Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
You know Jesus saw a lot of analogies between the kingdom of God and farming or fishing. It doesn't mean the kingdom of God is an offshoot of agriculture or fisheries. Just because you think you see similarities between evolution and Christianity, it doesn't mean that is where Darwin got his ideas or that evolution is an offshoot of Christianity.
Be careful as well, when trying to understand a new subject it is easy to fall into the trap of simply seeing it in terms of another subject you do understand. Christians can understand faith and worship, so you often find people claiming scientists 'worship' Darwin or evolution or that accepting scientific evidence is 'faith'. They see an analogy for something they don't understand and think the analogy is the true understanding. As you point out yourself, life is often a lot more complex.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?
In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.
All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.
No. He didn't. Your saying so really makes me wonder whether you've ever read On the Origin of Species because your version of evolution does not match up with his version of evolution.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
-- Charles Darwin
Last edited by Mallon; 14th June 2008 at 02:33 AM.
What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?
The problem is the word 'recognising' it suggests the similarities you think you see are the result of a real connection. Did you ever see the shape of bunny rabbits and dogs in clouds? Faces in flowery wallpaper or curtains? Mother Teresa on a cinnamon bun? Seeing similarities does not mean they are real.
In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour. All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.
Given that redeemer/hero is such universal idea, isn't it possible you are simply reading the hero myth into evolution rather than actually identifying evolution's real source? After all with such a prevalent myth, anything that gives any sort benefit can be read as a hero myth. Fire brigades, the discovery of aspirin, seat belts, prozac, they could all be interpreted in a hero myth framework, that does not mean you have uncovered their true nature, or that they are a heretical version of Christ the Redeemer.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution?
There isn't one. The problem comes when you butcher Christianity, evolution, evolutionary theory, and common descent, in order to find parallels. You ended up with strawmen of each concept.
Originally Posted by no1nose
In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since.
Source? I'm not aware of any 'Messiah' claims before Jesus.
Originally Posted by no1nose
Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains.
Is that any surprise? Western cinema arose in a Christianised civilisation. Even the English language has hallmarks of Christianity. But that's just a historical curio. What does it have to do with anything?
Originally Posted by no1nose
But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.
Not really. The concept of a 'hero' is both vague and ancient, and arises from the fact that suffering exists in the world. Heroes emerged first as ledgendary warriors, then as divinities. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Indeed,
Originally Posted by no1nose
All Darwin did was adapt this senario to the natural world.
Except, he didn't: there is nothing in evolutionary theory that involves a 'saviour'. It is simply an explanation for biodiversity using evolution by natural seletion.
Originally Posted by no1nose
Ok what was the root source for Darwin's ideas?
Evolutionary theory has existed since antiquity. The Greek philosophers Anaximander and Empedocles proposed non-supernatural origins of life (the former even suggested that life existed in the oceans, and only later emerged on land). This sentiment is echoed in Chinese and Roman thinkers. Indeed, Lamarck's ideas were the first 'modern' ideas as to how species changed.
Darwin is remarkable among these philosophers and scientists for two reasons. First, his work on the subject was far more popular than those of his predecessors. Second, his theory was accurate enough to kickstart modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, a mere two years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Archaeopteryx was uncovered in Germany.
There is rarely a root source for any major scientific idea.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
The best way to figure this out would be to pick up Darwin's book On the Origin of Species and check out his sources.
And if you're unwilling to do that, you might start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ori...ies#Background
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory. Darwin used this archtype from the subconscious to fill in the blanks. The theory of evolution presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems Quote:In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
You still haven't answered the question of what exactly is this "redeemer scenario" that the ToE proposes. Who or what is being redeemed, by whom, to what end, by what means? Your assertions without any supporting evidence are meaningless.
__________________
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
The redeemer senario is the model that Darwin used as an outline for his theory.
Please, show us where Darwin did this.
Originally Posted by no1nose
Darwin used this archtype from the subconscious to fill in the blanks. The theory of evolution presents itself as complete but I don't believe that this can be true of any human theory. And this itself is an indicator that it is something that exists in our minds and not out there.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems Quote:In mathematical logic, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, proved by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.
The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.
You shoot yourself in the foot. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is for formal systems that perform arithmetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken, Darwin's theory of common descent is not a formal set of axioms by which one derives arithmetic.
As ever, you show that you have only heard these terms. YOu have no understanding of what they mean. You even cite Wikipedia, whichcontradicts your claims! You equivocate Godel's meaning of 'complete' with that meant when scientists say a theory is 'complete'. Indeed, I have never heard a scientist say common descent is complete; that would imply it's a known fact.
Good gods .
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
. 
Linear Mode
