Hypothetically, let's say the creation of man was left out of the bible.

[Chino]

A thought provoked by the anti-science thread. Let's pretend that the bible did not include the whole Adam and Eve story.Everything else could remain the same, the great flood, Earth's creation in 7 days, Jesus , etc.... Would we still have the stand off and hate today between many believers and non believers. It seems the argument always boils down to evolution conflicting with the orgin of the human race. I feel that if that one element was left out, everyone would be on a lot better terms (in regards to hiostilaty about beliefs). The idea of heaven could still work, heck, even humans being created in god's image could work.

Thoughts?

[William Wallace]

A thought provoked by the anti-science thread. Let's pretend that the bible did not include the whole Adam and Eve story.Everything else could remain the same, the great flood, Earth's creation in 7 days, Jesus , etc.... Would we still have the stand off and hate today between many believers and non believers. It seems the argument always boils down to evolution conflicting with the orgin of the human race. I feel that if that one element was left out, everyone would be on a lot better terms (in regards to hiostilaty about beliefs). The idea of heaven could still work, heck, even humans being created in god's image could work.

Thoughts?

Interesting question. I think you may be right. Speaking as somebody who formerly endorsed the literal view of Genesis 1, young-earthers believe their interpretation is key to the inerrancy of the Bible and the doctrine of the atonement. If it wasn't there, or understood as allegory, which it really is, I think the controversy would probably disappear.

[Omega]

I think it should be stressed to both atheists and creationists that there is no incompatibility with evolution and the existence of God.

[kirksnosehair]

I think it should be stressed to both atheists and creationists that there is no incompatibility with evolution and the existence of God.

Interesting thought.  I've always wondered why more creationists just didn't swim with the tide instead of against it.  What I mean is, the evidence in support of evolution is pretty compelling.  What I don't get is why creationists (or religious folks) can't just wrap their heads around it and fold their beliefs into it.  Why couldn't evolution have been guided by the hand of their God, for example?

[Dark Castle]

I think it should be stressed to both atheists and creationists that there is no incompatibility with evolution and the existence of God.

Interesting thought.  I've always wondered why more creationists just didn't swim with the tide instead of against it.  What I mean is, the evidence in support of evolution is pretty compelling.  What I don't get is why creationists (or religious folks) can't just wrap their heads around it and fold their beliefs into it.  Why couldn't evolution have been guided by the hand of their God, for example?

The biggest argument I hear is, "Well why aren't other monkeys turning into humans?!" 
Of course, I live in South Dakota, and South Dakota is a pretty religious state.

[jsem]

I can't believe the misconceptions. Humans and monkeys have shared ancestry, but we are not their "evolved form".

[yorost]

I think it should be stressed to both atheists and creationists that there is no incompatibility with evolution and the existence of God.

Interesting thought.  I've always wondered why more creationists just didn't swim with the tide instead of against it.  What I mean is, the evidence in support of evolution is pretty compelling.  What I don't get is why creationists (or religious folks) can't just wrap their heads around it and fold their beliefs into it.  Why couldn't evolution have been guided by the hand of their God, for example?

That's a common enough opinion, but it ignores the fact that it's typically thought of as completely unnecessary.  At some point, if you accept evolution you don't need to take faith in divine guidance.  If you believe in creation and take a literal interpretation of the Bible, evolution is sort of a wasteful approach.

The majority of Christians are in a version that accepts the science around evolution, anyways.  The Bible simply isn't considered a literal story.  Heck, there are two creation stories in Genesis, that's already problematic for saying the story has to be literally accurate.

I can't believe the misconceptions. Humans and monkeys have shared ancestry, but we are not their "evolved form".

Blame that picture of a monkey transforming into man.

[Implode]

Heck, there are two creation stories in Genesis, that's already problematic for saying the story has to be literally accurate.

I've brought that up to many Bible literals, and they've never had a good answer.

[William Wallace]

Heck, there are two creation stories in Genesis, that's already problematic for saying the story has to be literally accurate.

I've brought that up to many Bible literals, and they've never had a good answer.

That's because they're dumb. There are good answers.

[yorost]

Heck, there are two creation stories in Genesis, that's already problematic for saying the story has to be literally accurate.

I've brought that up to many Bible literals, and they've never had a good answer.

Duality of the story.  You can try to avoid contradiction by saying they're just different perspectives on the event.

[Omega]

It would logically follow that an all-powerful creator of existence would therefore have complete and utter control over it. The suggestion that this creator is somehow not capable of devising a process that would eventually lead to our existence is therefore illogical. I mean, wouldn't it have been awkward if God simply placed humans and every other contemporary living organism simultaneously however many thousands of years ago?

While the idea of evolution does not lessen the possibility of God's existence in any logical way, the conditions and events that would have needed to be met in order to ensure the existence of man are much too incomprehensibly serendipitous to have been the product of mere chance or luck. In other words, evolution could be utilized by the theist as an argument for intelligent design in many cases.

I encourage the advancement of knowledge through science; as a theist, scientific discoveries that have been made in the past century alone have served to vastly strengthen my belief in the existence of God.

[eric42434224]

God creating the process of evolution doesnt mean he has to have constant and total control over it.  it is just as likely he created the mechanism, wound it up, and let it run.
And the seemingly slim chance that the conditions for life to exist cant be luck?  That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

[Omega]

God creating the process of evolution doesnt mean he has to have constant and total control over it. It is just as likely he created the mechanism, wound it up, and let it run.

Also a possibility

And the seemingly slim chance that the conditions for life to exist cant be luck?  That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Sure, the incomprehensibly complex set of events that had to happen in order for Earth to be an adequate site for the formation of life (its size, its composition, its atmospheric gases, its matter, its temperature, its distance from the Sun, etc) may seem to be a rare but not impossible happenstance that is, with any luck, repeated in other solar systems. Yet consider the universal constants that had to be set in place for matter to be organize into structures that would later allow the formation of life; why are protons conveniently 1,836 times larger than electrons (which allows for the formation of necessary molecules for the formation of life)? Why are protons not 10 times larger than electrons? Why not smaller? Why do electrons have an equally opposite charge to protons? Why does gravity exist? Etc.

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.  The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Sir Fred Hoyle

[yorost]

It's also possible we want to take things we can't yet explain or seem perplexing and attribute divine explanations to them.

As for initiating evolution vs guiding evolution, if you take the intellect that would be ascribed to a God they are the same thing.  An omniscient being would presumably not be hindered by time.  What would be caused by an initiated set of actions would be known whether experienced or not.  Some might argue God chooses to limit omniscience as a way to leave us as an unknown experiment, but that's a really tricky place to enter since arguments need to be made on when and to what extent would God have chosen to limit omniscience.  There are names to that difference that allude me.

[Ħ]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

[Vivace]

The problem comes from people fighting between two extremes. One extreme being anti-science. That is all science is the work of the devil or something like that where only faith can get us through life. The other extreme, obviously being anti-faith where faith is seen as useless, ridiculous, pointless, and in the way of science, the true measure of existence. The creation of man being in the bible is not the source of the issue. The source of the issue is being on either extreme and refusing to move an inch. Faith and science SHOULD be side by side and there are people (the Catholic Church being one of them) that does see science and faith as two studies that are dependent and cannot conflict with each other.

[soundgarden]

Evolution is not a process that can be "created."  It is just an observation of a historical trend.

Its simply like a championship sports game; if team A wins game 1 then its likely that team A will win game 2 (not that they WILL, but it there is a simply a greater chance since they survived game 1).  Is this a process that was "created" ?  No.  It is simply a natural "likely cause - likely effect" relationship.

Another example is wealth.  A family that becomes wealthy is LIKELY to pass on their wealth and their kids are LIKELY to be wealth as well.  This is not a process that was "Created." 

This is why evolution is indisputable (and so fantastically beautiful in its simplicity), it doesn't need history to be proven because its simply an observation of an obvious process.  If species A survives its environment, Species A will likely reproduce, and will likely spread its characteristics that led it to survive its environment in the first place.

The idea that god "created" evolution can only exist if we accept that god "created" all other natural causal-effect relationships in the universe.  If that is the case he is indeed omnipresent & omnipotent and the free will doctrine of christian faith collapses.

(Thomas Jefferson hit it on the nail; the only plausible Christian deity is that of a deist god.)

[hefdaddy42]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

[Chino]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

[Vivace]

The idea that god "created" evolution can only exist if we accept that god "created" all other natural causal-effect relationships in the universe.  If that is the case he is indeed omnipresent & omnipotent and the free will doctrine of christian faith collapses.

Please cite the philosophical explanation of this idea. I'm interested because most philosophers have already thrown this theory away given that omnipotence and free-will are separate if you realize that just because God knows our decisions, doesn't mean we didn't have the free-will to make that decision in the first place.

For example. I know that if you buy a lotto ticket you will win. I also know that you will not buy one. However I haven't done anything from my standpoint, nor willed you to not buy a ticket. All I have done is know your will. I haven't interfered with your free will, I just happen to know the decisions you are going to make and why you will make them. To say that our free will is destroyed due to this factor, means that God in knowing what we will do, "forces" us to make this decision. This basically means God's will is our will. But we know this is false because evil exists in this world. If you believe that God's will is our will then God must will evil. Therefore God must be an evil God. Given that this eventual position is held by quite a few atheists it doesn't surprise to see someone state that God as first cause eliminates free will.

[GuineaPig]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

By any practical measure, the universe is infinite.  Thus, anything with finite odds of happening can and will happen.

[Chino]

The idea that god "created" evolution can only exist if we accept that god "created" all other natural causal-effect relationships in the universe.  If that is the case he is indeed omnipresent & omnipotent and the free will doctrine of christian faith collapses.

Please cite the philosophical explanation of this idea. I'm interested because most philosophers have already thrown this theory away given that omnipotence and free-will are separate if you realize that just because God knows our decisions, doesn't mean we didn't have the free-will to make that decision in the first place.

For example. I know that if you buy a lotto ticket you will win. I also know that you will not buy one. However I haven't done anything from my standpoint, nor willed you to not buy a ticket. All I have done is know your will. I haven't interfered with your free will, I just happen to know the decisions you are going to make and why you will make them. To say that our free will is destroyed due to this factor, means that God in knowing what we will do, "forces" us to make this decision. This basically means God's will is our will. But we know this is false because evil exists in this world. If you believe that God's will is our will then God must will evil. Therefore God must be an evil God. Given that this eventual position is held by quite a few atheists it doesn't surprise to see someone state that God as first cause eliminates free will.

Doesn't the evil in the world come from Satan?

[hefdaddy42]

No.

[the Catfishman]

Evolution is not a process that can be "created."  It is just an observation of a historical trend.

Its simply like a championship sports game; if team A wins game 1 then its likely that team A will win game 2 (not that they WILL, but it there is a simply a greater chance since they survived game 1).  Is this a process that was "created" ?  No.  It is simply a natural "likely cause - likely effect" relationship.

Another example is wealth.  A family that becomes wealthy is LIKELY to pass on their wealth and their kids are LIKELY to be wealth as well.  This is not a process that was "Created." 

This is why evolution is indisputable (and so fantastically beautiful in its simplicity), it doesn't need history to be proven because its simply an observation of an obvious process.  If species A survives its environment, Species A will likely reproduce, and will likely spread its characteristics that led it to survive its environment in the first place.

The idea that god "created" evolution can only exist if we accept that god "created" all other natural causal-effect relationships in the universe.  If that is the case he is indeed omnipresent & omnipotent and the free will doctrine of christian faith collapses.

(Thomas Jefferson hit it on the nail; the only plausible Christian deity is that of a deist god.)

pretty much this, the whole reason why evolution became 'controversial' is precisely because it explained how species arose without a guiding hand. It is silly to go backwards and try to force religion into evolution... while there is no room for it.

[Chino]

Evolution is not a process that can be "created."  It is just an observation of a historical trend.

Its simply like a championship sports game; if team A wins game 1 then its likely that team A will win game 2 (not that they WILL, but it there is a simply a greater chance since they survived game 1).  Is this a process that was "created" ?  No.  It is simply a natural "likely cause - likely effect" relationship.

Another example is wealth.  A family that becomes wealthy is LIKELY to pass on their wealth and their kids are LIKELY to be wealth as well.  This is not a process that was "Created." 

This is why evolution is indisputable (and so fantastically beautiful in its simplicity), it doesn't need history to be proven because its simply an observation of an obvious process.  If species A survives its environment, Species A will likely reproduce, and will likely spread its characteristics that led it to survive its environment in the first place.

The idea that god "created" evolution can only exist if we accept that god "created" all other natural causal-effect relationships in the universe.  If that is the case he is indeed omnipresent & omnipotent and the free will doctrine of christian faith collapses.

(Thomas Jefferson hit it on the nail; the only plausible Christian deity is that of a deist god.)

pretty much this, the whole reason why evolution became 'controversial' is precisely because it explained how species arose without a guiding hand. It is silly to go backwards and try to force religion into evolution... while there is no room for it.

I don't think the controversy comes from lack of a guiding hand. Had Adam and Eve been left out, evolution would have been god's guided hand. The story would have gone something like... God couldn't just create a man, he would have first had to create the world for it to live in, and then after learning what worked and what didn't, slowly modified his vision of it. Dinosaurs didn't worked so he got rid of them all and started at the beginning again with small organisms. After seeing that reptiles were no good, he began to see that mammals were the ideal organism. He slowly tweaked their design over time. Once he was satisfied with primates, he finally gave them the brain needed to experience and be able to appreciate his creation. It's the fact that the story says God created Adam (seperate from everything else) and then made Eve out of his rib (implying that they were the very first male and female humans ever) that's makes it controversial. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

 

No.

The catholic school I attended always taught us that god was always in a battle with Satan, both of whom had control over the Earth and used humans, almost like chess pieces, to fight their war.

[Ħ]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse.  That theory is the biggest copout I know in debates about God.

[Sigz]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse.  That theory is the biggest copout I know in debates about God.

Wait what? How does a multiverse have anything to do with what's being discussed?

[Big Crouton]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse.  That theory is the biggest copout I know in debates about God.

um...

Anyways...

To your earlier point, anyone who tells you that they have any idea how likely life is to arise is full of shit.  It could be extremely improbable even in the context of the entire universe, or it could be fairly common even just throughout our galaxy.  The origin of life isn't well understood enough at this point to assign any reasonable estimate of a probability to it.

[yorost]

No.

The catholic school I attended always taught us that god was always in a battle with Satan, both of whom had control over the Earth and used humans, almost like chess pieces, to fight their war.

What?  Are you sure it wasn't some way of explaining something to children? 

Catholic Catechism labels humanity as having freedom of rationality, to be able to make choices either good or evil.  It states all willed acts as imputable to the one willing, not God or Satan.

[Ħ]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse.  That theory is the biggest copout I know in debates about God.

Wait what? How does a multiverse have anything to do with what's being discussed?

People treat life as an emergent phenomenon, but that can only be true in a multiverse.  In a single universe (i.e. ours), life is extremely improbable, even with the vast number of environments/planets out there.  This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass.  Most scientists today believe that we're alone because of how unlikely it is.

[Sigz]

People treat life as an emergent phenomenon, but that can only be true in a multiverse.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea.

Most scientists today believe that we're alone because of how unlikely it is.

Sorry, but you're gonna need to source this.

[yorost]

That slim chance doesnt seem so slim when looked at in the context of the size of the universe.  With the unfathomable number of stars and planets, the chances of these conditions happening dont seem so slim to me.

Not really.  It's still extremely slim.  The emergence of life was close to impossible.

Perhaps.  But "close to impossible" =/= "impossible".

Winning the lottery is close to impossible, but thousands of people have won.

There is zero evidence for a multiverse.  That theory is the biggest copout I know in debates about God.

Wait what? How does a multiverse have anything to do with what's being discussed?

People treat life as an emergent phenomenon, but that can only be true in a multiverse.  In a single universe (i.e. ours), life is extremely improbable, even with the vast number of environments/planets out there.  This isn't something I'm pulling out of my ass.  Most scientists today believe that we're alone because of how unlikely it is.

That wasn't even true 30 years ago, and recent history has only made alien life seem more likely.

Lots of prominent people in that area have supported the notion that alien life is common.  The flip side isn't even necessarily that we're unique, but that we're one of the few.

[the Catfishman]

. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

yes it does..  you mention again that god guided evolution, while I mentioned that evolution doesn't have room for forcing that in there.. ?  So somewhere, Christians need to place 'God' in the theory of evolution while it is already on it's own a perfect simple, elegant explanation of how species arise.

[Chino]

. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

yes it does..  you mention again that god guided evolution, while I mentioned that evolution doesn't have room for forcing that in there.. ?  So somewhere, Christians need to place 'God' in the theory of evolution while it is already on it's own a perfect simple, elegant explanation of how species arise.

But doesn't that conflict with Adam and Eve?

No.

The catholic school I attended always taught us that god was always in a battle with Satan, both of whom had control over the Earth and used humans, almost like chess pieces, to fight their war.

What?  Are you sure it wasn't some way of explaining something to children? 

Catholic Catechism labels humanity as having freedom of rationality, to be able to make choices either good or evil.  It states all willed acts as imputable to the one willing, not God or Satan.

That's what I was taught until 8th grade...

[the Catfishman]

. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

yes it does..  you mention again that god guided evolution, while I mentioned that evolution doesn't have room for forcing that in there.. ?  So somewhere, Christians need to place 'God' in the theory of evolution while it is already on it's own a perfect simple, elegant explanation of how species arise.

But doesn't that conflict with Adam and Eve?

yes.