jan ardena:
My posts are preceded by a dash.
jane ardena said:
Most religious people do not believe in darwinian evolution,
-Just glancing at a few surveys, that appears to be false.
Care to share?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
-More than likely they took enough science to understand that it's a matter of science, not religion.
If it was simply a matter of science there would be no contraversy
Evolution is a matter of science. The controversy you are addressing is a matter of religion, esp. fundamentalism.
IOW, belief in both is a trend, that is my opinion.
-I have no idea since the surveys I've seen don't explore that hypothesis.
You don't need surveys for that.
I understood you meant 'fad' when you said 'trend'. If you mean many people tend to believe both, I agree.
-[Evolution] merely explains what is happening in Nature.
It extropolates from what happens in nature.
If by extrapolation you mean 'theory', then I agree. If you mean the science is flawed, I couldn't disagree more.
The theory of evolution does not need a concept of God for it to work, and this to me is the point of why it is so fiercely defended.
-The degree to which you perceive any defense is proportional to the extent of the attacks.
Using that logic explain the brutal attacks made by Stalin, Pol Pot, and so on.
In this case we would examine the history of attacks on science by Christian fundamentalists.
and fanatically pushed to be taught to children.
-It's the law. Children must receive an education. There really is no alternative.
I'm not disputing that children must have an education.
You are advocating against the teaching of science, which is a vital part of the curriculum.
Once the theist accepts the darwinian theory of evolution, he/she accepts the idea that God's sovereignty can be diminished.
-That appears to the represent the Fundamentalist view, which is a minority view.
It's neither fundamentalist or non fundamentalist, it is a truth based on the fundamentals of the said concepts.
Only a strict literal interpretation of the Islamic/Protestant* creation myths leads to that conclusion, hence Fundamentalism.
*by population, the largest relevant groups
-As far as I knew every survey ever done always shows a large population who accept science and religion.
Science isn't darwinian evolution so don't even go there.
Darwin's work is pure science.
This means there is no belief in God, but an idea of God that fits with their worldview.
-Every idea of God fits within the believer's personal world view.
No it doesn't.
Every idea of God held by the believer to be true fits into that person's personal world view.
That position is not a theist one.
-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.
A theist is a person who believes in God, and I've given the definition of God. If you don't believe in God, you're not a theist.
You mean monotheism. Your remarks are advocating for Fundamentalism, which narrows the definition further.
-Yet so many people say they believe in God and they accept evolution. I think you're probably wrong.
People say lots of things, which is why surveys aren't a good way of collection accurate information. So please give a link to these surveys so we can scrutinise how they come to the conclusions they do.
The surveys will not reach far from Fundamentalist strongholds, so you will gain some advantage from that.
-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.
I don't know what you mean by ''fundamentalist position''.
When I said "what you are advocating is the Fundamentalist position", it means you are advocating against evolution in favor the Fundamentalism, which can't reconcile science with the strict literal interpretation of the religion's myths, particularly their creation myths.
If by that you mean ''God'' is the essential component in ''theism'', then the very definition of ''theism'' speaks for itself.
Theism subdivides into many sects. Fundamentalism in Islam is primarily relegated to a portion of Shi’ism. In Christianity it's primarily a subgroup of Protestants, the Anabaptists, further subdivided into many sects.
Here are some of them.
The intelligent thing for a theist to do, is to enquire about God, going from a spiritual notion that there is an superior intelligence behind the cosmic machine, to learning more about it from sources who are advanced in that realisation.
In order to inquire about the underpinnings of cosmic machinery, an intelligent person would study science. It would entail the study of evolution. Monotheists can find such a program at an accredited seminary or college of Theology.
There is no way that dismisses any discipline which can help with that process.
Accredited seminaries offer exegesis, ancient history, physical science and life science to promote the student's study of the cosmic machinery.
Science is born out of theistic religion.
Modern science is traced to ancient polytheistic Greece. Christianity & Islam were born under the Greco-Roman cultures which already had some science.
-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 canestimate 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 creation as given in the Rig Veda, we note that it states
And you trust these surveys.......why?
I glanced at a few surveys to test your statement that most religious people reject evolution.
-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.
What do you think is meant by this verse?
It says several things. The relevant part says
........"not even He" [knows] "when and how ... creation start[ed].
and/or:
....... "perhaps not even He" [knows] [if he] [created the universe].