to wonder how people can not believe in Evolution .......

[cookielove]

After a discussion at work which actually started about a childs' dress (day nursery) leading onto the duggars and then religion, it came clear to me that several of my work colleagues do not believe in evolution and not only that but also dinosaurs not existing

Now i can understand the more religious people not believing as Evolution and adam and eve clash, but for those who were not religious how can you not believe in Evolution. Its proven.

I mean really how can people not believe in Evolution or dinosaurs.

I quote one of my work colleagues 'well there's lots of dinosaur toys so they must have been real' .... WTAF?

Please tell MN that you believe in Evolution, and dinosaurs ......

Not in a personal belief system, no, as I said. But they aren't on the same level, and religion has no business mixing with science.

They absolutely can mix on an academic level.

'"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies?which was neither planned nor sought?constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." Pope John Paul II, 1996, from this Wiki article (sorry for Wikipedia)

'We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary?rather than mutually exclusive?realities.'

Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI) 'In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall', 1995.

Underlying the RC approach is the idea that faith and reason are not mutually incompatible, and that it is possible to discern the hand of God in the physical world.

Ah, so religion is analagous to 'complementary' medicine?

Whatever works, I suppose...

But no - I think it's more a case of one element looking at the question of 'what are we?' from the spiritual pov and the other element looking at the question of 'what are we?' from the biological. They are not mutually exclusive, because the RC church does not hold a literalist view of scripture and welcomes inquiry because ultimately it glorifies God.

'..methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.' Vatican II

Science has shrunk the role of God enormously.

Evolution accounts for the variety of life forms on earth - you do not need to invent a supernatural being to account for the development of, say, the human eye.

How did the universe begin is the ultimate question, and there are several theories which make my poor brain ache and I cannot pretend to understand them. But just shrugging and saying God made the world etc is a cop out.

People who demand an explanation of the universe's existence if God didn't make it mustn't complain if we non-believers demand an explanation of who made God (and so on ad infinitum).

adam and eve are compatible with evolution when you consider mitochondrial evidence.

Not really.
The mitochondrial "eve" is just a name given to the last common female ancestor of our mitochondria.
Whereas the Y chromosome "adam" is just a name given to the last common male ancestor of men's Y chromosomes.

In fact, they probably never met and might well have had thousands of years between them.

The only thing that they had in common is that they probably lived in Africa.
Unfortunately, traditional depictions of the Bible's Adam and Even do not show them to be black...

The way I see it, God "gave us" our intelligence to understand our world. So, we might as well use it as he "intended".

And if he "created" evidence for evolution, who are we to challenge him? In fact, I'd say it is blasfemy to doubt all the evidence for evolution.

Because the bible was written by humans, but the world was "written" by god (if you believe in him).

What religion is interested in is when humans had a soul. Religion is interested in the existence of one single 'Adam' (and the common origin of Adam and Eve, i.e. 'from the rib of Adam') because of the church's insistence of the commonality of humanity as children of God, the equal humanity of men and women, and the question of original sin, which came to the world through one man according to scripture. The question of when humans (as defined by possession of a soul) came into being, is of interest to religion, because in the process of that definition the set of characteristics that make a being biologically human are equally important, is of interest to religion (speaking from a RC pov here anyway) therefore. There is no shrugging and saying God made the world except in fundamentalist and literalist religious traditions.

Whether traditional depictions of Adam and Eve (I presume this means artistic representations) show them black, or blue, or red all over is neither here nor there. They are completely beside the point. The essential points are the scientific and philosophical ones.

Sad to see people demanding explanations instead of asking questions...

"religion and evolution aren't mutually exclusive though - lots of christians understand that evolution is how we got here"

Very true!

My God has been right behind evolution every step of the way, much like he's right behind me... as I evolve.

These stories in the bible like 'Adam and Eve' weren't mean't to be taken literally... they are just stories with a moral message in them. AND they were written by men - not God.

What has any of that got to do with anything?

God has no place in Science, you can't use God as a band aid to bridge the gaps.

You can believe in God all you like, but you can't mix it with science. Its oil and water. Its different realms. You can be a christian and be a scientist, many are, but you don't mix them in terms of academics, work, theory.....

"religion has no business mixing with science"

Would you also say science has no business mixing with religion? Or is there something a bit deeper we could try?

Surely God could easily have made scientific laws (and break them for that matter), mysterious as that might be? Clever old creator that he was

Yawl need to come on over to the RC church and chill.

[Beatific ]

My God is all FOR evolution. He's been cheering it on!!

He'll be cheering on Mumsnet as well. No doubt He'll see the benefits of a forum like this helping parents evolve and get better at parenting.

It's in THAT way that God is right behind evolution and science. He LOVES it!!

I question the very questions that religion tries to answer .

"where the 'project' of human persons comes from" - that's a question from the whopping ego of the human mind. The scientific mind is less arrogant than to suppose there is any such 'project'.

' the question of original sin' - doesn't arise outside (some) religions.

'
The question of when humans (as defined by possession of a soul)' ... as defined by an unproven, unprovable entity....

Religions can set up whatever baseless premises they want and examine them ad infinitum.

religious questions never use the scientific method and are riddled with poor logic and flawed assumptions.

"Religions can set up whatever baseless premises they want and examine them ad infinitum."

We do our best :) And all the atheists and agnostics have to do is put their feet up and shout "rubbish" and throw tomatoes from time to time :o It's a hard life...

I honestly am that people exist that believe bullshit like evolution not existing breathe the same air as me. To be honest it doesnt matter. You cant not believe in it. Its a fact. You can only make yourself look a thick weirdo.

Religions can set up whatever baseless premises they want and examine them ad infinitum.

"where the 'project' of human persons comes from" - that's a question from the whopping ego of the human mind. The scientific mind is less arrogant than to suppose there is any such 'project'.

Questions like that are extremely apropos when it comes time to ponder ethical questions, maybe even questions that have a bearing on the future of humanity, like eugenics for instance. Is it right or wrong? From the standpoint of the evolution and evolution alone there is nothing exceptionable about deciding what is a good quality and what is a bad one, eliminating the bad qualities whether by sterilisation or killing, and encouraging the good, by some project like acquiring lebensraum and setting up a breeding programme, just to throw out an example. From the pov of religion, eugenics is a really bad idea, and actually an example of the whopping ego of the human mind and of the arrogant claims of science when it pushes morality aside.

The existence of good and evil, the soul and the idea of sin are the foundations of historical ideas of morality and ethics in the west. Without them there would not be law as we know it. For a baseless premise, the idea that there is good and evil has proved to be very durable and the premise that follows from that one is that law is a good thing, a necessary thing, and not one bit arrogant in its claims.

Science answers some questions and generates others. Not all of the questions it generates can be answered just by science alone.

And these people are allowed to serve on juries. Worrying isn't it?

Purely religious laws, e.g. kill anyone who breaks the Sabbath have not endured in our society. Ones that are not just based on the pronouncements of a god but rather can be reasoned, such as not murdering people or stealing their stuff have lasted. That's not because of religious notions of good and evil but because you can reason that they're wrong without a god telling you so.

How many of you religious people teach your children not to hit by saying that it's sinful? How many would say 'Hitting is not nice because it hurts people and you wouldn't like it if someone hit you'?

Claiming that we have religion to thank for laws which ban things counterproductive to a healthy society is rather insulting people's intelligence.

Noblegiraffe - religious laws are made by men and yes, some are a bit dodgy and hit and miss - that's true!

Math, I would discuss those same questions from an evolutionary standpoint.

The human mind has evolved from creepy-crawly to reptile to simple mammal and so on, layering each development over the last. We all have reptile brains, but we also have the brains of apes who learned the value of social groupings and mutual support, and our own - very new - bit which is capable of entertaining philosophy and morals.

'Good' might be described as the capacity to reason why social support is preferable to giving in to the fuck/feed/fight instincts of the alligator. 'Bad' might be using that reason to justify debasement to reptile level.

All of this is as nuanced, profound and demanding as religious examination. Its advantage is that it doesn't depend on the imaginary ectoplasm known as 'a soul' in religion. Neuro-psychology recognises the concept of soul, but doesn't insist on its being an entity. Neither does it ascribe 'soul' only to humans: an arrogant and, if I may say so, cruel conceit of your church.

Eugenics wasn't 'science' - it was political ideology (more akin to a religion).

As to the basis of ethics in the west - I have to confess I don't know if the Greeks had the concept of Original Sin. 'Good and bad' are universal human concepts though of course one man's good is another woman's bad all too often.

Ethical questions are not in the domain of science but neither are they the preserve of the religious. They are matters which every human being should think about.

Scientists can and do examine issues of how ethical systems have arisen - that's a different matter from defining what is ethical.

Where does reason part company with religion, Noblegiraffe?

'Ones that are not just based on the pronouncements of a god but rather can be reasoned, such as not murdering people or stealing their stuff have lasted. That's not because of religious notions of good and evil but because you can reason that they're wrong without a god telling you so.'

I disagree with your idea that reason and notions of good and evil are mutually exclusive. Again, I would like to point you in the direction of the RC church and its take on reason.
Why is killing wrong? (answer based on reason alone please)
Why is stealing wrong? (answer based on reason alone please)

'Claiming that we have religion to thank for laws which ban things counterproductive to a healthy society is rather insulting people's intelligence' -- it's a claim that has been made by better minds than mine, Noblegiraffe.

Maybe we have different ideas of what 'religion' entails. For many on this thread religion seems to mean someone with a list of rules strictly limiting what individuals may think, sticking purely to one literal interpretation of a holy book. 'Good' and 'evil' are not just judgements on the nature of actions, according to Christianity.

The soul has never been conceived of as ectoplasm, at least not by the RC church, Garlic, and since evolution is ongoing there may well come a time when the biological definition of human-ness will be refined to include other animals, and recognition of a soul in them. The existence of the soul gives context to the notions of good and evil that yes, reason alone could come to. There is nothing cruel to it. The 'project' of humans is a very necessary question to consider, not an expression of human arrogance. If it is avoided then as Einstein said, 'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones'. Without considering that question of the 'project' or 'higher purpose' of humans, that has behind it the basic assumption of a soul, wouldn't it be fine to behave like a crocodile when the occasion demands? To behave with regard for ethical considerations might clash with the demands of reason, after all. Communal interests are not always apparent to everyone. Reason is not always triumphant. Hence warfare.

I have no problem accepting the scientific method, evolution, gravity, relativity btw (wish I understood it better). I also have no problem seeing a wider context to existence. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

From the standpoint of the evolution and evolution alone there is nothing exceptionable about deciding what is a good quality and what is a bad one, eliminating the bad qualities whether by sterilisation or killing, and encouraging the good, by some project like acquiring lebensraum and setting up a breeding programme, just to throw out an example

Nothing furthest from the truth. How would we even decide what is a bad quality? And how would we know that a "bad quality" might not have some advantage at some point? How would we set limits? A reduction in genetic diversity is never a good thing, from a population genetics point of view.