Is Darwinism Compatible with Religion?

[Etagloc]

Is Darwinism Compatible with Religion*?


*by religion, I am referring to Islam, Christianity and Judaism

 

[Violette]

I guess it can be. There’s a lot of religious people that believe in evolution. I think it’s an ass tier theory personally.

 

[Karlysymon]

No, its not. Because self-creation demands self-salvation and that doesn't fly in Christianity or Judaism.

 

[Vytas]

Genesis creation story is not compatible with evolution. Can't have both.

 

[Colonel Valerio]

https://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam

Yes. Evolution is a real thing whether people accept it or not.

Genesis creation story is not compatible with evolution. Can't have both.

Genesis creation story is not compatible with reality.

 

[mecca]

If you want your religion to be grounded in truth, then it must be.

 

[mecca]

No, its not. Because self-creation demands self-salvation

I don't see what evolution has to do with self creation. Humans did not create themselves and that's physically impossible. Nature's processes led to human's existing.

 

[Vytas]

Seems legit...

 

[Karlysymon]

I don't see what evolution has to do with self creation. Humans did not create themselves and that's physically impossible. Nature's processes led to human's existing.

What put those processes into motion?

 

[Etagloc]

Genesis creation story is not compatible with evolution. Can't have both.

I agree.

 

[Etagloc]

I guess it can be. There’s a lot of religious people that believe in evolution. I think it’s an ass tier theory personally.

I definitely am not attacking the people who think both can be possible. However, I do think believing in both religion and evolution involves logical gymnastics.

 

[Etagloc]

No, its not. Because self-creation demands self-salvation and that doesn't fly in Christianity or Judaism.

Very interesting angle.

 

[Etagloc]

What put those processes into motion?

Logically, it has to be a Creator.

 

[mecca]

What put those processes into motion?

Not humans... so I really don't understand your point. Nature (and it's processes) were created by God. Since evolution is a factual natural process, evolution was created by God.

 

[Etagloc]

Not humans... so I really don't understand your point. Nature (and it's processes) were created by God. Since evolution is a factual natural process, evolution was created by God.

Calling it "factual" does not alter the fact that it's fictional.

 

[Karlysymon]

Not humans... so I really don't understand your point. Nature (and it's processes) were created by God. Since evolution is a factual natural process, evolution was created by God.

So why can't you just say that God created man/universe instead of going round and attributing to evolution? Deal with the real source of life, not the process employed.

Logically, it has to be a Creator.

...and no creation is greater than its creator

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

IN 1871, in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker, Charles Darwin speculated about how life might have got started.

"But if (and Oh! What a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc, present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes..."​

​

Unfortunately for the interests of real science, Darwin had no concept of the difficulties of abiogenesis (life from non-life).

A synthetic organic chemist and specialist in nanotechnology, Dr James Tour discusses the issues here during a recent address at Syracuse University.

0-20 mins - introduction and James's scientific background.

20 mins onwards - discussion on how Darwinism is challenged real science (btw this analysis is not made from a "religious" perspective.)

Consider also: from the projects James is involved with and their high financial value, he gains nothing by drawing attention to himself by questioning Darwin.

​

 

[mecca]

So why can't you just say that God created man/universe instead of going round and attributing to evolution? Deal with the real source of life, not the process employed.

So you're saying that we should stop trying to understand how the world works? I think it is useful to have knowledge about how biology functions. The process of evolution led to the species we see today, that is known.

 

[mecca]

Calling it "factual" does not alter the fact that it's fictional.

Calling it fictional doesn't make it any less factual. If you're denying observable facts about reality, then you have a big problem.

 

[Karlysymon]

So you're saying that we should stop trying to understand how the world works? I think it is useful to have knowledge about how biology functions. The process of evolution led to the species we see today, that is known.

No, but you cannot explain how the world works with just one discipline, in this case science. You need multiple disciplines to get an accurate picture.