Religion vs. Evolution

[nhboy]

We don't have to choose, says science teacher MARGARET McEWEN

"As a science teacher, I am often asked by my students whether I believe in religion or science. By science, they always mean evolution. At first, I was astounded that any student could think that I must make a choice between the two. It had never occurred to me that belief in one excluded belief in another."
LINK

 

[Radiant1]

We don't have to choose, says science teacher MARGARET McEWEN

"As a science teacher, I am often asked by my students whether I believe in religion or science. By science, they always mean evolution. At first, I was astounded that any student could think that I must make a choice between the two. It had never occurred to me that belief in one excluded belief in another."
LINK

Catholicism never taught a literal 7 days of creation. In fact when I taught catechism salvation history it was not unusual for this subject to come up and and it is perfectly within the bounds of Catholic teaching to adhere to an evolution of the body with the caveat that God started the process and that our souls do not evolve but are given directly by God at the moment of conception. Not exactly Darwinian but not exactly anti-science either. :shrug:

An interesting article

 

[Toxick]

We don't have to choose, says science teacher MARGARET McEWEN

LINK

Excellent article.

 

[Toxick]

Doesn't anyone know what "literally" means any more?


I didn't register it the first time I read the article, but on the second pass, this jumped out at me:

More than 25 years have past since I sat in an undergraduate genetics class that literally caused a light bulb to go off in my head.

So a lightbulb literally went off in her head? How did she live so long with lightbulbs in her head?


Does this kind of thing drive anyone else nuts, or am I just being a pedantic tightass?

 

[Roughidle]

oes this kind of thing drive anyone else nuts, or am I just being a pedantic tightass?

You mean literaly or figuratively??

 

[jrt_ms1995]

Does this kind of thing drive anyone else nuts, or am I just being a pedantic tightass?

Yes, to both. My biggest pedantic tightass complaint is colunmists/authors/writers/etc. writing "lead" in place of the correct past participle "led" .

 

[High EGT]

Evolutionist tell me that the ostrich I'm looking at used to be a Dinosaur or those Budweiser Clydesdales were once small dog like creatures and are the result of evolution with the point that neither are in existence today because they evolved away from that physical appearance to what they represent today. Fine! Now the same logic is presented as humans have evolved from Apes using fossil records as well as bias studies to support this point of view. But my question here is if that where 100% true then why are there still Great Apes in existence? As with the Dinosaur, should there not be any apes left in existence since they naturally would have all evolved into humans or some other type of Neanderthal?

 

[Nickel]

Evolutionist tell me that the ostrich I'm looking at used to be a Dinosaur or those Budweiser Clydesdales were once small dog like creatures and are the result of evolution with the point that neither are in existence today because they evolved away from that physical appearance to what they represent today. Fine! Now the same logic is presented as humans have evolved from Apes using fossil records as well as bias studies to support this point of view. But my question here is if that where 100% true then why are there still Great Apes in existence? As with the Dinosaur, should there not be any apes left in existence since they naturally would have all evolved into humans or some other type of Neanderthal?

My understanding of evolution is that humans did not evolve from apes; rather, apes and humans evolved from the same apelike creature. The theory of evolution was not taught at my high school, but I wish it had been. As a Christian, and with my limited knowledge of what evolution is (versus the popular assumed notion of what it is), I really don't see how Christianity and Evolution can't fit hand in hand, in some instances.

 

[Roughidle]

My understanding of evolution is that humans did not evolve from apes; rather, apes and humans evolved from the same apelike creature.

I believe we are decendants of an ancient galatic penal colony. That would explain why we're all such mean spirited bastards.

 

[Larry Gude]

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean literaly or figuratively??

...

 

[Toxick]

But my question here is if that where 100% true then why are there still Great Apes in existence? As with the Dinosaur, should there not be any apes left in existence since they naturally would have all evolved into humans or some other type of Neanderthal?

Because the genetic trail from amoeba to newt to frog to mammal to ape to human is not a linear progression. It's a tree with many many many branches. Using the logic above there should only be one species on the planet at any given time.

<pre>

______ Neanderthal ---> etc.
/
Previous Primate --Ape------- More Apes
\______
Chimpanzee

</pre>

The tree is way over-simplified, being that I'm not a biologist, nor a zoologist, so I don't know what came from where, except in the most rudimentary sense. (Plus it didn't format the way I wanted)

But basically, some branches stop or stagnate, like apes and some keep going, like the branch that leads to humanity.


Why? 'Cause God wanted it that way.

 

[Larry Gude]

It would...

I believe we are decendants of an ancient galatic penal colony. That would explain why we're all such mean spirited bastards.

...explain our obsession with our penals.

 

[Nickel]

I believe we are decendants of an ancient galatic penal colony. That would explain why we're all such mean spirited bastards.

I'm really very sweet.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You are welcome to think you are a smart ape if you want.

I know I was created by the Almighty Creator, the King of kings, my Father, my God. He created man to walk and talk and commune with Him.

Chimps may be fun, but somehow I don't see God communing with one.

And then there is this:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So if one thinks man descended from apes, then it follows that one thinks God is a ape. I don't think that is a healthy spiritual stance.

 

[brendar buhl]

You are welcome to think you are a smart ape if you want.

I know I was created by the Almighty Creator, the King of kings, my Father, my God. He created man to walk and talk and commune with Him.

Chimps may be fun, but somehow I don't see God communing with one.

And then there is this:
So if one thinks man descended from apes, then it follows that one thinks God is a ape. I don't think that is a healthy spiritual stance.

That is the most disjointed logic. Taken literally if we are made in God's image that means that God has an image, which means that God is a man like us. Unless you are a Mormon you have an unhealthy stance. Could it be an analogy that means much more?

 

[Toxick]

So if one thinks man descended from apes, then it follows that one thinks God is a ape.

Actually that logic doesn't track at all.

If man evolved from apes, then men are, by definition, NOT apes.



I don't intend to enter an Darwin vs. Jesus debate with you, I just wanted to point that out.

 

[High EGT]

Because the genetic trail from amoeba to newt to frog to mammal to ape to human is not a linear progression. It's a tree with many many many branches. Using the logic above there should only be one species on the planet at any given time.

<pre>

______ Neanderthal ---> etc.
/
Previous Primate --Ape------- More Apes
\______
Chimpanzee

</pre>

The tree is way over-simplified, being that I'm not a biologist, nor a zoologist, so I don't know what came from where, except in the most rudimentary sense. (Plus it didn't format the way I wanted)

But basically, some branches stop or stagnate, like apes and some keep going, like the branch that leads to humanity.


Why? 'Cause God wanted it that way.

A linear view is way to simplistic. Anyone who stayed awake during biology class understands that many species are related (i.e. Bear is related to the Raccoon). Your point though that evolution stagnates with certain species is interesting but only aware of several species that fit that category such as crocs and sharks. But nothing said about the primates as stagnate in terms of evolving

 

[Toxick]

A linear view is way to simplistic.

You're right.

Maybe I should have mentioned that in my post.

 

[vegmom]

I believe we are decendants of an ancient galatic penal colony. That would explain why we're all such mean spirited bastards.

You're a Scientologist?


Uh oh- I'm going to get sued.

 

[2ndAmendment]

That is the most disjointed logic. Taken literally if we are made in God's image that means that God has an image, which means that God is a man like us. Unless you are a Mormon you have an unhealthy stance. Could it be an analogy that means much more?

According to the Bible, God created man in His own likeness, His own image. Man looks like Him. So if man is created in the image of God and as evolutionists hold that modern man evolved from some ape or ape predecessor, then according to that God must look like some ape or ape predecessor. I choose to believe that God is as far above man as man is above the apes; farther; beyond our comprehension. The account of creation says God created the animals. It also states He created man. There is a definite distinction.

I'll believe the Bible. You all carry on believing as you wish.