Religion
Related: About this forumIs it possible to believe in God and Darwin?
For some their beliefs are hardcore and the juxtaposition between faith and evolution is one that will never be considered. For young earth Creationists the theory of evolution is in and of itself an attack on God, they believe it is the pagan religion for the modern day, they deny that evolutionary theory is even a possibility. For others Darwin is seen as one of our great thinkers. That it can be said with certainty that the world was not created in 6 days. For many treating creationism as fact is to perpetuate superstition and fundamentally it is in no way compatible with the proven science of evolution.
Others argue that the natural world shows elements of design. That being the case, Darwinism cannot be the whole story. That too much emphasis has been placed on a theory that cannot explain the complexities of the world.
Is it true that any logical scientist would find it difficult to believe in God at the same time as Darwin? Some Christian scientists do believe in both. They believe that God created slowly through the big bang and through a long-sustained process.
So, is it possible to believe in God and Darwin?
Does it matter if a Christian chooses the teachings of the Bible over a scientific theory?
Can a hybrid accounting of the two theories help people rationalise their faith with science?
Blues Heron
(6,231 posts)They've located Him somewhere out beyond the big bang at this point - zillions of light-years away and eons ago. apparently he farted out the universe at some point and the rest is history.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(121,513 posts)he eventually described himself as (more or less) agnostic.
MineralMan
(148,008 posts)as the way species emerged over time. I assume they think it's God's work, too.
It's possible to believe both, no doubt. Many do, in one way or another. Many do not, too.
It's impossible for me to believe in deities, given science, though. Science is evidence-based. Religion, for the most part, is based on faith, rather than evidence. Since there is no physical evidence of deities, there's no other way to believe they exist, except through faith. It's not a convincing argument for me, though, at all.
So, I believe what evidence shows to be real, and disbelieve in anything that has no evidence. Seems reasonable to me.
Some groups have a worked out (okay, marginally, preliminarily sketched out) version called "Intelligent design."
Mostly the two sets of constraints on thinking and attitudes engage in parallel play.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Evidently you don't understand how science works. Or you just want to do some "both sidesism."
MineralMan
(148,008 posts)I reject your evidence, your so-called evidence and facts, along with your audacity in challenging my Bronze Age Scripture!
So there!
edhopper
(35,056 posts)One accepts it a settled science.
They is overwhelming evidence for it and to deny it is foolish and ignorant.
God on the other hand...
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Evolution means no Original Sin (TM). There are some plot holes which develop very quickly without Original Sin (TM) as a source of some actions...
Voltaire2
(14,880 posts)Seriously the Big Book of Gibberish is fully malleable, there is no problem reworking interpretations to fit with uncomfortable realities like Darwins theory.
Iggo
(48,540 posts)So...knock yourself out.