Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Why religion really disses evolution

  1. #1
    Inactive Member oldasdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 31st, 2003
    Posts
    362
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Over the last millenia, religion,Christianity particularly has had to rethink their scripture interpretations as science progressed.Galileo was charged with heresy when he presented proof that the earth was NOT the center of the universe and that celestial bodies were not crytaline perfection but gas and mud worlds like our earth.This flew in the face of religious thought because it suggested that not only was man NOT the center of God's focus but that the heavens were also not heavenly crystaline perfection.

    Evolution chips further at this thought as it shows man as just another animal,crawling out of primordial soup with no apparent spark of divinty but merely an accident of happenstance.Under this scenario there is no fall of man,therefore no need for salvation and therefore renders religion impotent.

    I realize there are schools of thought that attempt to reconcile evolution and creation,such as the metaphorical interpretation of scripture and a belief in "divine evolution".One of the most interesting attempts I've read was from Lloyd Pye,who hypothesized that man was genetically engineered by ET's for slave labor and once the project was complete,we were abandoned.

    Opinions?Who here reconciles evolution with their religion and if so,how do you do this?Can religion adapt once again?
    Back to top
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger

  2. #2
    HB Forum Moderator Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 29th, 2000
    Posts
    11,383
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Arrow

    Originally posted by oldasdirt:


    Evolution chips further at this thought as it shows man as just another animal,crawling out of primordial soup with no apparent spark of divinty but merely an accident of happenstance.Under this scenario there is no fall of man,therefore no need for salvation and therefore renders religion impotent.

    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I disagree. Cite an example from the past that would have survived the test of time proving God's existence. In other words, from a scientific point of view, there is no scenario that would prove the existence of God, therefore diminishing the credibility that God does not exist.

  3. #3
    Inactive Member oldasdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 31st, 2003
    Posts
    362
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    [quote]Originally posted by Alex:
    Originally posted by oldasdirt:
    [qb]

    no scenario that would prove the existence of God, therefore diminishing the credibility that God does not exist.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For the purposes of this discussion,the existence or non existence of God is irrelevant.There are many differeing opinions as to what God is or his,her,it or they's method(s) of operation.For example,in a non theistic or pantheistic view,the Fall of Man as is portrayed in orthodox religions (Judaism,Christianity,Islam)is not necessary,therefore the purpose of these religions becomes moot and renders them impotent.When that happens,they lose the power to control the populace as there now is no "disease" (sin)and therefore no need for their "cure"(redemption).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •