Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin's Debt to Christianity
no1nose
Junior Member (Idle past 5748 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 1 of 56 (470683)
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


Many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity. But in many ways the ideas of evolution parallel that of Christianity. For example both Evolution and Christianity have transformation as a central theme. For Christianity it is the transformation of the inner person and for evolution it the change of the outer person. While the two focus on different things they are both still talking about changing what we are.
Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival. The themes of transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members for the species to be changed. Even in this Evolution parallels Christianity. For while Jesus did not have children - the spiritual "genes" of his identity are in billions of people making him the most “imitated” person to have ever lived.
So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. It seems unlikely that Darwin would have developed his theory if he had not lived in a Christian society or had he not trained to be a clergyman. His interest may have been in the natural world but his training was in medicine and then divinity. His theory did not come out of a vacuum but adapted what he already knew, Darwin barrowed heavily from a Christian worldview for his theory which is basically a Christian framework with new names.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-12-2008 3:13 AM no1nose has replied
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 06-12-2008 10:59 AM no1nose has replied
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 06-12-2008 11:44 AM no1nose has not replied
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 06-12-2008 12:21 PM no1nose has not replied
 Message 12 by Fosdick, posted 06-12-2008 12:48 PM no1nose has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 06-12-2008 7:18 PM no1nose has not replied
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 12:19 AM no1nose has not replied
 Message 24 by tesla, posted 06-14-2008 12:37 AM no1nose has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 56 (470727)
06-12-2008 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by no1nose
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


On hold for later consideration
Googling "no1nose" indicates that you really get around.
Your message 1 is not of clear promotable nature.
I suggest you first get involved in existing topics for a while. Then we perhaps can get back to this thing later.
Input from other admins welcome.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by no1nose, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM no1nose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by no1nose, posted 06-12-2008 4:22 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
no1nose
Junior Member (Idle past 5748 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 3 of 56 (470732)
06-12-2008 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
06-12-2008 3:13 AM


Re: On hold for later consideration
Hi
Yes, I have made posts lately on about 6 sites. I haven't tried to hide this as I don't think that this is a bad thing. Some people have something they want to say and I am one of those at the moment. While others prefer to react to other people's contrubitions. I have put forward a different view on Darwin and would like to test it in the open forum which could be helpful to everyone. I hope that at some point you will reconsider my post and let it go forward.
Edited by no1nose, : grammar error

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-12-2008 3:13 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-12-2008 9:03 AM no1nose has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 56 (470742)
06-12-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by no1nose
06-12-2008 4:22 AM


Re: On hold for later consideration
I think your thread proposal is very intriguing, so I'll promote it and we'll see if it draws any attention.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by no1nose, posted 06-12-2008 4:22 AM no1nose has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 5 of 56 (470743)
06-12-2008 9:04 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 6 of 56 (470750)
06-12-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by no1nose
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


The similarity between xian belief and evolution are easy to see after the fact.
You could do the same with a virus: seeing xian thought as a virus that spreads via a host (and indead needs a host to carry on) would seem to cover all the bases.
I think if you look hard enough you can see anything in anything.
I remember hearing about a film once that cut from colour to black and white half way through: it was praised for it's avante guarde approach to film making and critics drew rich parallels with this and that only to find that the director ran out of cash and had to film in on cheaper b/w film.
The moral? We see what we want to see.
Science is not like that (or at least it has stringent checks that eventually weed out wishfull thinking).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by no1nose, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM no1nose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by no1nose, posted 06-12-2008 4:01 PM Larni has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 56 (470754)
06-12-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by no1nose
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


During my undergrad years, I took some literature and creative writing classes with English majors. What amazed and amused me was that English majors could come up with so much bullshit and draw so many imaginary lines connecting completely unrelated things. Are you an English major by any chance? Or are you applying to be one of our resident crackpots?

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by no1nose, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM no1nose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Fosdick, posted 06-12-2008 11:52 AM Taz has replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 8 of 56 (470755)
06-12-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
06-12-2008 11:44 AM


Crackpots and creative writing
Taz writes:
During my undergrad years, I took some literature and creative writing classes with English majors. What amazed and amused me was that English majors could come up with so much bullshit and draw so many imaginary lines connecting completely unrelated things. Are you an English major by any chance? Or are you applying to be one of our resident crackpots?
Makes me wonder what you were expecting from your creative writing classes.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 06-12-2008 11:44 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 06-12-2008 12:10 PM Fosdick has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 56 (470759)
06-12-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Fosdick
06-12-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Crackpots and creative writing
Hoot Mon writes:
Makes me wonder what you were expecting from your creative writing classes.
At the time I was still a history major so some of those writing classes were required and some I thought would help me. It wasn't later on that it occured to me that I had to make up bullshit to past those classes.
Creative = bullshit?

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Fosdick, posted 06-12-2008 11:52 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Fosdick, posted 06-12-2008 12:39 PM Taz has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 56 (470760)
06-12-2008 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by no1nose
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


Darwin barrowed heavily..
Got to get those library books home somehow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by no1nose, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM no1nose has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 11 of 56 (470763)
06-12-2008 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
06-12-2008 12:10 PM


Re: Crackpots and creative writing
[qs=Taz]It wasn't later on that it occured to me that I had to make up bullshit to pas[s] those classes.[/qs] Sometimes, when you write fiction, you have to make up stuff.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 06-12-2008 12:10 PM Taz has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 12 of 56 (470764)
06-12-2008 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by no1nose
06-11-2008 10:14 PM


no1nose writes:
In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution the redeemer is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous and leads the way to survival.
I like this comparison. Would you suppose then that "the one member" could be a gene instead of an individual, as Dawkins has argued?
I could see genes as being "the saving grace" for any population that avoids extinction by evolving.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by no1nose, posted 06-11-2008 10:14 PM no1nose has not replied

  
no1nose
Junior Member (Idle past 5748 days)
Posts: 29
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 13 of 56 (470779)
06-12-2008 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Larni
06-12-2008 10:59 AM


The moral? We see what we want to see.
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Both relativy and quantum desirbe the physical world with great precision but they are contra intuitive and seemingly implausible. The reason why it is so hard to get our heads around quantum mechanics or relativity is that our thinking process takes place in a different “space” than the actions in the world around us. Crudely put, it is like trying to stuff a three dimensional object into a two dimensional space. Information from the world around us comes into the brain from our senses where “who knows what” happens to convert a four dimensional world into a mind’s image of that world. Because our minds are working with images and not the real thing we will never fully grasp the natural world in our minds. And for this reason any real descriptions of the world around will always seem contra intuitive to our reasoning process.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world. It is something that exists only as images in our mind. It is a nothing more than a world view. And like some sociopath among Theories it has a sullied history associated with it. Mankind has a history of adopting world views that seem laughable in retrospect and I believe that this is just another episode of that scenario. As knowledge increases the Theory of Evolution will seem less and less relevant.
Off-topic? Sure seems such to me. But then I didn't like message 1. People, I suggest ignoring this one, and focus on the content of message 1. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See red block.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Larni, posted 06-12-2008 10:59 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Coyote, posted 06-12-2008 4:06 PM no1nose has not replied
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 06-12-2008 4:15 PM no1nose has not replied
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 06-13-2008 3:57 AM no1nose has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 14 of 56 (470780)
06-12-2008 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by no1nose
06-12-2008 4:01 PM


no1nose writes:
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world.
Normally in science we consider this a benefit, rather than a problem.
There must be some other reason you are having problems with the theory of evolution than that it is logical and plausible. That would be counterintuitive.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by no1nose, posted 06-12-2008 4:01 PM no1nose has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 15 of 56 (470781)
06-12-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by no1nose
06-12-2008 4:01 PM


Evolutionary Intuition
My suspicions about evolution began when I was studying relativity and quantum mechanics.
The problem I have with the Theory of Evolution is that it is not at all contra intuitive. It is too plausible, too logical to be an accurate description of the natural world.
Well an argument of credulity is a genuinely different angle!!
I would suggest that quantum mechanics and relativity are counter intuitive exactly because they only become practically relevant at scales and speeds that our evolutionary ancestors never encountered. Thus we never evolved either the sensory equipment or the ability to truly comprehend such phenomenon.
Evolution on the other hand can be understood, even if not directly witnessed in all it's glory, despite our inherited sensory and perceptive limitations.
In short the reason that certain aspects of physics are so counter-intuitive is exactly because of evolution and that fact that we are evolved creatures.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by no1nose, posted 06-12-2008 4:01 PM no1nose has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024