What to believe about creation? Science or Religion?
I was told all throughout grade school and high school in science class that evolution created everything living and also (possibly) non-living things, and that something like an exploding star created the Earth (although I could be mistaken when saying the Earth was created from a star explosion). When I was younger in grade school, I went to a Catholic grade school up to 6th grade, and continued my education in high school at several public schools over time. Again, that was when I was younger, because I turned 22 on the 17 of this years December. I was also in a Catholic Religion class at night in my younger years. It was after school, or maybe it was only on Sundays. The staff there taught me that God created everything, and also makes our lives the way he wants them to be.
Anyway, I'm not sure what to believe about the creation of everything living and non-living. I'm not even sure if I should believe anything about religion or science (but I tend to think everything was created by science and evolution, and I still believe in one God).
Has anyone else gone through a similar situation, where you learn everything was created by science of some sort and evolution, and on top of that, also learned that the Earth and everything living and non-living was created by a God?
Any helpfull ideas for me, please?
What do I do when I am told that there are two ways the Earth and living things were created and evolved?
Thanks!
Science does a good job explaining the material world, and religion does a good job shoring up what science can't touch, or what scientists can't describe correctly.
You believe in what fits your life the best. It's Ok to be a little contradictory, it's not like you're a robot.
Who or what created God?
ruveyn
Last edited by ruveyn on 25 Dec 2011, 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Concepts of creation and god are the culmination of primitive man's understanding of the universe before the scientific method came along and dispelled the myths and superstitions, replacing them with facts. Though some people find it hard to let go of the superstition and accept the facts; presumably because they find purpose and some comfort in believing in the concept of some benevolent being guiding and giving purpose to their lives. So it comes down to a choice between living in a comfortable fantasy or accepting the facts revealed by science. I choose the latter.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
Any helpfull ideas for me, please?
What do I do when I am told that there are two ways the Earth and living things were created and evolved?
Thanks!
I have a book recommendation for you: it's called "Cosmos," by Carl Sagan. It's somewhat outdated, but I think it will do nicely.
Any helpfull ideas for me, please?
What do I do when I am told that there are two ways the Earth and living things were created and evolved?
Thanks!
I have a book recommendation for you: it's called "Cosmos," by Carl Sagan. It's somewhat outdated, but I think it will do nicely.
I used to have that book! Bought it many years ago following on from his awesome TV series.
_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.
Why not believe in evolution and the big bang?
The Bible was never intended to be taken litereally nor to be used as a Geology/biology textbook.
It was meant to be taken a story containing truths about the human condition, and not (for the most part) as a true story ( theres a difference).
Scientists have everychanging ideas about how the universe formed.
The big bang could be abandoned tomorrow for something more refined if some new discoveries are made. But its safe to say some sort of evolutionary process occured, and that it took longer than one seven day period six thousand years ago. Obviously it took eons.
So joining the ranks of Young Earth Creationists who try in vain to force science into the tiny box of Biblical literealism is insane.
Genisis contradicts itsself more than it contradicts Darwin (because it wasnt meant to be taken litereally).
At one point it says God made eve from Adam's rib, at another point it says God made both adam and eve from mud.
Darwin never contradicted that last mud hypothesis. He just went into a little more DETAIL about the intervening steps between the "mud" stage and the present human stage- like the microbes, the fish, the amphibians, the repiles, etc etc. All of the academic details that Genisis skips over because they arent relevent to salvation. And he postualted a mechanism (natural selection) to explain how that transition might have occured. And the empiracle evidence since his time has more or less born him out.
Science's ever changing ideas about the exact details of the billions of years of transition between the mud and humans have little to do with your beliefs about your interpretation of the central message of the scriptures.
So if I were you I would revel in the latest PBS show about evolution, and then go on a crusade to save relgion from the religous themselves who insist on missusing the Bible as a science textbook.
The idea that a god created us is senseless. It is arrogant and assumes some kind of importance to humanity. We evolved from apes, which evolved from other mammals, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from fish, which evolved from the first vertebrates....etc....down to bacterial life and single stips of genetic material...
The Earth formed from the debris of an exploding star which had burned for billions of years creating all the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc that is found on Earth.
Religion was the answer prior to the 19th Cent before great Englishmen came along and told the world a thing or two.
Maybe there is a god. We don't have evidence against the existence of a god or a group of gods. Like a super hero team with supernatural powers that defy science.
But I can say quite honestly, bluntly and with certainty that we already have evidence against the main Religious myths. We have found enough evidence to confirm that none of the predictions or explanations from, say, the bible make any sense whatsoever. We have historical records that tell the stories differently. And just about everything sums up that the universe was not created in 6 days.
_________________
.
Religion has always felt like a sham to me. Sometimes I wonder that if any religious person questioned the legitimacy of their religion if they would continue to believe it. More often than not I see religious persons as blindly accepting religion without even understanding it. Naturally, I am inclined to question what I am told; this has occasionally irritated teachers of mine. Science allows me to question and theorize while religions shun anyone that doesn’t accept what they’re told and whom questions religious dogma.
A couple.
Firstly perhaps I can quote a couple of Popes.
Pope John Paul II
"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 Benedict XVI
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI also said this:
Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
In addition, while he was the Vatican's chief astronomer, Fr. George Coyne, issued a statement on 18 November 2005 saying that "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science." Cardinal Paul Poupard added that "the faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity." He also warned of the permanent lesson we have learned from the Galileo affair, and that "we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism.
Secondly, here is a very good two hour talk by Ken Miller, who is a devout Catholic and also a biologist who has no problem reconciling his faith with his science.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg[/youtube]
If Catholics are telling you they believe in intelligent design, they are going against the teachings of the Catholic church and it's formal position on the subject.
Does that help?
The developer of that theory was a Catholic Priest and professor of physics. The atheists of the day rediculed the idea, not because it was not true, but because it seemed inconsistent with their beliefs. The term 'big bang theory' was origionally a pejorative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
Also I see no contradiction between evolution and my religious beliefs.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Greece releases draft law to allow creation of private unive |
21 Feb 2024, 9:49 am |
Best Science Fiction Movies? |
05 Jan 2024, 8:01 pm |
Intelligent design has no place in science classrooms. |
17 Mar 2024, 8:20 pm |