Evolution and Monotheism

What I don't understand, is what the problem with evolution is. How does evolution have any affect on anyones religous beliefs regardless of whether they are muslim, christian, hindu etc.
The way I understand it, is that because it exists, God must have meant it to exist.

(I hope this works now, I just lost a post when the database went borked.)

Maju, I agree.

The Orthodox Church views the Bible as infallible as regards its Ethical and Dogmatical stance, however, when it comes to some points of Science and/or Historical accuracy (such as the date of a battle etc.), the Bible can and does err (cf. human element as well as Inspiration = Synergy).

I am not certain how well this sits with the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicanism or even with the Judaic and Islamic Traditions.

Sociologically, although less vociferous, such stances as displayed by the Christian Right (for example) in the US not only deny certain truths that both Science and History may present, but they end up doing more damage to their cause than good. Such sentiments, unfortunately, can be found even within some Churches who have already made the above distinction...

(The database borks daily at about 6:00 GMT)

In this case I think the hierarchies are being a moderating force in all hierarchical churches, as they are not acting dogmatically regarding to science (now - they did in the past, as we all know). Instead in the acephallous Protestant enviroment, where the Bible is seen as only guide, many people tend to be acritical with the content of the text and favors a rigid interpretation.

Of course, there are also Catholic fundamentalists and many many moderate and open minded protestants but, in the USA, the role of tele-preachers of more than dubious intent has become a force in itself, that is not controlled by anything but probably money and power.

This doesn't mean that hierarchical churches are inmune to that. It probably depends on other factors, such as culture and public opinion - though, of course, hierarchies are less prone to change easily.

In any case it is a very worrying trend. I just read yesterday that only 48% of Britons believe that the theory of evolution is correct and the percentage of creationists was surprisingly high for Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

When a Christian reads the Old Testament literally, it is a recipe for disaster. The point is to read it typologically (prefigurements in the Old towards the New), it saves a lot hassle, especially when it comes to scenes of murder, pillage and battle. The Judaising element that you refer to, Maju, and in no way am I referring to Jews themselves here, leads to off-the-track interpretations... even though it is meant to be literal (cf. some sects who wish to bring on the "Anti-Christ" by becoming part of the pro-Israel lobby.

As regards the Evolution survey in your previous post, perhaps the question is put forth too simplistically. I am sure that many more would have answered "yes" to evolution if the question contained a little consideration for the divinity (I hope you understand what I am getting at here).

Indeed, the Church Hierarchy is less prone to change, especially when one considers dogmatical presuppositions. When it comes to Science, many are more open-minded than both you or I would think. Truth is, that there are some of the hierarchy who are as equally obstinate. None would differ on Creation per se, but many would differ on its processes, whether it be with regards to time, sequence of events - chicken or egg considerations- and other such things.

NB. Thanks for the tip re the database.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim What I don't understand, is what the problem with evolution is. How does evolution have any affect on anyones religous beliefs regardless of whether they are muslim, christian, hindu etc. The way I understand it, is that because it exists, God must have meant it to exist.

You mean Adam existed, but he was looking like a monkey?

You have to rather careful in saying things like 'the theory of evolution is correct' (or 'wrong' for that matter) since there are several theories of evolution (Lamark, Lysenko, 'punctuated', 'gestalt'....) many of which are wrong, probably all of which will be proven wrong eventually, since they are scientific theories.

The contrast between scientific theories of evolution and stuff like creationism and ID is that the latter are not testable and therefore totally useless to any attempt to understand the universe.

 

Originally posted by barish Originally posted by Omar al Hashim What I don't understand, is what the problem with evolution is. How does evolution have any affect on anyones religous beliefs regardless of whether they are muslim, christian, hindu etc. The way I understand it, is that because it exists, God must have meant it to exist. You mean Adam existed, but he was looking like a monkey?

Who cares a bout Adam? It's just a legend. Smart "Abrahmanics" read it loosely in contrast with scientific facts, while fundamentalists of all sects prefer to read it word by word.

We all look like monkeys, we like it or not - though a more adequate word is ape (monkeys have tail). What's the problem with it if that's how actually we were "created"? Are you challenging God because "he" let evolution/Nature to do its job? It doesn't seem a pious attitude to me.

gcle2003, good point. Then there are the problems of missing links etc. But I doubt anyone can really claim today, that the Earth is only 7,000 years old.

Homo erectus, our ancestore, dated befor 1.7 million and 300,000 years

  

 

 

Edited by Maziar

Originally posted by Maziar Darwin's theory may not be perfect, but it is more logical and acceptable than believing in Adam and Eve myth or God has created the univers befor 6000 years in only 6 days.

Maziar, I thought you were an ex-muslim. Without looking up the exact words, the Qu'ran says:
The universe was created in 6 days, but a day unto Allah is like 50000 years unto man.
The number of years changes in different parts of the Qu'ran to emphise that the number of years is not important, mearly that it is a very long time, aeons.
Quite signifcantly longer than 6000 years.
Surely the rotation of the earth, or the earth about the sun is a silly way of measuring time, when you talking about the creation of the entire universe!