Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think the publics response would be if it was discovered the human race was created as nothing more than a slave race, made to serve some highly advanced extraterrestrial race?! Suddenly ALL organized religion becomes inaccurate and irrelevant and we look a WHOLE lot less special...
Fundamentalists of various stripes would simply deny the discovery, and/or attribute it to demonic lies. That's been the response of fundamentalists to natural selection since Darwin published the Descent of Man 149 years ago. Non-fundamentalists (the majority of believers, whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, etc) don't have much of a problem with evolution, and they would be able to cope theologically with a discovery that we're the result of genetic manipulation by some sort of aliens. Like Judas in the Gospels, the aliens' actions could be interpreted as a type of cooperation with the Divine Will. Which is pretty much the plot of Shyamalan's movie "Signs".
Belief in a religion for most human beings on the planet isn't a matter of the literal accuracy of their mythos - it's about faith and their relationship to their salvation/escaping the wheel of karma/divine being(s)/etc. I think a lot of people in this forum have a highly distorted image of what being a believer means, drawn mostly from images of TV evangelists and crazy-eyed fictional fundamentalists like the guy who blew up the first machine in the movie Contact. Movies are fiction, of course -- just like the belief that we've been made to serve some highly advanced extraterrestrial race.
Quite high actually. Look at the depictions on the walls at Egypt. Some of their gods had heads of birds and other animals.
Looking at this from an evolutionary standpoint, it is unlikely that the Universe/God/Aliens will start from scratch and make new creatures and spend time adapting them to a new environment if one can be used from another system as a starting point. Think how many years or eons of evolution it would save you as a designer.
Some species (reptiles) have been here for millions of years with very little changes, and some are totally unlike anything else like octopus for example.
Of course, it depends how you view the evolution of things on this planet. God, natural, or aliens.
Would it be weird for me to say I believe all three? I don't see evolution as contradictory to creationism but actually complimentary & I think the possibility of us evolving totally alone is preposterous.
Would it be weird for me to say I believe all three? I don't see evolution as contradictory to creationism but actually complimentary & I think the possibility of us evolving totally alone is preposterous.
Agreed.
It reminds me of the story of two people staring at Michelangelo's statue of David. The first said, "What a marvel that Michelangelo crafted!" The second responded, "Idiot! This statue was obviously made by hammers and chisels!"
The two are disagreeing. So who is right?
They both are. They are just approaching it from a different direction. You could even throw a geologist into the discussion who wants to point out the origin of stone, the smelting of steel for the chisels, the cutting of wood for handles, sanding, etc., etc., etc. A linguist and philosopher could walk up and begin discussing exactly what they mean by "made" and "crafted?" All perfectly valid points to add to understanding the full picture of the original of Michelangelo's David.
But when it comes to creation vs evolution, the two camps spend most of their time trying to prove the other wrong rather than listen to what the other side is really saying.
But when it comes to creation vs evolution, the two camps spend most of their time trying to prove the other wrong rather than listen to what the other side is really saying.
Not all evolutionists are atheists - and those who are believers know precisely what the other side is saying. See in particular Kenneth R Miller's books:
"Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution", Dr. Kenneth R. Miller (2000)
"Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Dr. Kenneth R. Miller (2008)
"The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will", Kenneth R. Miller (2018) [this one I have on order, but haven't read yet]
Miller is a biologist on the faculty at Brown University, and a Roman Catholic. Other important figures to read in the discussion of theistic evolution are Paul Davies, Francis Collins, and John Polkinghorne (Polkinghorne is a quantum physicist and Anglican priest, Collins is an evangelical Protestant, I don't know what Davies faith background is).
There are positions in other words between creationism (change by Divine intervention) and undirected evolution (change as randomness formed and shaped by natural selection alone) - and none of the above believe the creation account should be taken literally. Neither did many of the church fathers, for that matter. The insistence on literal interpretation was the result of the rise of fundamentalism in response to the perceived threat of Darwinism. The author of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (combining genetics and natural selection) in the middle of the last century was in fact a practicing Russian Orthodox Christian, Theodosius Dobhzhansky.
Why did squids and vertebrates evolve very similar eyes independently of each other? Because the laws of physics limit the number of possible solutions to high-quality vision. Why should the universe be such that the laws of physics are the way they are? Quantum physics say: no reason - the laws could have been different when symmetry broke at the Big Bang, and many small differences in those laws would have made life impossible. The universe, as some scientists say, appears to have come into being so that the evolution of life (and eventually, us) would be possible (the anthropic principle). You have two choices at this point: either there is a multiverse, in which most universes are incapable of supporting life and we just happen to be in one that does support life; or there is no multiverse and our unique universe was set up the way it is for a reason. Or if you insist on a third option, there is no reason, that's just the way it is - a cop-out if I ever heard one.
Not all evolutionists are atheists - and those who are believers know precisely what the other side is saying.
Yup. Totally fair point. In hindsight, my comment's wording was painting with too broad a brush. I should have been more specific. Mea culpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily
There are positions in other words between creationism (change by Divine intervention) and undirected evolution (change as randomness formed and shaped by natural selection alone) - and none of the above believe the creation account should be taken literally. Neither did many of the church fathers, for that matter.
Correct. Origen (2nd century) wrote that the creation account in Genesis was allegorical. Probably the most influential was St. Augustine, who wrote an entire work on Genesis and put forth ideas that were the very early germ of what we now call biological evolution --- over 1,300 years before Darwin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasily
Why did squids and vertebrates evolve very similar eyes independently of each other?
Unless the existence of this species conflicts with the 'version of history' that is taught.
Can you imagine the problems it would create if Bigfoot was discovered to exist and its DNA was partially human?! history books being re written would be the least of the problems.
I honestly can't think of a single problem it would create. I have only heard this from people who believe is stuff the majority of the worlds population does not.
I honestly can't think of a single problem it would create. I have only heard this from people who believe is stuff the majority of the worlds population does not.
One of the big ones would be religion...if it was proven to exist and have human DNA, (not similar to, or some), how unique or special are we in Gods eyes now?
Their existence/ reason for creation would have to be explained.
One of the big ones would be religion...if it was proven to exist and have human DNA, (not similar to, or some), how unique or special are we in Gods eyes now?
Again, you seem to be equating "religion" with "fundamentalists." An easy mistake to make, since fundamentalism has been so outspoken in the US for 40 years. But fundamentalism does NOT represent the majority view amongst the world's major religions --- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism.
None of the world's major religions (nor most of the minor ones for that matter) would have any problem acknowledging intelligent life beyond the Earth. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism already believe in angels and demons. Hindu cosmology would have zero problem fitting extraterrestrial life into their theology.
Please. When you think "religion," stop thinking Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
I honestly can't think of a single problem it would create. I have only heard this from people who believe is stuff the majority of the worlds population does not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
