to demonstate that the universe has a purpose and we are an intentional result of that process for theistic religion to have genuine valdity.

Well I don't agree with this statement. I think people WANT to feel special, but as I pointed out thats not required for Hinduism.

As they were talking a procession of ants had made its appearance into the hall. In military precision, the tribe of ants paraded across the floor. The boy noticed them and stared and suddenly laughed. " Why do you laugh?" stammered Indra. The boy answered:" I laughed because of the ants. Tell me why! Pleaded the king. " I saw the ants filing in a long parade. Each of them was once an Indra. Like you, each by virtue of his deeds ascended to the rank of king of the gods. But now through many rebirths each has become again an ant. This army of ants is an army of former Indras.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

The reason being that Darwinian evolution as we're familar with is no way directional toward a goal but is instead based on natural selection of the fitest and random mutation. What this would mean is that we as humans were made unintentionally as a biological byproduct of a purely physical process that did not intend for us to exist and wasn't advancing toward anything. That can't be made to fit with an Creator who made us for some kind of purpose. At most it allows for a deistic God who set of the original big bang but that isn't the God religions are based on. So are you in full agreement with this?

Theistic evolution, mate. God created the universe billions of years ago and then let it run its course, with a few tweaks here and there, at least according to my belief and many other people's belief. Why he did it, us mortals may only speculate. Agree or disagree with said belief, you can't say evolution has no place in religion.

[Helm]

Theistic evolution, mate.

Which means rejecting Darwinian evolution mate. Darwinian evolution does not have a direction and we are not the "end result" of a process we're just a byproduct of natural selection like any other animal. Our greater intelligent is no more significant than an elephant evolving a longer trunk. You can have a deistic God who set the laws of physics and left the universe to do it thing but that isn't the kind of God religion is based upon anyway. To suggest that evolution had some kind of plan or direction is departing from Darwinian evolution in a seriously major way.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

Which means rejecting Darwinian evolution mate. Darwinian evolution does not have a direction and we are not the "end result" of a process we're just a byproduct of natural selection like any other animal. Our greater intelligent is no more significant than an elephant evolving a longer trunk. You can have a deistic God who set the laws of physics and left the universe to do it thing but that isn't the kind of God religion is based upon anyway. To suggest that evolution had some kind of plan or direction is departing from Darwinian evolution in a seriously major way.

Why not? We could have evolved naturally, with a push or a tweak from God. You certainly can't prove otherwise and it doesn't somehow conflict with evolution.
Even if we did get to where we are without any DNA tweaks from a supernatural being (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe), who said he didn't help us build a civillisation, or spoke to Moses, or rewards the good and punishes the bad? Even organised religion should be flexible. We are, after all, mere mortals - we don't know all the why's and how's and when's of God's doings. Evolution has a place in religion, it is up to the individual whether to accept it or not (although frankly, everyone should know that it's scientific fact by now).

[Helm]

Why not? We could have evolved naturally, with a push or a tweak from God. You certainly can't prove otherwise and it doesn't somehow conflict with evolution.
Even if we did get to where we are without any DNA tweaks from a supernatural being (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe), who said he didn't help us build a civillisation, or spoke to Moses, or rewards the good and punishes the bad? Even organised religion should be flexible. We are, after all, mere mortals - we don't know all the why's and how's and when's of God's doings. Evolution has a place in religion, it is up to the individual whether to accept it or not (although frankly, everyone should know that it's scientific fact by now).

Darwinian evolution doesn't have a direction it has adaptation to the environment through natural selection (and sexual selection) and it has random mutations that can confer a selective advantage and that's it. If you introduce anything else to the process that is not Darwinian evolution it would become something very different. So ultimately you will have to reject science

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

in a fairly fundamental way in order to fit God into the picture as an active force in the process.

[In3x]

Theistic evolution, mate. God created the universe billions of years ago and then let it run its course, with a few tweaks here and there, at least according to my belief and many other people's belief. Why he did it, us mortals may only speculate. Agree or disagree with said belief, you can't say evolution has no place in religion.

I always thought this argument was incredibly absurd. Why on earth would an omnipotent (or close to) being not just create everything in one go, why create something wait 13 Billion plus years for the actual purpose of your creation to come into being.

Replying to your latter post, putting God in as a "tweaker" does more certainly clash with our scientific understand of evolution, for the exact same reasons as Intelligent design does.

I am sure you can reconcile evolution with God but it sure as hell doesn't make any sense.

[Phier]

Helm I think the problem is you are only focusing on this from a Abrahaic religious point of view.

[DarthLazy]

Actually I have no problem with the evolution theory. There is no way Adam would like like one of us today. No scripture in the Quran or Hadith says that. And is very very possible that the early humans were different. The people after Noah, Bani Nuh, is said to be the second "human".

[The Fishman]

Actually I have no problem with the evolution theory. There is no way Adam would like like one of us today. No scripture in the Quran or Hadith says that. And is very very possible that the early humans were different. The people after Noah, Bani Nuh, is said to be the second "human".

Do you believe in a global flood or the interesting 'localised' version that some Muslims (notably Harun Yahya and Yusuf Ali) accept?

Yusuf Ali seems to blame glacial activity on Lake Van for the flood, which is reasonable considering the poor understanding of the ice age that people had at the time. Harun Yahya (or whoever actually writes his 'books') cites some archaeological findings of mud layers in Mesopotamian cities as evidence. This particular archaeological evidence was in fact originally interpreted as evidence for the Biblical flood, but that hypothesis has um, 'fallen out of favour'...


On a related note, there is controversial evidence for megatsunamis across the entire Indian ocean region, which appear to show waves radiating from a feature known as Burckle crater, a supposed asteroid impact site in the deep ocean. I wouldn't bet money on it just yet, but it's possible that flood myths in Mesopotamia are misremembered accounts of the tsunamis generated by this event.


As for evolution:

As a member of a non-Abrahamic religion, I have no problem with accepting evolution, both of animals and of humans. The fact that paint dries on the canvas in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics makes no difference to my belief that an artist decided to put it there.

[DarthLazy]

My knowledge on the matter of the flood is extremely limited and I cannot really comment.

[Sphere]

I think Helm is correct that there is something deeply incompatible with Abrahamic religions and our discovery of darwinian evolution. Any prophet setting out to write the Torah/NT/Koran knowing what we know today would have to make some serious alterations.

The human creation story of Genesis would have to be tossed out as cleary the Earth and life has been around for billions of years before homo sapiens. It is hard to fit the idea that 99%+ of the history of Gods tinkering with life on Earth doesn't involve our species, but rather a myriad of other forms (like the dinosaurs) that came and went.

Also such a text could not leave out the dozens of humanoid creatures that were our ancestors and extinct cousins which had intellects not terribly unlike our own. Did God make convenants with these peoples? Will we be meeting neanderthals in Heaven?

In the end I think Helm is on the correct tract. One really has to either except the idea that the people who wrote the Torah/NT/Koran were getting their information from an all knowing source of the history of life on Earth, or reject such a notion. An "inbetween" position is difficult to defend without saying it is what you would like to be true, rather than what can be demonstated.

I would argue that the evidence we have gathered in the centuries of investigation since these texts were written clearly show that they contain all the tell tale signs of being written by people who were completely ignorant of any sort of history beyond their local area and within their few thousand years of local oral/written history. And so if it is all just metaphorical, exactly what evidence lends these metaphors any weight as reflecting reality?

[Muizer]

I think Helm is correct that there is something deeply incompatible with Abrahamic religions and our discovery of darwinian evolution. Any prophet setting out to write the Torah/NT/Koran knowing what we know today would have to make some serious alterations.....


I would argue that the evidence we have gathered in the centuries of investigation since these texts were written clearly show that they contain all the tell tale signs of being written by people who were completely ignorant of any sort of history beyond their local area and within their few thousand years of local oral/written history. And so if it is all just metaphorical, exactly what evidence lends these metaphors any weight as reflecting reality?

Amen

It's pretty hard to engage religious people in a discussion along these lines though. Often they are content as long as there is any way, however implausible, to reconcile their beliefs with science. Furthermore, it's difficult to get them to talk about the consequences for their religious practices.

Mind you, I don't know a lot about religious practices. I was raised without them. It's just that to be convincing to someone like me, questions like these require an answer. It seems to me the religious argument is often one in defense of the believer, rather than to convince the unbeliever.

[godol shmok]

Any prophet setting out to write the Torah/NT/Koran knowing what we know today would have to make some serious alterations.

Isn't it that what has actually happened? It's most obvious in Isaiah.

[Helm]

There is the possibility that Darwinian evolution isn't entirely accurate. You could have some kind of system where evolution is on a planet wide scale which is directional toward increasing complexity and ultimately intelligence so we would have been inevitable. That would be called guided evolution. But that would still work differently to the Darwinian model.

[Squiggle]

The reason being that Darwinian evolution as we're familar with is no way directional toward a goal but is instead based on natural selection of the fitest and random mutation. What this would mean is that we as humans were made unintentionally as a biological byproduct of a purely physical process that did not intend for us to exist and wasn't advancing toward anything. That can't be made to fit with an Creator who made us for some kind of purpose. At most it allows for a deistic God who set of the original big bang but that isn't the God religions are based on. So are you in full agreement with this?

Molinism. And thus another terrible helm thread comes to an inglorious end.