Can a Christian believe in evolution and do Christians believe neanderthals were human?

[jinglebelly]

Just curious

LRD, I see what you mean. I consider 'verifiable' in science to refer to the idea that an observation made by one individual can be independently reproduced by another using the same method. I don't consider it to mean 'verifiable' in the sense that the possibility of falsification has ended. it is quite common for scientists to use the term 'verifiable' in the former sense. What separates a series of scientific observations from anecdotal evidence is the use of statistical tests.

To completely change topic...

Because we're talking about evolution, which is towards the harder end of the spectrum, a lot of this thread has been talking about how science is used in quite a limited way. There are a lot of other ways of carrying out science where we lack the predictive power to say with a great deal of certainty what will happen, but we can model plausible future scenarios. There is a lot of criticism of that kind of science, but sometimes human societies do need that kind of work to be carried out, because a plausible scenario is better than saying we have no idea whatsoever.

As for relativism, I think that people working in social sciences, particularly anthropology and archaeology, tend to go down that road because their is no choice in their discipline but to be a bit of a jack of all trades. That leaves insufficient time for them to become versed in contemporary philosophical thought, so they fall back on to old fashioned relativism.

LRD, if you read back over my statement you will also see that I never said that my observation demonstrated that all seals had mammary glands, or that you repeating my observation would demonstrate such a fact! I also said that your observation might falsify it, as you might be looking at a seal that didn't.

I'm also interested (although I know it is off topic!) to know why male and juvenile seals don't have mammary glands? Are there any other mammals where that is the case?

I think male mamals have mammary glands.

So do I TH, but perhaps seals are some sort of exception.

Also, I've met your DH.

have you really, he has some lush mammaries dont you agree

do male seals not have mammaries then?

I know a lot of Christians (in the UK at least) say they believe in the basics of modern biology, including evolution, and don't see ant contradiction with their religion.

But I see tonnes of contradictions, and I do wonder whether people have thought it through.

For example:

religion says we have an immortal soul
science says there is no such thing

religion says man was made specially, in gods image
science say we evolved just like all other organisms

religion says we have god given characteristics that are good, but we are corupted by sin, the devil
science says both good and bad features evolved (love, artistry, greed, violence etc..)

religion says the world was made for us, and we suffer because we've turned away from god
science says we evolved in an environment of suffering, disease , predators etc..

Christianity says Jesus died to redeem the sins of Adam
science says there was no Adam

I think it is a polite fiction that evolution and a creator god are compatible beliefs.

"religion says we have god given characteristics that are good, but we are corupted by sin, the devil"

I have never been taught this by my church!!

"Christianity says Jesus died to redeem the sins of Adam"

also have never been taught this by my church!!

"religion says the world was made for us, and we suffer because we've turned away from god"

Nor this.

TH, I don't know about the seals! I'm waiting for a seal expert to come on and tell me.

well iv googled it and wikied it and there are no mammary seal leaks availible

Himalaya, science doesn't say point 1 of your list, and it doesn't really say point 3 either. A lot of creationists (even just narrowing it down to Christian creationists) don't agree with all of your list of what religion teaches them.

millyr I was also going to say what you said but had to ponder over it and so glad you said so without hesitation.

Tomhardysmith. Fair enough, I don't know what they teach in your church, but these are fairly standard bits of theological kit, no? Are you saying that I am completely off-base and there is no link between Adam and original sin, to suffering, and to Jesus and redemtion, or just that my summaries are not quite right?

Millyr - on 1 science does say there is no immortal soul, in the same way it says there is no ether, no vital essence, no humunculli, no ghosts etc.. It doesn't labour the point of what doesn't exist but studies what does. If you tried to get a scientific paper published that explained some aspect of human life, death, or evolution in terms of immortal souls you wouldn't get very far.

On 3, not sure what you are disagreeing with? Evolution is red in tooth and claw from the outset, and the less attractive aspects of human character - greed, violence, insularity,nepotism, dishonesty, sexual infidelity etc.. are evolved responses just as much as the propensity for love, creativity, intelligence, compassion etc...

Religion, as I understand it, says there is some better part of us that is god given and is the true nature of what we are supposed to be, and this better part of us can exist independently of a working brain, heart etc and which can be sepperated from the bad stuff. Biology says that however much it doesn't feel like it we are made of meat just like other animals. Evolution explains how that came to be. It pretty much blows the religious idea of the human condition out of the water.

Creationists, I think, know this, which is why they defend biblical literalism,

Another question, can anyone give me a brief description of the different branches of Christianity and how they differ? I understand Catholics believe the way to God is through priests and COE think people can have a direct relationship with God, and that quakers tremble when they feel God... not sure any of this is correct

What do creationism and evolution have to say about male nipples?

Do christians 'believe' in gravity? After all that's 'only a theory' too.

BTW, evolution is a fact, a scientific theory systematically organises facts gained from observational reality to create models which make physically testable prediction of reality. In the case of the theory of evolution there is no other scientifically testable model to compete with it.

The theory of evolution is one of the most successful scientific theories in its capacity to make predictions. It is second only to the standard model and quantum mechanics which are physical theories of the particle/wave like nature of the universe.

Someone once said: "People who dont believe in God , tend to believe in anything not nothing"

I can see what they were getting at.

On the other hand there are people who wont believe anything other than what they regard os proven.

That said, there may well be a religious gene. who knows? "Gabby"

Im saying Your totaly off base and your summaries are not quite right himalaya and that religion does not teach what you say.

Plentyofparsnips, Stephen Jay Gould has written some stuff on male nipples from an evolutionary perspective. It is in a short book called Adam's Navel, but may also be in other collected writings.

Himalaya, there are certain topics that science can't really comment on. As your rightly point out, science papers aren't about the existence of the immortal soul, although it might be possible to write a scientific paper on belief in the immortal soul. But not being able to investigate something using the scientific method doesn't mean that scientists are claiming that thing doesn't exist. Scientists don't have much to say about beauty, and certainly couldn't investigate the narrative structure of Jude the Obscure. That doesn't mean they are claiming there is no such thing as a narrative structure.

Tomhardysmith - can you illuminate a little then?

What is the relationship between god and man?

why did god create people with so many characteristics that he aparently abhors?

why did a perfect god create the world to have so much suffering?

why did Jesus have to die? And is there any relation to the idea of original sin?

Jinglebelly, your description of Catholicism isn't really correct. Catholics do believe in a personal god. There are a number of very obvious differences between Catholics and evangelical Christians. The CofE tends to fall in the middle between the two and people within the CofE are either nearer to Catholic beliefs (high church anglicanism), in the middle of the two, or lean towards evangelical beliefs (low church anglicanism).

Some obvious dfferences between catholics and evangelical christians.

1. Catholics believe that the will of God continues to be revealed over time, through the church. Evangelical christians believe that everything was revealed by the bible.

1. Catholics believe that the seven sacraments are extremely important (CofE also has 7 sacraments). Evangelical churches have fewer sacraments, and sometimes only 1 - baptism - is considered a sacrament).

1. Catholics believe that salavation comes through good works. The Catholic church teaches that people brought up in some other faiths (Jews, Muslims) will be saved if they do good works and follow their own faith. Evangelical churches tend to believe that salvation is only through being born again in Christ and that good works are not part of being saved (although they still do good works as they believe in following Jesus).

There are probably lots of other differences and most Christians will fall somewhere between the Catholic end and the evangelical end. Also, just because a church teaches something it doesn't mean that all of the followers believe exactly that.

MillyR scientists have plenty to say about beauty (facial beauty as a marker for health and reproductive capacity for example, the cuteness of babies as a cue for maternal care, the beauty of landscapes that combine water, fertile land, defendable land etc..).

Science has less to say about literature, but it doesn't mean that nothing can be known about it. You study texts, put forward arguments, evidence etc..literature isn't science, but it does look at evidence and rational argument, it's not a mystical manner.

Immortal souls (if they existed) are intimately connected to many things that are part of the biology of human beings - consciousness, memory, conception, development, feeling, thought, personality, death. Science investigates all these things and has found no evidence of an
immortal soul. If we cannot investigate immortal souls through evidence and rational investigation then there is nothing we can know about them (but we can know they have nothing to do with personality, memory, feeling etc..)

When you draw a line around an idea an say 'science has nothing to say about this' how can you differentiate between the stuff that science has nothing to say about because they don't exist (eg: leprechauns) and the things that science has nothing to say about because they are unknowable? And then what is the point of talking about things that are completely unknowable?

MillyR - thanks that's interesting, do you know anything about the others apart from catholics?

MillyR - why is one called high church and one low church and what is anglicanism?