You are here:   Evolution > Evolution can be Religion's Friend
 


Jaw, jaw: Can you spot the design defect? 

Can one believe in evolution and God? Some people of faith and some scientists agree: "No." They are wrong. The theory of evolution says that organisms are related by descent from common ancestors. Over time, organisms change and diversify as they adapt to different environments. Species that share a recent common ancestor are more similar to each other than species whose last common ancestor is more remote. Thus, humans and chimpanzees are, in configuration and genetic make-up, more similar to each other than they are to baboons, elephants or kangaroos.

If humans came about by evolution, then the Bible isn't wrong when it says that humans were created in the image of God.

Science has many other theories besides evolution. The heliocentric theory says that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. The atomic theory says that all matter is made up of atoms. And astronomy teaches us that the galaxies expand in space and that stars and planets form over time. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of plants and animals is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. They place it beside such established notions as the roundness of the earth, its revolution around the sun and the atomic composition of matter. That evolution has occurred is, in ordinary language, a fact, not just a theory.

Many Biblical scholars have rejected a literal interpretation of the Bible as untenable because it contains mutually incompatible statements, if they are taken as scientific. The beginning of Genesis presents two different creation stories. Extending through chapter one and the first verses of chapter two is the six-day narrative, in which God creates human beings — both "male and female" — in His own image on the sixth day, after creating light, earth, firmament, fish, fowl and cattle.

In Genesis 2:4, a different narrative starts: God first creates a male human, then plants a garden and creates the animals and only then proceeds to take a rib from the man to make a woman. Which one of the two narratives is correct and which one is in error? Neither contradicts the other, if we understand the two narratives as conveying the same message, that the world was created by God and that humans are His creatures.

There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. For example, in the description of the return from Egypt to the promised land by the chosen people of Israel, not to mention erroneous factual statements about the sun circling the earth and the like. Is the Bible "wrong"?

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Mackenzie
June 2nd, 2010
1:06 PM
In order to accept the fact of evolution by natural selection, one must exercise the principles of scientific theory - ie, observable and verifiable evidence that can be seen and experienced by anybody who performs the same observations. A person who believes in god must suspend the principles of scientific theory and make the all-encompassing conclusion, that only he knows the real truth about god, and everybody else must be wrong. The foundation of this assumption cannot be observed by anybody else and therefore cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, followers of evolution are using an inherently different thought system than a person of faith. The two systems are mutually exclusive. To say otherwise is a bit like saying all the bible is the truth, except the bits that aren't.

mountaineer9
June 2nd, 2010
2:06 AM
This is quite unconvincing. Attempts at reconciling the irreconcilable always fail. It might feel good to do the attempt, but it always requires inconsistencies.

Terry Fitz
June 1st, 2010
3:06 PM
Kiwi Dave - Apologies for my typo, but your point is not made. Many people succeed in recognizing the phenomenon of evolution, while at the same time recognizing that there are realms of reality, including much that is unique to human nature and most of what we understand as religious experience, that are not subject to scientific explanation. If you see these things as irreconcilable, might not the error be yours? This "science vs. religion" nonsense is nothing but an academic construct, and is fomented by those who have a deep-seated fear that values informed by religion (particularly Christianity) will continue to influence public policy. You need only to observe the intemperate shrieking about the specter of theocracy that takes place each time the left's agenda is challenged to understand this dynamic. For myself, I welcome the advancement of science. If it does lead us to Truth, it will lead us to God. If it does not, at least it will continue to give us excellent toys and greater comfort for the animal side of our lives.

Anonymous
June 1st, 2010
5:06 AM
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Troy Camplin
May 31st, 2010
12:05 PM
As Heraclitus said, to men some things are just, some unjust, but to God all things are just and good and beautiful. People are too small to understand the mind of God, and too many are too arrogant to think there's any mind greater than their own.

piero
May 30th, 2010
4:05 AM
Scientists don't have all the answers. Ayala is pristine proof of that statement.

Kiwi Dave
May 29th, 2010
4:05 AM
Terry Fitz: "There is [sic] more things in heaven and earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy." This misquote comes from a character who thinks he may have just heard from the ghost of his murdered father. Unless you believe in ghosts, it's best treated as evidence of our willingness to dream up imaginary phenomena.

Anonymous
May 29th, 2010
12:05 AM
George Beinhorn quotes Yogananda, and compares Western and Eastern views of the religious experience. In Eastern thought what is first created is the Veda. From the Veda all things emerge. The Veda is the entire Universe experienced firstly as a perfect circle of light. From within the light comes all sights and sounds. The sound of the Veda is the first word, Om, which contains all other sounds. So, according to Vedic thinking God would first have created light, and from the light everything else comes including the sun. Under this circumstance it is reasonable to say on the first day God created light, but not until the fourth day did he create the Sun. Unless you believe light only exists within the context of the Sun. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (King James Version). Sounds like the same idea as the Veda, to me. Evolution is a fact, no question about it. And Darwin noted this. But, his explanation on how it happened is not reasonable. One can argue for evolution, but not for Darwin's version of how it came about and still be a scientist, and be reasonable.

Brent Hallahan
May 28th, 2010
10:05 PM
Ayala defense of the non-overlapping magesteria of science and religion has created a god that is powerless and ineffective. Ayala's God is love, mercy and wisdom. OK, and disease,death, dysfunctions and cruelties of living organisms are not part of this God's design. So what can this God do? He apperently didn't intend bad things, but he can't do anything about them either. This is no God. Pathetically absurd justification for an irrational belief.

Anonymous
May 28th, 2010
9:05 PM
The arrogance of atheists is surpassed only by their bovine inability to engage in deep reflection. Of course you can't "get" God, but the problem isn't with God, it's in you. You're like the congenitally blind man railing against the "myth" of the colour red.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.