Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by keithzworld, Feb 18, 2011.

  1. keithzworld

    keithzworld Agnostic

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can a belief in a higher power or deity be combined with accepting evolution?
     
  2. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Why not? He invented the thing...;):)
     
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,203
    Likes Received:
    1,309
    Yep.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  4. NiceCupOfTea

    NiceCupOfTea Pathetic earthlings

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think so.
     
  5. tychomorpheus

    tychomorpheus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    In fact this is exactly what you *should* do: “combine” them. What you shouldn't do is use only one to explain everything or use one to discard the other.

    In 1931 Kurt Godel created the logical proof for the incompleteness theorems. Wikipedia has a good article of course, but in brief this is the logical demonstration that no set of rules can be complete and true at the same time.

    In other words:

    - the belief in a higher power is inherently true because is based on faith which is abstract and unfalsifiable. So, assuming your whole conception on God is a theory, because it is by definition true it cannot be complete, so it cannot explain *everything*. There will always be some aspect where you will miss having built your faith based explanation.

    - because evolution is a scientific fact based on scientific method it tends to be complete, that is, explain everything in the deepest detail trough its hypotheses and conclusions. But according to the incompleteness theorems above the more detail this theory will add the more error prone it will become, hence be overall false in the end.

    Hence combining biology theories with individual faith based theories is the most likely way to create a complete and overall true system.
     
  6. Amergin

    Amergin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes. I am a Non-theist, meaning I LACK a belief in God but do not deny the possibility of some kind of God.

    Evolution has nothing to do with the argument for or against God. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. Gravity, the Spherical Earth, the Heliocentric Solar System, the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy, and a universe of a million million galaxies each with billions of stars. A vast majority of European Christians accept God and agree on the above scientific phenomena.

    I do not use the fact of Evolution of all animal life including human, as an argument against a creator. My lack of belief comes from a different cause, the lack of credible evidence for God.

    Some notable Scientists are Christian, Muslim, or Hindu Theists. They include Francis Collins (Genome research), Robert Bakker, Ph. D. (famous Palaeontologist and Evolutionist,) Isaac Newton, Frank Hauber Ph.D. (Physical Chemist and Catholic Priest.) That is a small sample but those rational scientists chose to believe in God for other personal reasons, like I chose to not belief for personal reasons.

    Belief and accepting are different from knowing. Bob Bakker (whom I have met) and I both agree on the fact of evolution and age of the Earth. He believes in or accepts God, while I lack the belief only.

    Amergin
     
  7. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Amerigan, that isn't true. Evolution is not a "fact". It is a "postulate" that has become a "theory". The reason it is not "fact" is that it can not be retested in order to get the same (or similar) results.

    Yes, the stars are known to show energy at the speed of light, which gives us a "time line" and estimated "age" of the star, but we can't repeat the observation...yet, and we do not know if our instruments are giving us an accurate distance to another star (since we haven't been there physically)... That is the only way science can work as immutable fact.

    Our greatest "probes" have barely passed Pluto...let alone Alpha Centauri...we have no laser refraction from that nearest star cluster, no radio reflection from a signal we have sent, we don't even have the technology to sent a signal that far and pick it up upon it's return.

    What we do have is speculation. (I'm not saying it isn't true), but how embarassing if we were to find out that the galaxy is much smaller than we estimated...

    All we truly know is a part of our solar system. (because we've been there)...

    Does that make sense? (e.g. we know the distance between the planets)
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  8. tychomorpheus

    tychomorpheus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, in fact only ONE hypothesis of the Evolution Theory is a postulate, creation. The other parts, natural selection for example or genetic inheritances (not originally part of the theory) have been proven by observation. We haven't observed yet life out of nothing.
     
  9. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    That is bunk. We haven't lived long enough to observe anything pertaining to evolution. In fact all we have seen is extinction.

    And I never stated "Creation" was a fact.... No words in my mouth thank you.

    My point is, for all we do know, we know very little.

    and you do not seem to understand the rules of science.

    1. test a theory, get a result
    2. Retest a theory, get a similar result.
    3. Have a separate party retest the theory using your criteria, and get a similar result.

    If all passes, then it becomes "fact".

    Anything else is simply "speculation"...

    "Evolution" is not science. It is an opinion, based on speculation, just like "Creation".

    Evolution declares dinosaurs hundreds of million of years before man (Carbon 14 dating can't validate this). Bible states there were Leviathans and Behemoths at the time of man's beginning...

    We have no idea if those gigantic creatures were Elephants, Whales, or T-Rex...all we know is they were huge.

    I know how to work steel, I know how to combine steel, but I still do not understand the molecular properties of steel, and why it combines the way it does...neither does any other metalurgist.

    We know how, but we do not know why...
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2011
  10. tychomorpheus

    tychomorpheus New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    why are you so nervous? :)
     
  11. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Nervous? I fail to see the pertinence of the question.
     
  12. seattlegal

    seattlegal Why do cows say mu?

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,549
    Likes Received:
    26
    You might want to look into the philosophy of Samkyha regarding evolution. It is said that pure Samkyha cannot readily admit to the existance of a creator God, because it would endanger the process of evolution to stop. (Matter {Prakriti} will stop evolving for consciousness {Purusha}) However, it has been said that theistic forms of Samkyha can be found in the Mahabarata.

    {Indian philosophy is not my specialty, so all I can really do is point to it for further investigation.}
     
  13. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Thanks seattlegal, but I simply look to the river in front of my home...(fool on the hill, sees the world spinning round). ;)
     
  14. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    7
    Even Gravity is taught in Physics classes as the "Theory of Gravity". :)
     
  15. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Indeed, because we still can't explain why it changes with circumstances...is it attraction, or repulsion, and when is which, which? How, why, when?...:)

    case in point: How can one suspend a particle in an electromagnetic "bottle", if gravity is present?
     
  16. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been told that Evolution Theory has changed a number of times, so Quahom has a point there.

    When people discover new evidence and the existing theory cannot completely or satisfactorily model and "predict" the new evidence and make it fit, people propose modifications to the theory to explain the new evidence.

    Evolution Theory does not yet have predictive value for events in the future because it is being continually modified and reviewed to fit events and observations about the distant past. It can predict the past, but not so much the future.

    Of course, those who develop and maintain evolutionary theories are under no obligation to produce the "miracle of instant correctness." Their theories can be wrong and they can review and modify their theories as often as they like. People are still digging up fossils and learning about the past. What's the big deal?

    The thing that I find silly and ridiculous about the creationist vs. evolutionist debate is that they don't even have to agree. You can show how one theory is possibly true, but can't disprove either. Both theories can be correct if they deal with mutually unrelated aspects of our reality.

    For example, God (depending on your concept of God) can exist outside space and time. Evolution theory models something that exists within space and time.

    If our reality leads us to believe that evolution took place, then God can create that reality. God can create a space and time continuum where humans find evidence that proves that evolution took place. The belief that evolution took place, with all the underlying evidence to prove it, can be a "state of the universe" just like when you say that a human's emotions and thoughts are his "state of mind." God can create a universe that is in that state, a state where people harbour that belief.

    This is how both God and evolution are possible.

    It's just as bad as people belonging to different Christian denominations, each taking a literal interpretation and calling everyone else a heretic. Every theory, theology or ideology has limited scope and some people exaggerate the scope of their ideology.
     
  17. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Because gravity is a relatively weak force and can be overcome over short distances by other forces.
     
  18. Ahanu

    Ahanu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    150
    Hi,

    Baha'is reject Darwinian evolution, but we do accept another version of evolution.

    More on this later, because I'm actually writing a paper about this for my Religion and Science class.
     
  19. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gravity sir, apparently is ever present and the greatest equalizer. It can even bend light...where is the weakness in that?
     
  20. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    From wikipedia...

    Gravitation is by far the weakest of the four interactions. Hence it is always ignored when doing particle physics. The weakness of gravity can easily be demonstrated by suspending a pin using a simple magnet (such as a refrigerator magnet). The magnet is able to hold the pin against the gravitational pull of the entire Earth.

    According to the present understanding, there are four fundamental interactions or forces: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction. Their magnitude and behavior vary greatly, as described in the table below. Modern physics attempts to explain every observed physical phenomenon by these fundamental interactions. Moreover, reducing the number of different interaction types is seen as desirable.
     

    Attached Files:

Share This Page