Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Evolution is a fact therefore the foundation of the JW religion collapses.
• 

  cofty

  the NB uses Evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of God

  I have never seen that. Can you cite an example?

  Evolution makes god redundant, it doesn't make her impossible.

  If god does exist then existing is all she does.
• 

  prologos

  If god does exist then existing is all she does. because all the works is done for now, -- and it all works just fine, including evolution of life.
• 

  slimboyfat

  As I mentioned on the other thread, evolution actually provides one of the more interesting and compelling reasons for belief in God. If there is no God and evolution by natural selection proceeds purely on the basis of adaptation for survival, then there is no reason to suppose that humans have particularly evolved a sense for perceiving the truth about reality, as opposed to merely to evolving a perception which adapts us for survival. If humans are adapted for survival rather than truth perception then why suppose we perceive our origins accurately, including evolution? On the other hand if God was involved in the process he may have ensured that on top of adapting for survival humans also have developed an ability to perceive reality as it really is. Which is what is ment by being "in his image".
• 

  Half banana

  ,

  Wire rider, the reason you are unaware of the evolutionary changes which took place in human evolution is because you have not been acquainted with the facts. If you were a Saharan nomad, you would not require fifty words to describe different types of snow.

  The study of early man (paleoanthropology) could be a dry or obscure science to the outsider, partly because it is dependent on the understanding and integration of many other disciplines. To grasp the subject, firstly the concept of geological time and the pattern of climate changes including temperature, humidity, polar ice volumes and sea-level changes are keys to dating the hominin (early human) fossils which must be well understood. Secondly the geological markers including volcanic events and earth magnetic polarity reversals as well as the reading of the earth movements and sediment layers where the artefacts and or bones are found. Then there is the comparison of anatomical information to find the place within the evolutionary tree (phylogeny) built up from the record of thousands of skeletal finds from other sites. Dating the context and objects is yet another science involving radiometric analysis; the ratio of isotopes of a particular element to the standard atomic number. There are many scientific tests by different methods useful for different periods of pre-history and too technical to describe here. Other key markers of the date are the known animal, insect plant and pollen assemblages evidence of which are found in the context or matrix materials.

  I think people living in North America are at a disadvantage in learning about these matters. for two reasons. one, a historically blind insistence on asserting that the Bible must be true and two, the absence of the Old World pre-history. American history is hard to discover before the Clovis culture around 12,000 BCE whereas In Europe the place is awash with paleolithic find sites. These include the Neanderthals and the early contemporaries of them Homo heidelburgensis and not forgetting the cave art of the Cro-magnons.

  So to understand the history of early man you do have to wade through this sort of stuff to get there.
• 

  Vidiot

  Evolution doesn't "disprove" the existence of God so much as it undermines a literalist interpretation of Genesis, which, in turn, calls into serious question the understanding and purpose of Jesus' "sacrifice", which the entire legitimacy of Chistianity's existence (as they understand it) is anchored on.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I get what you're saying in the OP, LAWHFol: evolution means that creationism didn't happen, but doesn't necessarily mean that there is no God.

  I feel that Evolution is proof of some sort of Benevolent Original Cause - I have an issue with this. I think you're ignoring just how cruel Nature can be.

  Certain genes don't get passed on. Individuals possessing those genes are weeded out by natural selection. This isn't done humanely or nicely. I've seen a baby gazelle, after having been chased down by African wild dogs, literally being ripped in two by two dogs. Similarly, with an impala that went to the edge of a river to drink. A crocodile grabbed it - it had no chance of escape. Another croc grabbed it, then the first croc went into a death roll, literally ripping the impala in two. I've read a report in a newspaper of a clan of hyenas hunting a pregnant zebra. They tore the mothers' belly open and ate the baby, then ate the mother. The mother was probably still alive when her baby was eaten in front of her.

  These are horrible, gruesome ways to die.

  As far as I can see, there is no room for benevolence here.
• 

  Heartsafire

  Wow, great thread guys. I'm not a fundie but I am a believer. Evolution is a fact. It did happen. Also, I think the Bible should not be taken literally especially the OT--not that it's all wrong, but it needs to be put into the perspective of faith stories handed down from one gen to the next. Also, suggesting a creator would be interested in keeping creatures completely out of harms way would not be conducive to the realities of natural selection and evolution. So, if God exists, perhaps God is not all "good" or at least "good" from human perspective. I know this is getting into a branch of philosophy (which, as you know, was once the original science). I'll leave it at this: evolution is fact. But is there a grand designer or creator who started it all? Perhaps it is not probable, but it is not beyond the scope of possibility.
• 

  cofty

  If humans are adapted for survival rather than truth perception... - SBF

  False dichotomy
  
  
• 

  David_Jay

  I wrote about this in another thread, but here it goes again...

  Darwin's tomb is in Westminster Abbey. Why? Because Christians came to believe by his death that his scientific model was one of the greatest contributions to Christian theology. He grew up religious, struggled with atheism, and ended up being an agnostic. The theory of evolution is not about how life began (alone or with some intellectual divine direction) but about the pattern that process of life took.

  My professors asked us our opinions on evolution, and then, no matter what they were we were then asked: "How many here have read and studied the evolutionary model in a university setting? How many have read Darwin's Origin of Species? How many know the type of evolutionary model they prefer and how this differs from others?" Oh, we were a room of opinions, but no one had done any real sufficient research or knew any of these things when that first semester began.

  I also learned in the same setting that the model for critical analysis (which in pop culture is often called "critical thinking") did not originate with atheism or scientists. It came from the world of religion. It was an invention of Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as the Buddha. It is a formula for finding the way of true spirituality, even at the cost of rejecting religious tradition. It was later adopted into the field of science and other methodological disciplines.

  And lastly, evolution is not a scientific "fact." The scientific process does not produce or recognize "facts." Facts belong to the world of forensic exchange. A verified hypothesis in science is called a "theory," which means a verifiable model or process.

  The reason for this is that "facts" do not change. They are axioms. The scientific method, however, can yield greater and new facets of data regarding an accepted model, altering our understanding of it.

  Also a "model" is not an end in and of itself. It is often merely a starting point and rarely fully understood. It is what we can see or discern as so, but it tells nothing about what we cannot readily witness about the model.

  In the end what really matters is that we not make a final decision on evolution until our knowledge of it has been verified by others as sufficient to arrive to a conclusion on the matter. That's what teachers, professors, and other educators are for. You can't always learn a subject accurately on your own. To arrive to conclusions you have to have your own methods and your sums validated independently. Reading Wikipedia or other sites on the Internet, watching a few television programs, reading some books on the subject do not an efficacious critical mind make. You can't determine what is true in a vacuum.

  Evolution is neither pro- or anti- God. Polarized camps often try to champion the theory this way, but such is not the stuff of science.