Evolution is compatible with religion?

[Elsupremo]

Uh, what does Darwin have to do with what we're talking about, exactly? Aside from the fact that, well... he is considered the grandfather of the evolution theory.

OK. So Darwin had some sexist views. What's your point? He lived in an era where that mindset was commonplace. Just because he was quite intelligent that does not mean that he cannot hold flawed beliefs.

1. How is a woman superior? In asking that question I am not attempting to imply that a man is superior, but rather... asking how a woman is inherently more superior than a man. I'd like a detailed explanation.

2. How, exactly, will "evilution" lead me down such a road? I could understand how it could lead me towards eugenics, but how exactly would it lead me towards sexism and racism?

1. Here is a logical non- Darwinian conclusion from current beliefs about man's development that will lead logically to the conclusion that not only did women create religion, but science as well. As hunter gatherers we as a spieces it is taught, assigned hunting to men and gathering eatable plants to women. Having to test new varieties of plants would be a dangerous undertaking. Poisoning could occur, so it seems logical that the old women who were past child bearing age would have this job. Eating very small samples at first to test the effect. What do you suppose happen when they tested a hallucinogenic plant. Shamanism was born. Europe had its wise old women who were killed by the Inquisition as witches. Now many scholars agree that religion evolved out of shamanism which relies heavily upon drugs for communion with the Diety. Now a least one scholar believes that kingship also evolved out of shamanism, that being the author of "The Golden Bough" his name escapes me. So it follows logically that since women were dealing with chemicals like plant matter, mixing and measuring amounts so as not poison themselves discovered medicine and developed what was called alchemy which today is called chemistry. Now if kingship evolved out shamanism then the first Kings were Queens. I won't belabor this point so as not to warp your young mind. So with women as the first shamans I wonder what they would say God looked like? She was probably a woman. So now here we are with women as Kings, Shamans and goddesses. I could go on all day about the logical conclusions but consider this. You are a socalled cave man and having never seen animals give birth because you are still hunting and not farming yet. You notice that one day your mate has grown so fat that the other women have to help her walk into the women's hut and many hours later she comes out holding something that she didn't go in there with, a baby. She has created life,something out nothing. You fall down and worship her, because you are an idiot, and she knows it. Edited March 7, 2016 by Elsupremo

[Podo]

1. Here is a logical non- Darwinian conclusion from current beliefs about man's development that will lead logically to the conclusion that not only did women create religion, but science as well. As hunter gatherers we as a spieces it is taught, assigned hunting to men and gathering eatable plants to women. Having to test new varieties of plants would be a dangerous undertaking. Poisoning could occur, so it seems logical that the old women who were past child bearing age would have this job. Eating very small samples at first to test the effect. What do you suppose happen when they tested a hallucinogenic plant. Shamanism was born. Europe had its wise old women who were killed by the Inquisition as witches. Now many scholars agree that religion evolved out of shamanism which relies heavily upon drugs for communion with the Diety. Now a least one scholar believes that kingship also evolved out of shamanism, that being the author of "The Golden Bough" his name escapes me. So it follows logically that since women were dealing with chemicals like plant matter, mixing and measuring amounts so as not poison themselves discovered medicine and developed what was called alchemy which today is called chemistry. Now if kingship evolved out shamanism then the first Kings were Queens. I won't belabor this point so as not to warp your young mind. So with women as the first shamans I wonder what they would say God looked like? She was probably a woman. So now here we are with women as Kings, Shamans and goddesses. I could go on all day about the logical conclusions but consider this. You are a socalled cave man and having never seen animals give birth because you are still hunting and not farming yet. You notice that one day your mate has grown so fat that the other women have to help her walk into the women's hut and many hours later she comes out holding something that she didn't go in there with, a baby. She has created life,something out nothing. You fall down and worship her, because you are an idiot, and she knows it.

This was hard to read, but mostly because it was ridiculous, not because of its poor formatting.

Even if the stuff you're saying is correct, that doesn't at all prove the superiority of women. Any species that reproduces sexually requires both females and males to procreate. Both are equally required for the continuation of the species. Whether individuals (or early humans) think that women were superior is irrelevant because the belief that one sex is somehow superior to the other is a fundamentally flawed concept. Even if there are things that men are better at than women, and things that women are better at than men, that still doesn't make either one better or worse in their entirety.

Furthermore, "Science" isn't a thing to be created. Instead, it is just a method of thought; observation and methodology to learn testable, provable things. It was not created by any one person any more than philosophy was, or organizational skills. Methodologies are not invented, they are merely employed.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Podo

[Elsupremo]

This was hard to read, but mostly because it was ridiculous, not because of its poor formatting.

Even if the stuff you're saying is correct, that doesn't at all prove the superiority of women. Any species that reproduces sexually requires both females and males to procreate. Both are equally required for the continuation of the species. Whether individuals (or early humans) think that women were superior is irrelevant because the belief that one sex is somehow superior to the other is a fundamentally flawed concept. Even if there are things that men are better at than women, and things that women are better at than men, that still doesn't make either one better or worse in their entirety.

Furthermore, "Science" isn't a thing to be created. Instead, it is just a method of thought; observation and methodology to learn testable, provable things. It was not created by any one person any more than philosophy was, or organizational skills. Methodologies are not invented, they are merely employed.

Glad you liked it.

[Podo]

Glad you liked it.

I didn't, really. It was silly. I'm not sure why you thought my response indicated otherwise.

[ShadowSot]

I haven't addressed the topic yet.

Religion and science are not intrinsically opposed, I think.

The presuppositions underlying both don't agree, but there is no reason a religious person would not make a good science or have an appreciation for it. Certainly many scientists who are religious look at science as understanding their god's magnificence.

Certainly being an atheist doesn't predispose someone to rationality. The forum here that's dedicated to alternative history deals with many secular Fringe irrational takes on history, from a ancient white race precursor to ancient aliens.

Many antivax or homeopaths are as likely to be atheist or religious.

The ideology and mentality has a much greater effect than a person's religious views.

[back to earth]

I know many that believe both, they just see God as the 'programmer', he wrote the program , set it off and then it all ran itself. He just sits back and watches .... out of curiosity .

[+Nuclear Wessel]

I know many that believe both, they just see God as the 'programmer', he wrote the program , set it off and then it all ran itself. He just sits back and watches .... out of curiosity .

If God is the programmer then he seriously sucks at debugging. I'm honestly surprised as to how the program managed to compile at all given all of the flaws in its design.

Edited March 7, 2016 by Nuclear Wessel

[back to earth]

What flaws ?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

What flaws ?

Cancer, just off the top of my head.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Nuclear Wessel

[back to earth]

Thats only a flaw from the context of looking at the program from the inside, and the perspective of one part of it.

Don't programmers have to see it from 'the outside' .... where a seeming 'flaw' for a component's 'well being' may actually serve the whole ?

cancer and virus play their part in the big picture

and evolution itself relies on the death and quick cycling of its individual life form components , to make the species better, so the individual is better . . . . but in the 'big picture' .

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Don't programmers have to see it from 'the outside' .... where a seeming 'flaw' for a component's 'well being' may actually serve the whole ?

Huh. Well, that's an interesting question. Generally speaking, though, when a programmer is developing a piece of software they want the code to work as efficiently as possible... they work from the "inside" (i.e. developing the actual code) so that the exterior works efficiently, (i.e. graphical user interfaces). If there is a "flaw" in the code then the program simply won't compile, or it will compile and result in something like a "loop" that iterates ad infinitum (or at least until the computer runs out of memory) or some other kind of wacky behaviour. Cancer is sort of like an endless loop... the cells just continuously replicate themselves like an infinite loop just continuously iterates.

and evolution itself relies on the death and quick cycling of its individual life form components , to make the species better, so the individual is better . . . . but in the 'big picture' .

I see what you mean, and that's an interesting point... but what about heredity? What if a particular type of cancer is passed on from one generation to the next and becomes so widespread so as to result in unfavourable physiological mutations in the species as a whole? It could work as an advantage, but alternatively it could work as a disadvantage. I think if there were a programmer then the program would be designed in such a way so as to ensure all subsequent mutations were favourable versus unfavourable.

It is definitely some interesting stuff to think about it, but from a programmer's perspective it just doesn't make sense to me, logically.

[Elsupremo]

I didn't, really. It was silly. I'm not sure why you thought my response indicated otherwise.

I'm in Seattle, I thought your avatar was smiling from down here, sorry.

[Codenwarra]

Which religion? There are something like a billion Hindus and they have their own creation myths, which do not resemble the Judaeo - Christian - Islamic one. Then there are those of Norse religions, the Japanese and so and on it goes. Now if you want to be specific and mean Christian religion, then all Christians are creationists by definition, but not all are young Earth creationists.

Biological evolution was not a new idea in 1859 when Darwin published and has not been since classical Greek times. The idea has occurred to an assortment of thinkers for at least 2,400 years. Aristotle considered it and rejected it. Around the year 400 CE Augustine of Hippo seems to have considered it and wrote that the Book of Genesis should not be taken too literally. It also occurred to Chinese philosophers around 2200 BCE and to a couple of learned Arabs, one got very close to Darwin's ideas about 600 years before Darwin was born.

There is a good deal of confusion between the fact of evolution and any theory of how it works. An old theory of how combustion worked was overturned by Lavoisier, but combustion still happened. Similarly whatever theory is applied to biological evolution, it remains a fact whether the theory is right, wrong or something in between.

So, what is evolution?

Since about 1939, biological evolution has been defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms. Since these changes can be detected in by observation or chemical analysis of genetic material, biological evolution as defined is a fact.

It has nothing to say about the emergence of life on Earth, the origin of the Earth or the origin of the Universe, though evolutionary ideas have been applied to some of these topics. Another thing it does not say is that evolution has to produce a new species. A population of flies remains, at least in the short term, a population of flies even though they may be genetically different from the original population. All that needs to happen is that the overall genetic makeup of the population has changed.

.

[Golden Duck]

Huh. Well, that's an interesting question. Generally speaking, though, when a programmer is developing a piece of software they want the code to work as efficiently as possible... they work from the "inside" (i.e. developing the actual code) so that the exterior works efficiently, (i.e. graphical user interfaces). If there is a "flaw" in the code then the program simply won't compile, or it will compile and result in something like a "loop" that iterates ad infinitum (or at least until the computer runs out of memory) or some other kind of wacky behaviour. Cancer is sort of like an endless loop... the cells just continuously replicate themselves like an infinite loop just continuously iterates.

I see what you mean, and that's an interesting point... but what about heredity? What if a particular type of cancer is passed on from one generation to the next and becomes so widespread so as to result in unfavourable physiological mutations in the species as a whole? It could work as an advantage, but alternatively it could work as a disadvantage. I think if there were a programmer then the program would be designed in such a way so as to ensure all subsequent mutations were favourable versus unfavourable.

It is definitely some interesting stuff to think about it, but from a programmer's perspective it just doesn't make sense to me, logically.

Any program still needs to be implemented on hardware

[Elsupremo]

The great showman "P. T. Barnum" summed it all up about any, and all beliefs, scientific or religious. "There's a sucker born every minute". Which must have been pretty hard on Mrs. Barnum.

[ShadowSot]

The great showman "P. T. Barnum" summed it all up about any, and all beliefs, scientific or religious. "There's a sucker born every minute". Which must have been pretty hard on Mrs. Barnum.

Bit hard to be a suckered in science. Your computer works, regardless of whether you believe in it.

[back to earth]

Huh. Well, that's an interesting question. Generally speaking, though, when a programmer is developing a piece of software they want the code to work as efficiently as possible... they work from the "inside" (i.e. developing the actual code) so that the exterior works efficiently, (i.e. graphical user interfaces). If there is a "flaw" in the code then the program simply won't compile, or it will compile and result in something like a "loop" that iterates ad infinitum (or at least until the computer runs out of memory)

Ahhh ..... sounds like Mr you know who

or some other kind of wacky behaviour. Cancer is sort of like an endless loop... the cells just continuously replicate themselves like an infinite loop just continuously iterates.

I see what you mean, and that's an interesting point... but what about heredity? What if a particular type of cancer is passed on from one generation to the next and becomes so widespread so as to result in unfavourable physiological mutations in the species as a whole?

It dies. Evolution virtually relies on death to make new gaps appear for new individuals and species.

It could work as an advantage, but alternatively it could work as a disadvantage. I think if there were a programmer then the program would be designed in such a way so as to ensure all subsequent mutations were favourable versus unfavourable.

favourable versus unfavourable. to who ? - thats mainly my point , a computer program might not be a good example ?

It is definitely some interesting stuff to think about it, but from a programmer's perspective it just doesn't make sense to me, logically.

Yes, but some researchers see cancer as the systems defence against cells aging too much . . . its complex and I cant remember the details. I guess I am coming more from this position :

Environmental 'save the Earth' programme ? Pffft .... 'the Earth' can exist in many forms, even one like Mars, and maybe better off without us ( ie. 'the Earth's perspective' ) .

Environmental ' save the environment so it stays at a level where I am most comfortable and delighted by it ' ? program - ( current human perspective )

'get rid of the people' movement ? (current animal perspective ..... except for the cats. )

A ' natural plague' doesn't actually wipe out the species it feeds on, that would be self defeating ..... the problem comes when it mutates from being associated with one life form to effect another . But even that dynamic might play its part ?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1. Here is a logical non- Darwinian conclusion from current beliefs about man's development that will lead logically to the conclusion that not only did women create religion, but science as well. As hunter gatherers we as a spieces it is taught, assigned hunting to men and gathering eatable plants to women. Having to test new varieties of plants would be a dangerous undertaking. Poisoning could occur, so it seems logical that the old women who were past child bearing age would have this job. Eating very small samples at first to test the effect. What do you suppose happen when they tested a hallucinogenic plant. Shamanism was born. Europe had its wise old women who were killed by the Inquisition as witches. Now many scholars agree that religion evolved out of shamanism which relies heavily upon drugs for communion with the Diety. Now a least one scholar believes that kingship also evolved out of shamanism, that being the author of "The Golden Bough" his name escapes me. So it follows logically that since women were dealing with chemicals like plant matter, mixing and measuring amounts so as not poison themselves discovered medicine and developed what was called alchemy which today is called chemistry. Now if kingship evolved out shamanism then the first Kings were Queens. I won't belabor this point so as not to warp your young mind. So with women as the first shamans I wonder what they would say God looked like? She was probably a woman. So now here we are with women as Kings, Shamans and goddesses. I could go on all day about the logical conclusions but consider this. You are a socalled cave man and having never seen animals give birth because you are still hunting and not farming yet. You notice that one day your mate has grown so fat that the other women have to help her walk into the women's hut and many hours later she comes out holding something that she didn't go in there with, a baby. She has created life,something out nothing. You fall down and worship her, because you are an idiot, and she knows it.

First, where are you getting this information?? Do have some place, some site, that just will show us the same information you just gave here?

Second, ( I am noting the female worshipping, ) but there are some things, that I don't think are really to the point. I'm not sure if you realize how ruling a kingdom is usually reserved for men. Yeah, there were some, but most of the time, the ruling crown was usually passed down to the male line. Women, I would see, were usually pawns. My take.

This bit might give an example of male preference reigns. http://www.historytoday.com/helen-castor/elizabeth-i-exception-rule

And thing is, and I'm probably echoing NW here, but what the point on women and them being used for ruling or testing or what have you? Is this connected?

I know many that believe both, they just see God as the 'programmer', he wrote the program , set it off and then it all ran itself. He just sits back and watches .... out of curiosity .

Kind of him in his lab coat screaming, "They're alive!! "they're alive!!!"

[back to earth]

[Likely Guy]

I haven't addressed the topic yet.

Religion and science are not intrinsically opposed, I think.

The presuppositions underlying both don't agree, but there is no reason a religious person would not make a good science or have an appreciation for it. Certainly many scientists who are religious look at science as understanding their god's magnificence...

Exactly.

Gallileo said the sun didn't orbit the earth and got crapped on for it. Now, all these hundreds of years later the Vatican installed an observatory and gave Gallileo an, "Oops, my bad".

[ShadowSot]

Well, to be fair he did call the Pope an idiot while being funded by the church.

Not a great point in their defense, but it didn't help him.

Edit: Just noticed my phone corrected Darwin to Darling in post 21.

I do not usually refer to Darwin that way, I have no special care for him.

He never wrote me back anyway...

Edited March 8, 2016 by shadowsot

[psyche101]

What flaws ?

How about the laryngeal nerve of the Giraffe? It is not efficient by any means, and an obvious product of evolution as opposed to ID.

[back to earth]

ummm thats one time I dont want to watch the vid evidence

SO I will take your word for it .

[psyche101]

Darwin was a great scientist and thinker, or was he?

Yes he was.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers between the sexes is shown by man attaining a higher eminence in what ever he takes up than can women. Whether requiring deep thought, reason or imagination or merely the use of the senses or hands, the average of mental powers in man must be above that in woman." Descent Of Man by Charles Darwin, page 586

Those common Victorian values also made him a loving caring father, and sensitive to others, including "exhausted women".

This idiot even failed to see the obvious superiority of the woman.

He was not an idiot by any means, and nobody is superior, that is a false superiority complex you have there, people are what they make of themselves, men and women alike.

Evilution will start you on road to eugenics, sexism and racism.

What absolute nonsense. Sounds like Church teachings vilifying Darwin for showing the Adam and Eve story was bunkum.

[psyche101]

ummm thats one time I dont want to watch the vid evidence

SO I will take your word for it .

LOL, no worries, it is from a great series called Inside Nature's Giants, Joy (with Dawkins there) does most of the hard work, Dawkins just does some narratives here and there, they cut up all types of Megafauna and autopsy them. Kangaroo, Racehorse, couple of whales, Lion and Tiger, there is quite a few animals that either die from natural causes or are part of a controlled cull.

Really neat show. Very informative. Growing up on a farm, butchering animals does not affect me, but I saw a show on the ABC where they cut up human cadavers, that one sent me a bit queasy.