I do.
From a faith perspective, I still believe that "we" have a Creator.
What did this ''Creator'' create?
Was this ''Creator'' created?
If not, why not?
jan.
I do.
From a faith perspective, I still believe that "we" have a Creator.
You know why? Because we should believe in Santa Claus and magic of christmas. Because Santa Claus represents happiness and joy that is brought to the house and is shared between children and their parents. And frankly it does not matter if Santa Claus exists or does not, what matters is the idea is powerful enough to unite families together...irregardless of their hectic work/study lifestyles. God is the same way.
Just glancing at a few surveys, that appears to be false.Most religious people do not believe in darwinian evolution,
More than likely they took enough science to understand that it's a matter of science, not religion.and it appears that those that do, do so because they want to be seen as open-minded and smart.
I have no idea since the surveys I've seen don't explore that hypothesis.IOW, belief in both is a trend, that is my opinion.
It merely explains what is happening in Nature.The theory of evolution does not need a concept of God for it to work,
The degree to which you perceive any defense is proportional to the extent of the attacks.and this to me is the point of why it is so fiercely defended,
It's the law. Children must receive an education. There really is no alternative.and fanatically pushed to be taught to children.
That appears to the represent the Fundamentalist view, which is a minority view.Once the theist accepts the darwinian theory of evolution, he/she accepts the idea that God's sovereignty can be diminished.
As far as I knew every survey ever done always shows a large population who accept science and religion.This means there is no belief in God,
Every idea of God fits within the believer's personal world view.but an idea of God that fits with their worldview.
I suspect most of the folks you are calling theists do not call themselves theists and would not submit to the characterizations of what they do or should believe.That position is not a theist one.
Yet so many people say they believe in God and they accept evolution. I think you're probably wrong.So I don't think it is possible to believe both points of view as a simultaneos reality.
What did this ''Creator'' create?
Was this ''Creator'' created?
If not, why not?
jan.
In other words, I don't know how it happened, therefore a magic man did it.I know it was not directed to me , but Chemically some how the DNA or RNA have to be put together , even if you have this component you cannot produce life yet , you have to have the mechanism of a cell in order to reproduce . After said so we are to far away from understanding this process and even if we understud it to put it together is an other problem. in the early environment . Therefore there must be a highly intelligent mind to do all that and that is the Creator mind which is God.
In other words, I don't know how it happened, therefore a magic man did it.
and this to me is the point of why it is so fiercely defended, and fanatically pushed to be taught to children
The point is that the theory of evolution "as proposed by Darwin" has long since been superceded. Anybody who is still advocating Darwin's theory as written is in the wrong century. You should be calling the theory of evolution "the theory of evolution", not "darwinism".I'm not talking about ''the fact of evolution'' rather the ''theory of evolution'' as proposed by Darwin, hence the term ''darwinism''.
I wasn't comparing the existence of France to the existence of God. I was comparing the fact that France exists to the fact that evolution happens. It makes no more sense to deny one than the other, whether you believe in God or not.The analogy you gave is invalid in that France is the name of a country, and God is a term that defines a Supreme Being.
Just glancing at a few surveys, that appears to be false.
More than likely they took enough science to understand that it's a matter of science, not religion.
I have no idea since the surveys I've seen don't explore that hypothesis.
It merely explains what is happening in Nature.
The degree to which you perceive any defense is proportional to the extent of the attacks.
It's the law. Children must receive an education. There really is no alternative.
That appears to the represent the Fundamentalist view, which is a minority view.
As far as I knew every survey ever done always shows a large population who accept science and religion.
Every idea of God fits within the believer's personal world view.
I suspect most of the folks you are calling theists do not call themselves theists and would not submit to the characterizations of what they do or should believe.
Yet so many people say they believe in God and they accept evolution. I think you're probably wrong.
I think it would help to clarify that what you are advocating is the Fundamentalist position, which can't reconcile science with the strict literal interpretation of the religion's myths, particularly their creation myths. By world population, that appears to be Islamic Fundamentalists, Hindu Fundamentalists, and Christian Fundamentalists. I'm not at all sure about the Hindu demographic, so it may in fact fall in third place.
The largest of these then is the Islamic Creation Myth. From what I can tell, it looks like about 40% of Muslims in the older traditions do in fact take their creation myth literally. This amounts to about 8% of the world population. Without numbers for the Hindus we can estimate the Protestants (about 10% of world population) among whom it seems around 30% take their creation myth literally, or about 3% of the world population. That takes us to 11% of the world population plus the Hindus. They are 13% of the world population. But if we take the "orthodox" Hindu view of cation as given in the Rig Veda, we note that it states
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.
The point is that the theory of evolution "as proposed by Darwin" has long since been superceded. Anybody who is still advocating Darwin's theory as written is in the wrong century. You should be calling the theory of evolution "the theory of evolution", not "darwinism".
I wasn't comparing the existence of France to the existence of God. I was comparing the fact that France exists to the fact that evolution happens. It makes no more sense to deny one than the other, whether you believe in God or not.
The reason it is "fanatically pushed to be taught to children" is the same reason algebra or grammar or atomic theory is fanatically pushed. Because such knowledge readies them for lucrative careers after they graduate. Nobody's going to hire a geneticist or a biologist or an anthropologist or ANY scientist that believes God created everything in 7 days approximately 6000 years ago. It's simply scientifically established fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur in all species on this planet. If you want to succeed in this world you HAVE to accept the paradigm we live in. You may not like it, but it's just the way it is.
It is an established fact. It's as much a fact as anything in science. Nothing about biology would make sense without it. And anyone who still uses the term Darwinism clearly knows nothing about evolution.Algerbra or grammer isn't fanatically forced on children, and you certainly don't need to use the government to impliment laws to force children to learn them.
If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact, you wouldn't need to lobby government to force it into the classrooms. It's obviously not an established fact.
jan.
Indeed I do. I'm just pointing out that nobody uses that term but creationists. Your idea that there is a "controversy" and that theists don't accept evolution also comes from creationists. There is no controversy in science and, in fact, most theists do accept evolution (see Clergy Letter Project)... you understand what what I mean by darwinism.
It's the creationists who are lobbying to force it out.If the theory of evolution were an established scientific fact, you wouldn't need to lobby government to force it into the classrooms.
What did this ''Creator'' create?
Was this ''Creator'' created?
The current leading hypothesis or speculation for abiogenesis is that nonliving chemical complexes underwent a process of evolutionary development - most likely Darwinian. The necessary replication and selection factors are present in some clays as well as the complex lipids and amino acids and other chemicals then thought to be covering the planet, saturating as they were the shallower water bodies and infusing the groundwater complexes and cooking at the crustal vents and continually heated or cooled in global circulation, as well as UV irradiated, struck by lightning, etc.Evolution says nothing about how life first began; abiogenesis is another field entirely. Evolution doesn't get involved until you have reproduction and heritable traits
Most religious people who understand Darwinian theory do accept it, though - even those whose religion incorporates deity. The religious people who do not "believe in" (terminology that betrays a lack of comprehension) Darwinian evolution, like those who do not "believe in" Einstein's Relativity or the germ theory of disease or Bayesian statistical analysis, are largely ignorant (illiterate, unschooled, or unexposed to the theory), or members of one of the several fundamentalist Abrahamic monotheistic sects that have strong presences in the US and Middle East, or both.jan said:Most religious people do not believe in darwinian evolution,
If we are allowed to narrow things down to one particular deity and manner of belief, we can probably get a direct and ineradicable contradiction between that particular God and Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm not sure what the point would be - have a care in one's choice of Deity, lest one be separated from the light and life of the world?jan said:Can you stick to the proper definition of God please.
I don't believe a god could exist by happenstance, because god is necessarily complex, that what intelligence is. I do think something like a singularity which set of the big bang could have arose by happenstance, because science reveals that so-called empty space is full of particle pairs arising spontaneously by "happenstance" (particle=simple). Complex things need time to evolve and become complex from simpler origins.I believe the universe began with a Big Bang with the galaxies, voids in space, etc..,evolving over time. God being the Creator of it all. The reason I believe this is I don't believe such an occurrence was happenstance. ...
Someone or something can not create eternity. I believe God is eternity. This is my belief.
I don't believe a god could exist by happenstance, because god is necessarily complex, that what intelligence is. I do think something like a singularity which set of the big bang could have arose by happenstance, because science reveals that so-called empty space is full of particle pairs arising spontaneously by "happenstance" (particle=simple). Complex things need time to evolve and become complex from simpler origins.