Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

Again you display your total ignorance of the subject.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-genome-mostly-junk-dna-only-82-functional-294786

No, its actually called discernment. You article is meaningless, because many other articles actually prove that this DNA which was previously thought to be useless junk, actually act as switches in the DNA. WE will find out that all DNA has a use, in the future.

 

[Poster0]

But that isn't what evolutionary theory predicts. So, as evidence for evolution, you demand evidence of something that isn't evolution!

You get my point though.

 

[Armoured]

No, its actually called discernment. You article is meaningless, because many other articles actually prove that this DNA which was previously thought to be useless junk, actually act as switches in the DNA. WE will find out that all DNA has a use, in the future.

Yes. Epigenetics.

So?

 

[Poster0]

How about this: Life was designed with the capability to evolve

I don't believe that God changed man from a prehistoric ape beast into what he is now.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Come on. You have got to do better than this. You cannot make claims that the majority of christians accept evolution when you have no evidence at all that it is true. All you can say it is my opinion that the majority of christians accept evolution but I have no proof so it is no more than my opinion.

You're right, but we can go with general probability. The largest group of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics, who number 1.2 billion, that's over half of the entire Christian population of the world. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and Christian teaching. Let's take another large grouping Christians, Orthodoxy, and if we want we can also just speak of the Eastern Churches, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox approach is, essentially, a non-dogmatic one, and one can find Orthodox members on both sides of the issue; though it seems to me that some of the most prominent leaders within Orthodoxy (e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I) are keenly open to the role of modern science in the life of faith. As as I'm aware the Oriental Orthodox have the same standing as the Eastern Orthodox on the issue.

So what about the about 800 million Protestants? Well it really comes down to both denominations and individuals. My own ELCA, the largest Lutheran body in the United States, is agreeable toward evolution, though you'll no doubt find individuals who aren't; likewise the second largest Lutheran body in the US, the LCMS is generally not-agreeable toward evolution, but individuals in the LCMS are. But that's within the United States. When we start to look to old world Lutherans such as the Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Church of Finland, or the Church of Norway, well the fact of the matter is that in Europe the Creationist Controversy is largely a not a thing--you'll find American style Creationists in Europe, but they're usually not members of the older established churches of Europe, but tend to be members of American missionary (read: Evangelical/Fundamentalist) churches whose Modus Operandi will be in keeping with American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

I have spoken to many Christians from Europe who never even heard anyone question evolution until they spoke with American Christians or visited the United States--it's simply not something they realized was an issue because it's not an issue where they're from. There is no controversy where they're from, evolutionary science is accepted in the same way that the roundness of the earth is accepted--they only discover there's any controversy at all through interaction with certain American Christians.

So, I still stand by my statement--most Christians accept evolution, either implicitly or explicitly. It's only an issue for those Christians who have chosen to make it an issue through a particular rigid and wooden reading of Genesis, which has become a litmus test of orthodoxy for modern Fundamentalists in the United States, but it is, largely speaking, an entirely American phenomenon, not a global, Church-wide phenomenon.

Educated Christians from diverse church backgrounds across the world simply don't have an issue with the science of evolution and their faith is not negatively impacted, nor is their faith in the authority of Scripture injured. Because for them the peculiarities of Fundamentalist literalism have never been part of their Christian tradition; such literalism, as a tradition, is a peculiarity of modernity within American Christendom. It's certainly not part of the larger, and much older, patristic-medieval tradition which is much more influential on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant thinking than the modernistic traditions of Fundamentalism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Armoured]

AT one time they thought the earth was flat, but then a theory emerged that it was round. Are you suggesting that this theory has never been proven?

How about the Heliocentric solar system theory? Wasn't it your Catholic Church that refused to believe that the earth revolved around the sun? Were they not proven wrong? Or are we suggesting that it hasn't yet been proven?

Yep. Neither is proven, because it is possible that either or both theories are incorrect. However, all available evidence supports them as correct, which is why people think of them as "proved" However, scientifically speaking, it is possible that they could be disproven by new information tomorrow.

Same with evolutionary theory.

Anything else you think science has "proven"?

 

[Poster0]

You're right, but we can go with general probability. The largest group of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics, who number 1.2 billion, that's over half of the entire Christian population of the world. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and Christian teaching.

I not surprised, after all it was the Roman Catholic Church who refused to believe the earth revolved around the sun. They even threw people in jail, charged with heresy, if they said otherwise.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you guys still at it???
Poster0 has a personal preference that will not be moved by anything you can show him.

 

[Goonie]

 

[stevevw]

Right! Never let facts get in the way of your fantasy.

Or open yourself up to realize that science doesn't have all the answers to life and existence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, but it proves that God is proven by creation. Should we now follow atheists who don't believe in God? ToE is a notion dreamed up by an atheists. I mean, they cant even see Gods glory in creation, what makes you think they will understand Genetics?

The theory of evolution was/is not "a notion dreamed up by an atheists [sic]".

Firstly, the idea that organisms change over time is a very old idea, pre-Socratic philosophers such as Anaximander were among the first to propose that the diversity of life is the result of change over time.

St. Augustine of Hippo, rejecting a literal reading of Genesis 1, instead understood his Latin translation of the book of Sirach (which he, and most Christians historically, regarded as Scripture) that God created all things at once (Sirach 18:1"Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul" or "Who lives forever created all things at once", the Greek of the LXX from which the Latin derived uses koine where the Latin has simul, as such a better translation would be "created all things in common" however what Augustine had was a pre-Vulgate Latin translation). So in Augustine's understanding all things were created at the same time, however not in their present form, but everything was created in potential, in seminal forms which evolved, developed, and changed over time.

In the 18th century there was already two important ideas forming within the scientific world.

1) That the earth was very old, at least millions of years old if not older.
2) Life evolved and had been evolving, and living things were related to one another.

These were not ideas produced by "atheists", but ideas that arose within the scientific community, many of these scientists were not only devoutly religious, but were members of the clergy.

What Darwin observed in his visit to the Galapagos Islands and which he proposed in Origin of the Species wasn't evolution--that was something western scientists had already been accepting for decades--it was the mechanism that drove evolution, namely, natural selection. Natural selection is what Darwin proposed, not evolution. Further, Darwin was not an atheist. Darwin had been a religious man early in his life until he lost his child, and like many parents who lose their children experienced a crisis of faith. Darwin's own views, for much of his life, float around somewhere between a sort of "soft theism" and agnosticism.

The idea that atheists came up with the theory of evolution in order to remove the place of God in the appreciation of the natural world is demonstrable fiction and propaganda. Further, even if the chief brains from which evolutionary theory had developed were those of atheists it would be irrelevant, since science, if it is science, remains science. It doesn't matter who proposes a theory, if the theory is true then it is true. That the earth is round doesn't become false simply because a non-Christian says it. That is among the worst kind of tribalistic thinking.

I'm sorry, but the Creationist propagandists you have been learning from have been selling you snake oil.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[stevevw]

At least, she tried to help you. I don't see, that you make any effort, to help yourself. You keep writing, about how much distress, this discussion causes you. People have advised you, to stop coming, if you are telling the truth. That is sensible advice. It is caring. It isn't, what you want to hear, apparently, as you want to blame everybody, but yourself, for your own problems. You bring distress, upon yourself, by coming back. Nobody, has treated you harshly, from what I have read. You, are the one, whose behaviour, here, is not showing, any empathy, for others.

If you came, to her church, or, to mine, would you treat other Christians as rudely, as you have treated them here? Most Christians, we have no problems, with evolution, of course not. That's not siding, with atheists, no. It's accepting reality. You know, the Pope accepts evolution, yes? Most Protestant denominations do, also.

It shouldn't also be just about everyone accepting one side of a debate to get along. Even if someone disagrees or even disagrees and they are wrong they should have the right to without any different treatment. Everyone has the same right to their opinion, beliefs and views. Otherwise we would all agree and it would be a boring old place and no one would be challenged. It is only a debate and not life and death. If people disagree well thats just the variety of life. If you are wrong then thats OK too as we are all wrong at times and you can learn.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[bhsmte]

Well folks, if anyone is uncertain what "cognitive dissonance" looks like, this thread is exhibit A.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

What I have been reading in books about evolution it is all about philosophical arguments. There's very little science in it. Its primary aim is to get God out of the picture and replace him with man as in "we will not have this man to reign over us."

What "books about evolution"?

Again, we need to know exactly what one is referring to when he/she says "evolution".

In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller gives an example where it was discovered that bacteria had developed an enzyme to break down nylon and then the whole process was reproduced in a lab. Evolution happening right before our eyes!

 

[durangodawood]

Or open yourself up to realize that science doesn't have all the answers to life and existence.

...which no one claims.
But science certainly does have some excellent explanations of facts about our material universe. And great methods for further exploration.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Some bickering with goading on both ends was removed from view.

Keep it civil and on topic folks. ​

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

David Berlinski is a well educated atheist, and he doesn't believe that the evolution theory is credible science. He has no agenda, no religion.

Berlinski had one good book on the Calculus in the mid-90s. His income today is from the Intelligent Design creationists at the Discovery Institute. I refer to him as one of the "discotutes." His motivation is a paycheck. His only utility is as a token "atheist" writing that the "mathematics rejects Darwin." The problem is that his "maths" do not add up to anything.

 

[Job8]

I'm religious and see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

Since Adam and Eve were direct creations of God, and this truth is rejected by evolutionists, how do you not see any conflict? Since God created the universe in six, literal, twenty four-hour days, another truth rejected by evolutionists, how could you possibly not see a conflict.

 

[Blue Wren]

Since Adam and Eve were direct creations of God, and this truth is rejected by evolutionists, how do you not see any conflict? Since God created the universe in six, literal, twenty four-hour days, another truth rejected by evolutionists, how could you possibly not see a conflict.

Where in the Bible, does it say, that God created the universe, in six literal 24 hour days? God's use of time, it's not the same, as ours.