Evolution

[Zephyranth]

Re: Evolution

Again, I think the two should remain separate as they address separate issues.

Then this isn't really the thread for you, is it? Again, I thank you for your opinion. However, it is YOUR opinion just as mine is MY opinion and I really don't see the need to talk anymore about it. As I've stated numerous times on numerous threads today, I don't like conflict.

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

It always annoys me when people say "evolution is just a theory" because in science, a theory is actually the highest level of recognition... "Just a theory" is a huge oxymoron. I mean, you can disagree with it if you like, but not on that ground. But Zephyranth already pointed that out with the gravity thing.

/slightly off-topic

EDIT: Wow awkward timing oops
Also, all laws are also theories... just saying

[Zephyranth]

Re: Evolution

It always annoys me when people say "evolution is just a theory" because in science, a theory is actually the highest level of recognition... "Just a theory" is a huge oxymoron. I mean, you can disagree with it if you like, but not on that ground. But Zephyranth already pointed that out with the gravity thing.

/slightly off-topic

The same thing bugs me... Very much.

While, as Ramses said, it is true that gravity is technically a 'law' that just means that it is a generalized body of observations vs a 'theory', which is summarized body of hypotheses. I don't really see the point in actually arguing against your own point, considering making it a law only makes it less than a theory.
What really gets to me, though, is when people completely reject evolution... I'm not saying that anyone on here has done that, because they haven't. But there are several people I know who are this way. They'll say things like, "Well, the Bible says that God created everything and that's what I believe... I don't even see why we have to learn about evolution in our science classes, that's so stupid."

[Ramses II]

Re: Evolution

EDIT: Wow awkward timing oops
Also, all laws are also theories... just saying

There is a marked difference between scientific laws and theories regardless of whether or not laws are also theories. There are no absolute "truths," or "proofs," in science, in fact, a scientific law is just a theory which at that present time, no exceptions to said law have been found.

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

There is a marked difference between scientific laws and theories regardless of whether or not laws are also theories. There are no absolute "truths," or "proofs," in science, in fact, a scientific law is just a theory which at that present time, no exceptions to said law have been found.

Oh, no, I don't disagree with that. This is all correct. Honestly at that point I had the impression that you were one of those "it's just a theory" people (it was an awkwardly timed post because I had started typing it several minutes before posting it). What bothers me is not that some people attempt to argue with evolution but that they do so without any understanding of scientific method :P But y'know, evolution can currently be considered a law too, by your definition. There isn't any evidence against it.

[Ula]

Re: Evolution

I believe the gods exist on other plans. That is why there worlds are different and that shamans travel to the spirit world. I have no idea why they can access Earth but they can. That means to me that Earth is still runs under the influence of science. Evolution happens in the scientific way. I know many faiths say the gods breathed our souls into us. That could be at some point in our evolution they interfered or they simply let us in on their existence. I can't throw out science so I have to find some kind of middle ground as I believe whole heartedly in the gods and that their stories have something to say. I just don't know exactly how.

[Celtic Tiger]

Re: Evolution

This is a question that I posted on PaganSpace awhile ago, and while I got some fascinating answers it certainly wasn't 100% satisfying for me. I'm not so much asking because I don't know what to believe, because I think I know what I personally believe, but I'm curious as to other's beliefs.

My question is this: With your Pagan beliefs, how do you tie evolution into your practice?

Honestly, I don't. I never did, even growing up as a Catholic. One never interfered with the other. The idea that all species were created and fixed probably never crossed anyone's mind prior to archaeological finds and the science of paleontology. Old bones were assumed to be dragons or giants and the age of the earth was not only not up for debate, but nobody cared.

Once it was up for debate, those arguing against natural processes were theologians, not scientists, and were arguing from ignorance, regardless of how much education they may have had in other areas. It would be like a person with a doctorate in psychology arguing over the dynamics of an internal combustion engine in a car with an automotive engineer, and using his psychology books to support his arguments.

For a brief time in the nineties, I was going through a very rough time and was befriended by some evangelicals, and at that time, I was definitely searching. I gave their philosophies a go and really delved deeply into it, but after I had a good handle on Evangelical Christianity, I decided that Evangelicalism was not the intellectual or theological direction that I sought to go.

And even during that period of my life, I never integrated evolution or creationism into my practice: the world existed and God had created it. The mechanisms used were irrelevant to how I was living my life.

At this point in time, it still doesn't impact or involve my practice. The earth and all life on it exists. Evolution on a small scale can be observed both in the natural world and artificially (all of our breeds of dogs weren't just created that way). Climates change, people and species migrate, and species adapt as a result.

At the most basic level, I believe that there is a creative font/source/force that brought the universe (in universe, I include various planes of existence) into being or perhaps is infused in the very universe itself, and that that font/source/force expresses itself in the form of gods/goddesses in order to interact with and guide the creation.

I suppose that this would be a form of pantheism (?) and is similar to the force in the Lucas films; this force isn't the universe itself, but it surrounds, permeates, and binds the universe together. It accomplishes creation through creative processes that we observe in science.

[Gallifrey]

Re: Evolution

At the most basic level, I believe that there is a creative font/source/force that brought the universe (in universe, I include various planes of existence) into being or perhaps is infused in the very universe itself, and that that font/source/force expresses itself in the form of gods/goddesses in order to interact with and guide the creation.

I suppose that this would be a form of pantheism (?) and is similar to the force in the Lucas films; this force isn't the universe itself, but it surrounds, permeates, and binds the universe together. It accomplishes creation through creative processes that we observe in science.

This is very close to what I believe I think it is a kind of pantheism, or at least, that's the term I use...

[JamesByrne]

Re: Evolution

It doesn't. Religion, spirituality, the divine, etc. all deal with things on a spiritual, immaterial and philosophical level whereas science deals with the material, the objective and so on. The two are separate which is to say, evolution doesn't tie into or effect my beliefs whatsoever.

This ^

And I dont believe in creator gods on top of it. I believe creation myths are stories that convey a peoples sense of self and the sacredness of the landscape they inhabit but that they arent intended to be taken literally.

Id also say that its only a theory has a truth to it - its dangerous to put your faith in a theory.

Theory and religious belief are two different things and I think people used to the latter have applied their reliance on them to the former. Faith has no place in theory.

Theory has a deliberately transient nature even scientific theory isnt a truth. If new evidence comes up, if another theory is expanded on and seems more likely then the theory thats popular now will just be thrown away and no one will be undermined or embarassed. Thats the nature of theory, it facilitates progress. Religion has to provide concrete absolutes that never change it provides a sense of perminance and safety for people who have faith through that. If religious belief changes everything falls apart because faith is challenged.

How many people who subscribe to the theory of evolution are capable of proving it? How many have the inclination to research it themselves? How many are capable of doing the research? Faith in a theory is a mistake. It is only a theory.

[Celtic Tiger]

Re: Evolution

Id also say that its only a theory has a truth to it - its dangerous to put your faith in a theory.

Theory and religious belief are two different things and I think people used to the latter have applied their reliance on them to the former. Faith has no place in theory.

Theory has a deliberately transient nature even scientific theory isnt a truth. If new evidence comes up, if another theory is expanded on and seems more likely then the theory thats popular now will just be thrown away and no one will be undermined or embarassed. Thats the nature of theory, it facilitates progress. Religion has to provide concrete absolutes that never change it provides a sense of perminance and safety for people who have faith through that. If religious belief changes everything falls apart because faith is challenged.

How many people who subscribe to the theory of evolution are capable of proving it? How many have the inclination to research it themselves? How many are capable of doing the research? Faith in a theory is a mistake. It is only a theory.

Overall, I agree with you, but I would like to make a comment about truth and theory.

Regarding truth, there is fact and truth. Most people use the terms interchangeably, but they are not always synonymous. Truth can be fact, but most often, truth is being honest and factual; honestly and truthfully answering about events when being questioned by the police, for example, and truth can be moral or spiritual. In this regard, truth can be subjective.

So while truth can mean being factual, and while truth can be fact, truth is not necessarily the same as fact. Fact is that which we can verify (and even established fact is only factual based on the information at hand). Then you have theory, which is an attempt to understand the nature of certain facts and/or truths, depending on the nature of the theory.

It is fact that if you drop a basketball off of a tall building that it will fall and reach a terminal velocity, and ultimately hit the ground. It is also fact that if you perform the same exercise on the top of International Space station, the ball will just float. Thus we have the theory of gravity. Gravity cannot be measured on a meter or picked up by some kind of gravity detector, and at this point in time, it cannot be artificially reproduced, but the effect that gravity is theorized to be behind is fact. The effects attributed to gravity are very measurable, and as such, gravity is at this point considered a physical law, even though it is still technically a theory.

As for evolution, micro evolution is fact. Micro evolution is how you go from people in a specific ethnic group being progressively taller, and induced micro evolution is how you go from a dingo to poodle. Micro evolution is observed in nature in the present. Macro-evolution; the evolution of one species into another, is technically theory, and fossil evidence is used to support that theory. Since we couldn't actually observe the process, it is technically theory, but it is a working, scientific theory. Now, evolution of life from nothing is a bit more problematic, as there are no fossils to look to for evidential support.

Now, I have yet to be convinced by any theory that things like an eye could evolve from random chance, or indeed, that any species could have evolved from random chance. I believe that creation was guided and evolution directed. How that was accomplished is of no importance to my daily practice and not particularly relevant to my beliefs.

[Zephyranth]

Re: Evolution

I have to find some kind of middle ground as I believe whole heartedly in the gods and that their stories have something to say. I just don't know exactly how.

Exactly how I feel... I just personally needed to find a way to make it fit, since I have no question in the existence of evolution... Thank you for your opinion!

- - - Updated - - -

At this point in time, it still doesn't impact or involve my practice. The earth and all life on it exists. Evolution on a small scale can be observed both in the natural world and artificially (all of our breeds of dogs weren't just created that way). Climates change, people and species migrate, and species adapt as a result.

At the most basic level, I believe that there is a creative font/source/force that brought the universe (in universe, I include various planes of existence) into being or perhaps is infused in the very universe itself, and that that font/source/force expresses itself in the form of gods/goddesses in order to interact with and guide the creation.

I definitely see what you mean... I guess everyone has a different level of curiosity when it comes to the questions they ask and the answers they want... I really admire people who have the ability to just accept the world around them as it is and not expect it to reveal all it's secrets to them. I can be a little bit of a skeptic at times, though, so I generally need to have a way to make things work. Thank you for your input!

[JamesByrne]

Re: Evolution

ok but while theories might be based on facts they arent facts themselves.

Take the out of africa theory and that walking monkeys picture from the ape up to the dude hunched over a computer, the idea that we all came from a direct line of evolution from a group that existed in africa about 10 million years ago. Theres a new "multiregional hypothesis" based on remains found in china of a distinct line of homosapiens in 09 that might mean that the theory popularised to the point that its widely considered a fact is in danger of becoming obsolete. Not like a theory in the arts thats subject to interpretation and might still be valid. A theory that relies on fact is gone when new facts come along. The post colonial analysis of the out of africa theory is the basis for peoples careers if it goes they are discredited.

Wed still have the earliest remains in africa so empirically the most primative monkey type creatures we evolved from came from there (until we find a similar remains elsewhere and thats likely with the multiregional hypothesis) but for now at some stage a branch of africans made it to china and bred with the local population to create the specific chinese homosapiens and if it happend in china its likely to have happend in europe too so the post colonial analysis based on out of africa is completely screwed. People should not have treated theory as fact they shouldnt have imagined theory was something they could put their faith in like it was an absolute religious truth.

Its not going to be a popular hypothesis Id imagine people are working like crazy trying to discredit it and save their academic careers and theyre probably funded by people trying to save their political careers but whether it sees daylight or not, even evolution as we know it is not a fact.

[Celtic Tiger]

Re: Evolution

ok but while theories might be based on facts they arent facts themselves.

Take the out of africa theory and that walking monkeys picture from the ape up to the dude hunched over a computer, the idea that we all came from a direct line of evolution from a group that existed in africa about 10 million years ago. Theres a new "multiregional hypothesis" based on remains found in china of a distinct line of homosapiens in 09 that might mean that the theory popularised to the point that its widely considered a fact is in danger of becoming obsolete. Not like a theory in the arts thats subject to interpretation and might still be valid. A theory that relies on fact is gone when new facts come along. The post colonial analysis of the out of africa theory is the basis for peoples careers if it goes they are discredited.

Wed still have the earliest remains in africa so empirically the most primative monkey type creatures we evolved from came from there (until we find a similar remains elsewhere and thats likely with the multiregional hypothesis) but for now at some stage a branch of africans made it to china and bred with the local population to create the specific chinese homosapiens and if it happend in china its likely to have happend in europe too so the post colonial analysis based on out of africa is completely screwed. People should not have treated theory as fact they shouldnt have imagined theory was something they could put their faith in like it was an absolute religious truth.

Its not going to be a popular hypothesis Id imagine people are working like crazy trying to discredit it and save their academic careers and theyre probably funded by people trying to save their political careers but whether it sees daylight or not, even evolution as we know it is not a fact.

Certainly, people have a vested interest in maintaining an existing theory for reasons other than factual accuracy. Scientific thought has evolved over the centuries, and during that time, there have been violent attempts to prevent current theories from being superseded by newer theories that were based on stronger evidence.

It is precisely because of this that I do not become overly attached to one theory or another, but base my acceptance or rejection on whether or not it has the most validity according to available data. Since I have no vested interest in any of the prevailing theories or hypotheses, I am free to modify my views as new information comes to light without any damage to my ego.

The things that I have a fairly strong belief about are things that I find to make sense and which I have either personal experience in, available data on, or both. And if two viewpoints seem equally valid, I go with the one that feels right to me. I know that last part is fairly unscientific, but I am not a scientist, so it is my privilege.

[Gardenia]

Re: Evolution

It is precisely because of this that I do not become overly attached to one theory or another, but base my acceptance or rejection on whether or not it has the most validity according to available data. Since I have no vested interest in any of the prevailing theories or hypotheses, I am free to modify my views as new information comes to light without any damage to my ego.

That's basically how I feel. If it came out tomorrow that some particular theory was incorrect, or misunderstood... well? Doesn't bother me. Yes, depending on what the new information is I might have to alter some of my spiritual beliefs, but... guess I don't see the problem with that, either. Not like I think they're set in stone, anyway. They change and grow with new experiences, information, and evidence - be it spiritually based or scientifically based.

[Medusa]

Re: Evolution

I'm sorry. This is what most of this sounds like:
REALITY is not part of my belief system.

What?