|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A personal question | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delshad Inactive Member |
In the Quran, there is a ayat stating" ... what!, you speak of what you do not know..".
Hence Im afraid of making any hasty conclusions of Allah`s intentions or His ways of creation. But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence. Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning. Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure. Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test. The reason I started the topic was mainly to bring the debate to another level, Evolution Vs creation shouldnt only be a scientific issue, it should include the social aspects of the views as well.For example, is it really in our nature as humans to feel related to animals, it has only been a litle more than a century since Darwin made the theory but humans have been around alot longer and it wouldn`t be so strange if our psycological and spiritual characters and our social structure as well dont coincide with that theory, what do you think? Sincerely Delshad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Irrelevant. That isn't what evolution is about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Again, not only are we related to animals we are animals. "spiritual characters"? All this is is our need to find answers to questions, but otherwisw it is totally meaningless and doesn't exist in the real world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delshad Inactive Member |
Anyone else besides Nos482 that care to discuss (not that I dont value his replies but he doesnt feel to happy about bringing the scientific issue at a more social and philosophical level).
Sincerely Delshad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Any evolutionary views that Delshad or anyone else might have that are unsupported by evidence, such as divine intervention, are unscientific and not part of the theory of evolution. An evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory of evolution. Any person who's evolutionary views include supernatural causes would be grouped among the Creationists.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
So, Percy, where does that leave the theistic evolutionists?
I certainly think one could have a religious faith, that somehow God was involved in the path evolution took, and still be a full blown evolutionist. It's a matter of if one keeps ones science and religion separate, or if one lets ones science and religion blend. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: That is because they are irrelevant to science. When you bring such things in to hard science you usually get nonsense like pseudo-science which tries to appeal to public opinion. [This message has been edited by nos482, 10-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I guess it leaves them looking for evidence!
By the way, my religious persona believes just as you described, that God was involved in the evolution of the universe, of life, and of man himself. If that persona begun contributing here, in my view he would be a Creationist. It is also as you describe that my religious and scientific personas are separate, never confused. I take a scientific approach to the natural world, and a spiritual approach to the supernatural world. It would be wonderful to find natural evidence of the supernatural world and bring the two together, but I'm not expecting it to happen. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
So, Percy, where does that leave the theistic evolutionists? That they don't fully understand what evolution is about. It is not its purpose to include how it all got started, so adding GODDIDIT is irrelevant. It's a matter of if one keeps ones science and religion separate, or if one lets ones science and religion blend. Those who try to blend science and religion usually get nonsense like creationism. And the other is called compartmentalization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Percy
We are showing that it is possible that the data shows this. You don't agree but we believe the data does demonstrate exactly what you think it doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Delshad
You are wondering whether pschologically and spiritually we have begun to think of ourselves as related to animals in parallel, or because of, Darwinism. The answer would probably be yes and no. Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind. I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population. What interests you about your question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delshad Inactive Member |
Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base
Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge. Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact. Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact. Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction. Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans. And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: And you are wrong. You want to see what isn't actually there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind. Irrelevant. I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. Dogma? What dogma? At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Large minority? That's an oxymoron. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population. Please, you're the one who is "brain"washed by your religious dogma. Science doesn't actually care if you believe or not since it is not solely based on belief itself as your's is. Without belief your god is nothing since there is nothing else. Even if people stop believing in gravity they are still going to be walking around instead of floating. Ignorance makes gods, science destroys ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Delshad:
Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge. Where did you hear this? Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness, nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed. ??? Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact. The survival instinct is hazardous to our health? Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child. Negative mind? It is neither positive nor negative. They don't let such things cloud their judgement. If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction. What? An infant is not born with a fully formed mind. It is still operating on instinct. Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure. Babble. Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans. Science is a method and not a belief. And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts. Pseudo-science makes the same assertions as well. There is a difference between good facts and the ones which those who believe in pseudo-science use. The best lie uses just enough truth to make it look real.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024