Does evolution disprove religion? If so, why? In not, why not?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

A Dream is merely a dream

When you awaken you know it never happened

Who am I to tie the hands of deity? If they choose to bring frorth Creation on a time-scale of billions of years, when, and where, did I or anyone else get the authority to tell them they cannot do so and may not have done so?

That seems to me to be a rather epic-scale mistake.

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

No, evolution makes no metaphysical claims so it does not disprove religion.

The only time religion comes in conflict with science is when religion tries to verify itself scientifically and ends up contradicting known observations.

It seems to me that if one needs scientific verification for one's faith, one has already placed one's faith in science.

Some years ago around 1912 Abdul-Baha was asked about evolution and said that man on this earth is very ancient and that man was not always as he appears today..that is, that our appearance has changed but we were always potentially human.. just as a seed is potentially what ever it is supposed to become as in oak tree or eucalyptus, etc. He then drew a parallel to the foetus passing through various stages... at one stage we have a tail... we have gill like structures at some stage and so on. So evolution is something that we Baha'is have accepted for some time now.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

The proper terminology might be better addressed as, "Does the 'theory' of evolution disprove religion?" Thus, the only logical answer would be, absolutely not. For indeed, how can an 'idea' that is not capable of proving its own existence have the capacity to 'disprove' another's ideology? If proof is the defining element, one would be best served in addressing the need to prove evolution before accepting its validity as having the capacity to disprove someones faith. A proper question might be, "Does science disprove religion?" No, true science endorses true religion. RWB

Inversely, what I find interesting are the claims of some, to accept both the theory of evolution and Christianity as the revealed word of God by drawing upon the Holy Scriptures to define their doctrine of faith. As one indeed denounces the validity of the other.

For instance, if some adhere to the day/age theory in which a day as presented in creation as relayed in the Book of Genesis, and declare this first book of the Holy Bible as a mere fable or allegory, accepting each day as millions of years, this indeed casts some serious doubts upon the validity of the entire Book of Scriptures to include the New Testament writings as truthful. As the "ripple effect" exponentially snowballs to in fact declare the very words of the Christ as lies, for the Christ indeed did not look upon this first Book as some fable, as He and many others presented in the New Testament quote directly from this book as a factual account of creation. RWB

Welcome to the forum, RWB. We are happy to have you here.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

A big ole hill i billy MORNIN, back at ya, and thanks. RWB

Actually, most Christians have no problem with evolution. The problem lies with the few (mostly Americans) who adhere to certain principles of scriptural interpretation not accepted by most Christians. Also, for the most part, they ascribe to the theory of evolution an atheistic outlook that is not a true feature of the science involved. In the last few decades, a number of books have been published both by evolutionary biologists who are Christians and Christian theologians on evolution that deal with the compatibility of Christian faith and evolution.


Day-age theology relates more to geology than to evolution. It was a 19th century response to the discovery of geological deep time. Another response was gap theology.

Your objection to such theologies suggest that one of the principles of scriptural interpretation you adhere to is that scripture is normally to be understood as both literal (use the plain meaning of a word, unless there is reason not to) and factually historical (understand the author to be describing an event that was, in principle, observable in real time).

These principles of interpretation are characteristic of a modernistic, science-based, approach to the text that is far removed from that of the actual writers or most Christian interpretation prior to the 17th century. There are huge problems created by imposing such a modern world-view on an ancient scripture. That is why most Christian theologians strive to discover the world-view of the original authors in order to understand the message the text was intended to deliver--not what it would first appear to be to a modern person steeped in the tradition of the Enlightenment.

Referring to non-literal, non-historicist interpretation "mere" fable and allegory, suggests a dismissive attitude toward a way of teaching that was well-developed and well-respected during the first 16 centuries of Christian scriptural interpretation. It is more typical of a certain sort of atheistic skepticism than of most Christian thinking. The sort of skepticism that accepts nothing without physical proof of its validity.

The New Testament typically interprets the Hebrew scriptures allegorically. So it would hardly seem a threat to the validity of the New Testament to follow its own example.



That makes some assumptions about Christ's attitude to the Hebrew scriptures that cannot be sustained by an examination of the gospel text. ( I have been through this conversation before with other people.) It assumes that Jesus, as a 1st century Jew (and incarnation of divinity) adopts a 19th century Scottish common sense view of scripture and then interprets Jesus' words in that light.