Is your religion compatible with evolution?
I'm curious to know what makes intelligent developers believe in the religion.
(The US is very unusual in having so much creationism despite a reasonable overall level of scientific literacy.)
But could we please not turn this thread into an argument about religion? There are plenty of those on the internet already. The science is interesting enough in its own right.
Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution. Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and therefore is complete truth. The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution. That being said, there are lots of denominations of Christianity that have accepted evolution by "reading between the lines" of the creation story and assuming things that are not there. Catholicism, for example has made an official statement (by the Pope) that there are no incompatibilities between the two.
But, your question and the statement that follows are not related. I am not a Christian because I don't believe in evolution. The converse is also true; the reason I don't believe in evolution is not because I am a Christian. I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life. I am a Christian because having hope that someday everything that has happened here on Earth will someday be worth it is what makes me get out of bed in the morning. I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there was no purpose to life.
(And yes, I do consider myself an intelligent developer)
Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then? They also offer something that will make you feel comfortable with your belief; Christianity is nothing special or unique regard to some existence beyond your current life.
"I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is."
I couldn't disagree more. This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations.
Maybe I stated it a little too simply, but I think you got my point.
"This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations."
I agree with you mostly. Life is precious. And the thought of "after-life" does drive some people to do some terrible things. But the same can be said for some people who believe they have nothing to live for. The "religious fanatic" argument only really works with religious fanatics and the unfortunate part is that they are usually the only ones that make the news. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left shaking our heads and hanging them in shame because of the senseless things that are done "in the name of < insert religious figure head here >".
But this has gone way off the topic of the article. The fish still looks cool and, as someone else put it, like a turtle fish. I wouldn't want to get into a fight with it.
But yeah, I agree with you: even if I'm not an authoritarian/fundamentalist, I still believe in the core of the Christ story.
This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can.
I guess I'm just not willing to accept that. I've always been stubborn.
Some of Christianity does.
Very few Christian sects do that. Quite a lot of interpretation goes on (for instance, see consubstantiation versus transubstantiation).
Should we assume that your answer was not meant to sound condescending? 'Cause it kinda sounded like it was.
I don't think this is true at all.
> The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution.
I think this is just a symptom of reading too much into the wrong thing - the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is not written as an exact historical account - the writing style is very different to the parts in Genesis that are supposed to be historical. And if it were meant to be about the literal ordering and times of creation, then why is there a creation narrative with a different ordering of creation in the very next chapter?
The point of the narrative is more theological - about the nature of God and humans. It's not making claims about cosmological mechanisms...
I think this article was fairly good on the subject but I read it months ago so I don't exactly remember - http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf
Take the present fossil ostensibly under discussion here. Was that in fact an intermediary creature between species? I don't know, maybe. I do not see compelling evidence that we know for sure. I for one really have a hard time stating such things as facts with a straight face; I feel like I need to prepend phrases like "The fossil record suggests that".
Incidentally, I feel the same way about historical anthropology... statements like (making something up) "These ancient people wore fur hats and ate with their fingers out of stone bowls," based on some bowl fragment and a bit of fur found near the remains of a skull. Well, I don't know, maybe that was true! But such evidence seems weak to me, and hardly enough to present those ideas as facts.
And perhaps my gripe is more with mainstream media presentations and with loosely-written educational materials than with actual scientific research.
Maybe the problem is that you don't have the full context of the evidence being presented. How was the material found; was it in the exact same layer of dirt? Was it dated to the time period of the rest of the site? Some bowl fragments don't provide evidence independent of the context that gives them validity.
But you should be comforted to know that the evidence for evolution from DNA is so overwhelming that there is no room for doubt at all. Species are related to each other and the approximate time that their common ancestor lived can be established as well independent of any fossil evidence. There is no other plausible hypothesis besides evolution that can be presented to explain the evidence.
There is no other explanation besides natural selection that could explain these basic facts. Besides Darwin other scientists were independently converging on the exact same solution.
In the same way only natural selection could explain the existence of vestigial features among related families of species such as the existence of hind limbs in whales or the curious why that the eye of the vertebrates is constructed. This was recognized immediately in the 1860s once Darwin's work was published.
DNA evidence supports evolution 100%. Hypothesized descent from two families can be easily verified from DNA evidence. The whale really once had an ancestor that walked on the land with four limbs. There is simply no other explanation could produce DNA in the exact way that would be predicted from natural selection.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Species aren't necessarily as well defined as you might like. The (complete form of the) usual definition is something like, "A species is a group of critters (that look alike, and) that interbreed among themselves but which do not (normally) interbreed (in the wild) with members of another group of critters (and produce fertile offspring)." (Plus a few caveats that I've probably missed.) There are many reasons why two purportive species do not interbreed: they physically can't, they produce sterile offspring, they don't find each other attractive, or they are simply geographically separated; although in the last case, separated groups tend to quickly become morphologically different, in which case one of the other options applies.
For a brilliant example of the taxonomic follies, check out ring species[1]:
"The Lesser Black-backed Gulls [of Northwestern Europe] and [European] Herring Gulls [mostly from Great Britain and Ireland] are sufficiently different that they do not normally hybridize [, but the E.H.G. can hybridize with the American Herring Gull, (living in North America), which can also hybridize with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn can hybridize with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull]; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except where the two lineages meet in Europe."
This is not to say that "species" is not a meaningful distinction, is a "judgement call", or is "open to personal opinion" or something. There are good reasons to divide critters up, but unfortunately, it is not the case that Someone sat down and said, "THESE THINGS ARE NORMAN'S HERRING GULLS, NOW AND FOREVERMORE!"
"We've observed finches turning into finches (with different beaks)..."
Finches are a family (as in kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) containing something more than 100 species.[2] Please don't make the creationist's error of declaring, "all bats are bats and are all one thing". If a different beak shape makes Rupert's Seed-Eating Finch unattractive to the Red-Breasted Yellow-bellied Fruit-Smacking Finch, so that they don't typically hook up, then they're legitimately different species, as much as any two others.
Note, this doesn't mean I believe everything in Islam is the one and only truth.