4 ms·

Is your religion compatible with evolution? I'm curious to know what makes intelligent developers believe in the religion.

by twox 13y ago

ehsanu1 13y ago
I think Islam is compatible with evolution, though many Muslims would beg to differ. There is some notion of God having a hand in designing humans, but that is worked around easily enough by assuming either extremely high precision in initial conditions of the universe or allowing for strategically placed genetic mutations and such. Clearly unfalsifiable, but it this isn't science, or any sort of proof, but just a lack of contradiction with science. Note, this doesn't mean I believe everything in Islam is the one and only truth.
gjm11 13y ago
Pretty much any religion is compatible with evolution. Some of them have needed (appropriately enough) to adapt a bit, but there are (e.g.) lots and lots and lots of people who accept both Christianity and evolution. (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.
- twox 13y ago
  You are right. I should not start talking about the topic. Thanks.
bigfoot13442 13y ago
I'll assume your question was not meant to sound condescending (because I don't think it was). 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)
- mb_72 13y ago
  "I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life." 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.
  - bigfoot13442 13y ago
    "Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then?" 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.
    - Roboprog 13y ago
      turtle shark :-) But yeah, I agree with you: even if I'm not an authoritarian/fundamentalist, I still believe in the core of the Christ story.
- Luc 13y ago
  > 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. This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can.
hnal943 13y ago
Evolution is too general a term. Everyone believes in natural selection, because that is scientifically observable. Where many Christians (I can't speak for other religions) disagree with the scientific orthodoxy is whether or not natural selection is sufficient to change one species into another. We've observed finches turning into finches (with different beaks), moths turning into (different-colored) moths, but we've never observed a lizard turning into a bird. We've seen fossils that look like a lizard-bird, but that is not proof of the mechanism that created them.
- tjr 13y ago
  For this reason, I often wonder why the subject of life origins (or related what-have-you) is deemed science in the first place. [EDIT: Likewise with between-species evolution.] As it stands, between-species evolution is something one needs to "believe". 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.
  - driverdan 13y ago
    Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's what happened to life after it originated.
    - tjr 13y ago
      Oops! Edited. It looks like like you may still disagree with me though. :-)

Is your religion compatible with evolution? I'm curious to know what makes intelligent developers believe in the religion.

by twox 13y ago

Is your religion compatible with evolution? I'm curious to know what makes intelligent developers believe in the religion.

ehsanu1 13y ago

I think Islam is compatible with evolution, though many Muslims would beg to differ. There is some notion of God having a hand in designing humans, but that is worked around easily enough by assuming either extremely high precision in initial conditions of the universe or allowing for strategically placed genetic mutations and such. Clearly unfalsifiable, but it this isn't science, or any sort of proof, but just a lack of contradiction with science. Note, this doesn't mean I believe everything in Islam is the one and only truth.

gjm11 13y ago

Pretty much any religion is compatible with evolution. Some of them have needed (appropriately enough) to adapt a bit, but there are (e.g.) lots and lots and lots of people who accept both Christianity and evolution. (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.

twox 13y ago
You are right. I should not start talking about the topic. Thanks.

bigfoot13442 13y ago

I'll assume your question was not meant to sound condescending (because I don't think it was). 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)

mb_72 13y ago
"I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life." 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.
- bigfoot13442 13y ago
  "Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then?" 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.
  - Roboprog 13y ago
    turtle shark :-) But yeah, I agree with you: even if I'm not an authoritarian/fundamentalist, I still believe in the core of the Christ story.
Luc 13y ago
> 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. This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can.

hnal943 13y ago

Evolution is too general a term. Everyone believes in natural selection, because that is scientifically observable. Where many Christians (I can't speak for other religions) disagree with the scientific orthodoxy is whether or not natural selection is sufficient to change one species into another. We've observed finches turning into finches (with different beaks), moths turning into (different-colored) moths, but we've never observed a lizard turning into a bird. We've seen fossils that look like a lizard-bird, but that is not proof of the mechanism that created them.

tjr 13y ago
For this reason, I often wonder why the subject of life origins (or related what-have-you) is deemed science in the first place. [EDIT: Likewise with between-species evolution.] As it stands, between-species evolution is something one needs to "believe". 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.
- driverdan 13y ago
  Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It's what happened to life after it originated.
  - tjr 13y ago
    Oops! Edited. It looks like like you may still disagree with me though. :-)