Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

Thoughts?

[Abreo]

Evolution is a farce: it was made up by monkeys who wanted to pretend to be equal to humans. Go back to your buddy cop movies and janitorial jobs, you primitive primates! Humankind owns and destroys this planet for a reason, because Jesus wanted us to. 

[Laura]

But we have seen natural selection happen, at the very least. And although it is impossible for a consciousness or soul o evolve and the odds of life just  happening, let alone evolving to this stage without the hand of God to guide it is astronomically small, its not as groundless or stupid as you would like to think.

And Jesus never told us that we own the planet, nor did he say we have a right to destroy it if we want. everything belongs to God, and we have a responsibility to watch over it and protect it.

[Josh Braun]

He's just fucking with you. Learn to take things with a grain of salt.

[Abreo]

Yeah I was kidding—sorry.

[Diana Pham]

I guess it depends what you mean by 'evolution'. Evolution as in the process by which species change over time, yes, that is a proven FACT. We have observed that creatures change over time. If they don't accept that, they're just deluding themselves. Evolution as in WHY things evolve, is a theory. Theories will remain theories and facts will remain facts. They can do as they please.

[Abreo]

Evolution is a massive paradigm within the field of biology, anybody who doesn't recognize it's importance as a theory shouldn't commentate on scientific matters. 

[Tricia Sloan]

Great post! Okay, so let me qualify this by saying I did not have time to watch this entire segment. (Sorry) 

So I am taking the position that Yes, it is time for religions to accept evolution. Please, then, let me explain before you twist your panties any further. "Evolution" as defined by any dictionary means any process of formation or growth; development. So, yes, evolution is real.... okay so this is not exactly what you meant. You were talking about the process by which the Human species advanced from a single celled organism to the massively awesome biological puzzle that we are today...and monkeys, we can not forget them, because that seems to be the hot button for everyone with twisted panties. I could spend a lot of time talking about science-y stuff, common ancestry, that makes some people uncomfortable, but instead I will stick with a more theological perspective on this one, and the position that I often take with my more orthodox (and also really lovely, wonderful) friends: So here is God. God is awesome. God is busy making all kinds of cool things, and observing them and just having these fabulous moments of ineffable (define: too intense to be expressed in words) creativity. There are stars, and (my favorite) quasars, ever expanding galaxies, and deep holes of really scary darkness, and all this amazing green stuff, and massive waterfalls and canyons...And God decides that it is time to really pull out all the stops and make something so fantastic it puts everything else to shame. Blammo. First man. 

So, here is my question. The question is why cannot God, who is capable of all this... ineffability... seriously, think of it too much and you just want to weep with the joy of it all... why cannot this God, take that power and Majesty  create things that are capable of growth and change on a scale that will enable long term survival? If you answer that God is NOT so capable, you need to revisit the "ineffable joy of it all". For those who believe in the awesome all powerful wonder of God, evolution isn't a challenge, it's proof that God is seriously... wow...  (head explodes). 

[Mercy P]

I am writing this comment in the understanding that 'evolution' was used to mean the theory of evolution on about how humans came to be(more like how everything on this earth came to be, but just to make this comment shorter). I have a rather long, winded way of thoughts about this particular subject. Along the road it passes by education, and people. I recognise evolution(the changing of creatures from one shape and owning of a set of functions to another shape and owning of a set of functions that is presumably more suited to survive) to be a scientifically given fact, and my point starts from there.

On the premise that 'evolution' is the most widely accepted theory. It is the most widely accepted theory because it explains more than other theories and fits in with the logic of the world(these words may be rather less concise, but you get the gist). And because of this, I say frankly with no guise whatsoever that this is the best theory to teach. Education is one of the fundamental factors in what shapes the ways of how people think, and accordingly, act. Because education is so influential, it should always be approached with careful handling, and the all of the information into which it goes should be real and its intent should be to alert the students of what surrounds them(on a basic level, at least). In short, education is important because you think by what you have inside your head.

Now, to teach 'evolution', it would have to get approved by the people on boards who decide what to teach and what not to teach. On this point, I would like to point out to incidents where evolution was not accepted as facts and taught in schools because that was decided in board meetings(or other names you might have for it); for example the story behind FSM(for more information go to http://www.venganza.org/about/). The whole idea of FSM was started because the Kansas State Board of Education decided to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. This is dangerous. This particularly incident happened because of a number of people believed that evolution was not a fact, and that humans came to be because someone created them with the intent, and not because of what really happened; humans are the result of evolution. The theory of intelligent design is supported in some Christian groups, and the actions of these groups are presumably what made this happen.

Now, I am aware of the fact that not all Christians believe in intelligent design. In actuality I believe that only a branch of Christians truely believe that, given the number of Christians I've met and talked to, and considering the fact that the theory of 'evolution' is taught in most schools. However, because some groups in religion(in this case, Christianity) believed in the idea of intelligent design, and did not accept the theory of 'evolution', the students in parts of the state of Kansas could have been learning that intelligent design is what happened, and not 'evolution'. This should not have happened, and it should not happen. As I stated above, education is an integral part of what shapes a person; their thoughts, words and actions. They should be taught the facts; especially in matters of science. In short, students should be taught 'evolution', but they were taught something else because a group of religious people decided to.

And that is why I think it is time for all religions to accept 'evolution'. If not, these kinds of things happen.

[Mercy P]

PS Oooh.... a bit too long. Sorry people, I didn't really mean to write so many words; I'm short on sleep and my hands just started typing. I don't know if long comments are okay, so; contents shortened:

1. Evoution is a fact.

2. Students should be taught facts. However, (In the case of the state of Kansas)But because some Christians decided evolution was a no-no and decided to permit teaching intelligent design, some students were privy to being taught not the facts, but something else entirely, chosen because of a belief in a certain religion. Even non-Christian students.

3. As cases like this shows, religions not accepting 'evolution' can lead to undesirable results. Therefore, all religions should accept evolution.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I think if we actually look at what people in Kansas objected to, you may see the situation a little more complexly.

Very few people would have objection to something that said "animals change over time". The problem is that too many people say "animals emerged spontaneously and then changed over time" as what evolution is. While it is fact that animals change and evolve over time, it is not fact that an animal spontaneously emerged. That, at present, is speculation. We don't know how life initially began. We have ideas, but nothing remotely concrete. That is the frustrating thing for many religious people. The notion that you can teach something about the origin of life which we have no evidence to support.

[Josh Braun]

The theory of evolution does not state that "animals emerged spontaneously", that's creationism/intelligent design. Evolution says that a single celled organism was produced under the right conditions (star dust, atmosphere, chemicals, pressue etc.) and then that organism evolved and reproduced and here we are.

[Mercy P]

Under full understanding of what both comments are trying to say, I have to agree with the second reply. I accept the big soup theory(for lack of better words, I'm not exactly full to the brim with scientific facts on any account and I'm going to sleep after this), and what 'evolution' explains in itself is that from single cell organisms, creatures like they are on earth now came to be through 'evolution'. However, despite my believing the theory that disproves what I'm going to dispute, it is the intelligent design theory that says that humans and other creatures just popped onto the surface of the earth once upon a time, not evolution theory.

I may be fuzzy on how exactly single cell organisms evolved to be what they are now, and how the intelligent design theory works as a story, but I'm sure what the first comment is saying is actually the other way around. And the contents of said comment just steers me toward thinking that those were the same 'front' excuses that the Kansas state board put out for the public to see; if you think about it for even one second, it's clear that that is not it. And if the reason that the board put out is genuine, that should be more reason to keep teaching the 'evolution' theory, not intelligent design. If the decision of the board was induced by wanting to teach the theory with evidence to support, it should be the 'evolution' theory.

I still stand by my first comment, that all religions should accept 'evolution', it is what this post is supposed to be about.