In the Sunday Herald Sun each week, there is a column called Faithworks. The writer is clearly Christian - I think he's a minister of some description - but he writes about some really interesting topics. This weeks was about evolution not being against the principles of Christianity. You can get the gist of the article here (most, if not all of it seems to be there, but it is interspersed with reader comments) A quote by Francis Bacon at the top of the column read "A little science estranges a man from God; a lot of science brings him back."
So what do you think? Can religion and science work together or are they mutually exclusive?
Full Version: Religion vs Evolution
Weddings, Babies and Life in General > The Cafe - EVERYTHING & ANYTHING FORUM! > Religion, Spirituality And Philosophy
I recall this discussion at my (religious) high school. When it came time to discuss evolution in the Science curriculum they brought the school's priest in, too - to discuss the apparent disparity between the Bible and scientific evidence.
I liked his approach. That God (or Goddess
) created something. And then it evolved.
Works for me
I liked his approach. That God (or Goddess
) created something. And then it evolved.Works for me
I would vote mutually exclusive. In fact, while reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' on the train, I frequently had to restrain myself from standing up and cheering because I agreed wholeheartedly with his assertions (as rabid as they may be. Perhaps I am more of a radical atheist than I thought).
Evolution makes god superfluous. Saying that god created evolution is just another level of using god to explain what science can't yet. It's an acceptance that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve does not make sense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... It also goes against the teaching of every main religion, most of which assert that man was made in the image of god (so why bother with guiding evolution?) I'm actually surprised that there isn't uproar about this complete redefinition of god's role and purpose.
Not that I'm ignoring the existence of god outside organised religion. But god as an intelligent designer has already been argued against by much smarter people than me.
Which leads to why I think god and science are at odds with each other. If everyone now accepted that god was responsible for evolution, it discourages further investigation into cosmology - we already have the answer (god) so why bother questioning further? To me that actively encourages our ignorance.
* I've used god (lowercase) deliberately as a placeholder for any God, god, goddess or deity... not intending to be provocative or disrespectful.
Evolution makes god superfluous. Saying that god created evolution is just another level of using god to explain what science can't yet. It's an acceptance that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve does not make sense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... It also goes against the teaching of every main religion, most of which assert that man was made in the image of god (so why bother with guiding evolution?) I'm actually surprised that there isn't uproar about this complete redefinition of god's role and purpose.
Not that I'm ignoring the existence of god outside organised religion. But god as an intelligent designer has already been argued against by much smarter people than me.
Which leads to why I think god and science are at odds with each other. If everyone now accepted that god was responsible for evolution, it discourages further investigation into cosmology - we already have the answer (god) so why bother questioning further? To me that actively encourages our ignorance.
* I've used god (lowercase) deliberately as a placeholder for any God, god, goddess or deity... not intending to be provocative or disrespectful.
QUOTE(delilah @ Jun 8 2009, 01:24 PM) 
Evolution makes god superfluous. Saying that god created evolution is just another level of using god to explain what science can't yet. It's an acceptance that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve does not make sense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary...
Just as a note - we were taught that the Adam and Eve creation 'story' was just that. A Bible story to explain the inexplicable. Just because science can now explain evolution I don't think it automatically precludes the existence of a supreme deity. Nor do I think it discourages further research into cosmology or evolution. A person of faith might, after all, see such a quest as bringing them closer to their God. Some of our greatest science and religious scholars certainly saw it that way.
Also, the conclusion I have come to about God creating 'man' in his own image is that this isn't necessarily a physical image. Maybe it was giving us free choice?
QUOTE(delilah @ Jun 8 2009, 01:24 PM)
I would vote mutually exclusive. In fact, while reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' on the train, I frequently had to restrain myself from standing up and cheering because I agreed wholeheartedly with his assertions (as rabid as they may be. Perhaps I am more of a radical atheist than I thought).
Evolution makes god superfluous. Saying that god created evolution is just another level of using god to explain what science can't yet. It's an acceptance that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve does not make sense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... It also goes against the teaching of every main religion, most of which assert that man was made in the image of god (so why bother with guiding evolution?) I'm actually surprised that there isn't uproar about this complete redefinition of god's role and purpose.
Not that I'm ignoring the existence of god outside organised religion. But god as an intelligent designer has already been argued against by much smarter people than me.
Which leads to why I think god and science are at odds with each other. If everyone now accepted that god was responsible for evolution, it discourages further investigation into cosmology - we already have the answer (god) so why bother questioning further? To me that actively encourages our ignorance.
* I've used god (lowercase) deliberately as a placeholder for any God, god, goddess or deity... not intending to be provocative or disrespectful.
I'm with you Delilah. I don't think there is any place for creationism in science classrooms.
If you read the article, you will see that he is not in anyway promoting the teaching of Creationism. In fact, he seems to be against it.
Recently, 12,000 clergy in the US signed a statement about science and religion declaring:
``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.’’
The clergy, from many different traditions, jointly stated they believed that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science could 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 rests.
``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 Gods 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.’’
QUOTE
Wilson said he thought Christians could both love God and agree with Darwin.
``But I think the jury is out about whether the theory of Natural selection, as defined by neo-Darwinians is true,’’ he said. ``But these are scientific rather than religious questions’’.
``But I think the jury is out about whether the theory of Natural selection, as defined by neo-Darwinians is true,’’ he said. ``But these are scientific rather than religious questions’’.
QUOTE
Recently, 12,000 clergy in the US signed a statement about science and religion declaring:
``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.’’
The clergy, from many different traditions, jointly stated they believed that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science could 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 rests.
``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 Gods 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.’’
QUOTE(Puggie @ Jun 8 2009, 02:12 PM)
Just as a note - we were taught that the Adam and Eve creation 'story' was just that. A Bible story to explain the inexplicable. Just because science can now explain evolution I don't think it automatically precludes the existence of a supreme deity. Nor do I think it discourages further research into cosmology or evolution. A person of faith might, after all, see such a quest as bringing them closer to their God. Some of our greatest science and religious scholars certainly saw it that way.
Also, the conclusion I have come to about God creating 'man' in his own image is that this isn't necessarily a physical image. Maybe it was giving us free choice?
You explain your opinion so well. I have the same feelings on the matter
QUOTE(delilah @ Jun 8 2009, 01:24 PM)
I would vote mutually exclusive. In fact, while reading Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' on the train, I frequently had to restrain myself from standing up and cheering because I agreed wholeheartedly with his assertions (as rabid as they may be. Perhaps I am more of a radical atheist than I thought).
Evolution makes god superfluous. Saying that god created evolution is just another level of using god to explain what science can't yet. It's an acceptance that the idea of God creating Adam and Eve does not make sense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary... It also goes against the teaching of every main religion, most of which assert that man was made in the image of god (so why bother with guiding evolution?) I'm actually surprised that there isn't uproar about this complete redefinition of god's role and purpose.
Not that I'm ignoring the existence of god outside organised religion. But god as an intelligent designer has already been argued against by much smarter people than me.
Which leads to why I think god and science are at odds with each other. If everyone now accepted that god was responsible for evolution, it discourages further investigation into cosmology - we already have the answer (god) so why bother questioning further? To me that actively encourages our ignorance.
* I've used god (lowercase) deliberately as a placeholder for any God, god, goddess or deity... not intending to be provocative or disrespectful.
Agree,
and
QUOTE(e*liz @ Jun 9 2009, 09:56 PM)
I'm with you Delilah. I don't think there is any place for creationism in science classrooms.
agree
I also totally agree with what Delilah has said. However I lack the ability to write my thoughts so well.
My random, jumbled thoughts are-
I do not believe in God at all. I believe we evolved. In my opinion if their was a God he wouldn't allow the kind of suffering that takes place in the world today.
People of God such as priests wouldn't ever molest children..as that is just wrong and absolutley NO right can come of it!
My random, jumbled thoughts are-
I do not believe in God at all. I believe we evolved. In my opinion if their was a God he wouldn't allow the kind of suffering that takes place in the world today.
People of God such as priests wouldn't ever molest children..as that is just wrong and absolutley NO right can come of it!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.