Dear Ziad

This is tough. Intelligent design is raising a lot of interest in USA and to a great extent that is supported through people who are more religiously minded. Though for the time being evolution is still accepted by academicians, there is a sizable population that still thinks God is at the center and responsible for the intelligent design. It is thus difficult for religion to accept pure evolution without God interfering at some stage. So I think this debate will go on.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2014/02/05/the-nye-ham-debate-on-evolution-a-roundup/

Dear Nageswara:

Thanks for your comment and for sharing this interesting roundup on the Nye-Ham debate on evolution.

Thanks Abdalla for your interesting comment.

Very nice picture - Do you have more information on it?

@Abdalla,

I hope you are joking with your picture and especially with your comment!

Humans are supposed to be the greatest but not the largest.

Dear Abdalla:

I did some search subsequent to your comment and I found the picture below. I guess I have some fun reading to do regarding the subject matter of giant skeletons. How authentic are they?

Thanks!

It is a hoax. Please see NG article about it in 2007.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-giant-skeleton.html

From a biological point of view, are you all specialists in genetics and comparative analyses across species (millions of literature sources)? Biological humans share many characteristics with other biology-based living beings on Earth....

Possible scales of analysis each having specific levels of functioning: cell, tissue, organ, individual, population, community, biology, religion.... The rules at one level differ from the rules at other levels

Dear Abdalla,

If we accept that humans belong to nature, nature and its multiple expressions is responsible for the selection process that account for the evolutionary transition from a motorbike towards a car also accepting that we know the historical details of the process. The key question then is: what are the underlying forces that guided the evolutionary selection process. If people get ideas and are inspired to construct a bike or a car, what are the underlying (mental/spiritual) forces and its environmental influences?

In the entire recorded history of mankind, human beings are described as those seen today without any changes in their body structure. Is anyone aware of any evolution in anatomical design of human body? Religiously speaking their are 8.4 million species and any other design should not be confused with that of human beings. If the evolution process is on, we have a right to be aware of at least the least change in human design.

Thanks Marcel, a strong question that could attract many responses which at some point may conflict on the boarder of science and religion.

Dear Shanker,

there are many more species if you also take all the undiscovered marine species and micro-organisms into account. I am sure that in your house or garden there are micro-organisms that have not been scientifically discovered.

Dear Hussin,

For me there is no conflict. The biological and spiritual world just act at different scales of analysis and perception.

To stimulate more discussion:

If there is evolution at the biological level (there is!) and if there is connectivity between the biological level and the spiritual level (e.g. in the framework of reincarnation), this would logically imply that there is also evolution at the spiritual level.

You are right, however, we will also stay alert, since religiously not all major religions believe in reincarnation. As well there are also many who believe that the moving motivation behind the occurrence of evolution with all its mighty scientific sense is that mystical force behind every thing, labeled as God.

Dear Hussin,

I truly believe in (and perceive) mystical forces that cannot simply be explained from a scientific point of view, but I also think it is perhaps a waste of time to discuss origins of life from a religion point of view. Religions provide very constructive guidelines for living together, which does not truly require discussions about origin of life. On the other hand, humans are curious and wish to understand how the world functions and evolves.

Some remarks as a scientist to stimulate more discussion:

1) I have seen the oldest bird fossils in China more than 10 years ago of which estimates exceed several 10 millions of years old. I was truly surprised that the plumage structures printed in the stone layers are very similar to the avian plumage structures observed in modern birds. This implies that biological structures can be preserved for millions of years.

2) According to molecular and evolutionary biologists insects and humans share genes, and thus proteins that can easily be verified with chemical analyses. The structure of testosterone is shared by human and non-human organisms.... etc.

Some remarks from someone with 'spiritual' experiences:

1) When I support poor people I do not know I feel a strong energy field around my body. Depending on the circumstances the field is experienced around my head, around my legs or my whole body. These personal experiences cannot be perceived by the people to which I talk, but there is a relationship between these personal experiences and the social environment. How do you explain this from a Darwinian evolution point of view? etc.

Discussions stopped? Why?

If I may venture an answer Marcel - I don't quite understand why we should try to reconcile Darwinian evolution with religious 'teaching' in the first place. I don't understand the point. Science works through hypothesis/corroboration. Religion works through ukase affirmations. Why should we then in principle attempt to reconcile these ?

There is also no proof whatsoever that a godhead or spirituality or whatever is actually true at the heart of mankind's spiritual experience has anything to do with formalized, ritualized religions. The world has seen thousands of religions come and pass, each one affirming loud that they are the only true one. Why should we arbitrarily pick one or two and try to 'reconcile' it with science?

Why is it that some members of mankind feel the need to co-opt spirituality and spiritual experiences and formalize them into arbitrary strictures? Do we truly believe that a godhead is somehow in need of hymns sung by mortals, of mortals doing certain things or dressing or behaving in a certain way? It's all a bit odd. This would seem to detract from godhood. Why would not any putative infinite godhead have a laissez-faire attitude towards lesser realms? Just asking.

Right Marcel, that is what I said. There are as many as 8.4 million species and if we start counting those known to us (whether seen by us or not), we may at best reach a few hundreds. Therefore, any resemblance with any of the other species (like monkeys or the like) should not be confused with human beings.

Dear Marcel,

When you help someone, you get an inner feeling of happiness and self-satisfaction within yourself. You prove to yourself that you are worth something and do possess a competence to do good to others in, at least, some circumstances rather than always expecting favors for yourself from other competent people. This self-satisfaction as well as happiness coupled with the gratitude displayed by the recipient of your help, boosts your spirit thereby raising your confidence level. This confidence is reflected in your behavior and is felt by you as well as others as an energised aura around your existence. The recognition of this aura by the people around you further raises your spirits/confidence/satisfaction and the feelings experienced/expressed by you.

Interesting discussion! I would like to share a video by "Ben Stein".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is a movie about the freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheism and Darwinism in the USA.

Dear Islam,

Ants probably do not know that human-made televisions exist, but they exist. Humans are like ants, but at another scale of perception. Humans, like ants, are confronted with perception constraints resulting in biased visions of the world.

For discussion:

If there is a physical force involved in the creation of humans (and other living beings) and their abilities how to perceive the world, why did that force create humans with perception constraints also causing human diversity in the understanding of the functioning of the world? As H. Chris nicely wrote: Why do we need so much diversity in religious thinking and its dynamics?

Is religion guiding ways of living related to the environment where it was founded? For instance, some religions state you cannot eat swine meat, simply because in some regions there was a higher risk to become sick from eating swine meat at the time the religion was founded. A scientist might argue that in southern regions risks of being contaminated by swine meat is substantially higher because of lower sanitary standards and local weather factors. Why should this rule of not eating swine meat be applied in the North where there are no contamination risks? In addition, many people from India do not eat meat because they think there is a continuum between human and non-human living beings in the Karma related reincarnation process. ...

Dear Dr Marcel,

I like your systematic way of explanation and agree with some of your nice words. But isn't strange to have the perception and the huge diversity in the humans and other species after a period of childhood? In other words, the species must pass with these stages; embryo with no perception, young gains perception, adult gains perception, behaves and thinks differently, and then becomes aged accompanied with loss of perception then die. The death is the fate of every species, so if the nature controls and selects who will live inside it, why didn't give the life forever? The species exist for a job in a very limited time then will die. I think it is a big fact we have to think about. This debate exists thousands/millions of years ago and will continue as long as we perceive and think.

As far as i know this debate is raging across many countries, evolution versus creation. True that we have hundreds of religions that have been forgotten, even if they lasted for centuries. Also true, that we have scientific theories that were rendered obsolete or proven wrong after being considered to be true an proven facts.

I don't think science opposes religion, and certainly does not replace-it in terms of social and psychological role in human existence. Science does not provide social values, while religion does. Without social values, especially the ones found in most religions, the very core of a society is corrupted and doomed.

What i believe it would be wrong is the dismissal of the individual choice of thought. Children and parents should be allowed to choose for themselves. Personally i would choose for my children to learn both.

Dear Islam,

I do not know enough from the world to confirm what you claim. In my biology-based life of today I do not know exactly when perception starts and stops. Some people claim they communicate with ghosts.... I will never decide for others how they should feel or what they are able to perceive.

Dear all,

Out of the border of religious thinking. Scientists have categorized thousands or may be millions of species, and there are other thousands or millions of species from different dimensions scales not known and not categorized yet . Human kind is the only creature who has the intelligence of curiosity of understanding and discovering nature and his environment when other species have only follow their same ritual lives during ages. This statement guides us to differentiate human kind from other creatures, consequently human couldn't evolve from any animal specie . However the evolution theory is true in its approach of cells differentiation and multiplication, but the first nucleon of the cell couldn't evolves from nothing if it is not created with the life in it, that lets it differentiate and grow in the right way (ie the human cell evolves in a human cell when an insect x cell evolves into insect x cell, the same for different species of animals, plants and microorganisms, which means that the genetics of each are quiet different.

If the first nucleon of life couldn't be generated by any process from evolution or hazard, this means that it could be only created by a creator, with a scheduling program in it from life duration, biology organization, basic instinct of survival and reproduction, and may be destiny for human kind. Religions are addressed to human kind for social organization and interaction behavior as well for helping human to develop their knowledge. So science and religions couldn't be in oppose, even for evolution theory which is true in some sense and not in another as any theory.

Dear Marcel, a agree with you that some people have ability to discuss with some ghosts, i don't know how they do it. But i think that they are much close to a Satan psychology and work. Without their mixture of poison like, they couldn't have this kind of interaction!!!

Dear Fairouz,

And then people can ask 'Who or what created a creator?' What happened before the big bang instance? Etc. That's why I don't waste my time on thinking about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. Life is here, it's (or can be) fantastic, we perceive some aspects, and there is much that is hidden waiting to be discovered... .

Yes Marcel, human are free to ask all questions that they could solve or understand. But with our limited intelligence and knowledge on many things and our ignorance of many other things, we need to believe in something logical, safe and great. Who has this capacity of creation of multiple creatures with different intelligences in earth , may be in universe too, who is able to put a scheduling for each and who is able to give life, destiny, knowledge .. This is God and only one, because if there were several, or one created the creator then who created the one who created the creator ....etc becomes unsolvable question, and sure that competitions could have arisen between them for the eternity purpose of the earth, the universe, the life ...etc..; very philosophical question dear Marcel

I'm very surprised by your personal experiences Marcel. I'm not specialized in psychology, i think that your 'dreams' are more close to imaginary purpose. Human are able to imagine lot of pictures, may be you have a fecund imagination which could help you write some stories in roman format. Why not??

For me i have experienced some people who are able to tell some connotations with their lisps to some ghosts, but those are surely experts on sorcerer and satanist works with the use of some mixtures that they put in the room corners, in the sanitary (i don't know why), in papers, in telephones and different objects of daily life of the person they need hurt ??? but when their dirty work is cleaned or washed up with water, they loose their abilities

Dear Fairouz,

Words are not sufficient to describe what I perceive, also during the day, and as a very critical scientist I have the impression it's more than just imagination.

By the way, people like yogi or Buddhists claim they can leave their biological body to explore other dimensions. Here again I don't see how selfish natural selection maximizing biology-based reproductive output can favour these mental or spiritual abilities from Buddhists.

Cheers

From a scientific point of view, you need only one person out of a billion or more people that do not need special stuff to perceive mystic dimensions, and the phenomenon physically exists, despite that perhaps >99.9% that describe such phenomena have fake or imaginary experiences and despite the fact that scientists do not have access to these dimensions.... .

Dears Nageswara, Abdalla, Hanno, Hussin, H Chris, Shanker, Islam, Bradut, Fairouz, and Marcel - Thank you for this beautiful debate!

Keep it going!!!

For more discussion (?):

What fraction of the evolutionary biologists are open to existence of spiritual forces?

What fraction of the evolutionary biologists that believe in the existence of spiritual forces do not want to talk about this, and if so why? Do you think it's a waste of time to talk about aspects that are not accessible to ordinary science approaches, just like trying to explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe? Why are theoreticians in Physics paid to develop theories about dimensions that are not accessible to empirical research (e.g. how to go back in time, how to go rapidly from one universe through another universe via a white hole)? Why are there so many people on Earth that believe in spiritual forces? Why are there so many people that claim they have or had unusual spiritual experiences (are they all mentally sick?)?

Dear Marcel, i think that you need practice Yogi, may be it could be for a good help for you. Yes you are wright that some people could have extra perception. We are surprised with the abilities of some people from Asia, Africa and from the world doing with their bodies lot of unusual things only with their mental concentration. But those are very few people in Guinness book

The spiritual force of a human is his mental cognitive ability and force to get knowledge, to use knowledge, to produce knowledge for the benefit of science and human kind. This good knowledge leads to wisdom. Is the knowledge from how preparing a satanic mixture for bad doing or hurting an adverser a good knowledge that could help human for better life, for better development, for better mastering nature or his environment, for more self happiness ??? sure no!!, it is a waste of time and finally a poison for who prepares and uses it.

Dear Fairouz,

As you say: there are very few people in Guinness book... but you need only 1 for an unusual phenomenon to exist.... and there have been billions of people on Earth of which each scientist 'knows' only a couple of individuals (family, neighbours, colleagues...) in a very biased perception environment (house, garden, working place)... . And if we claim we know other people, how often do we personally interact with them per day, per week, per month, per year, etc... and in what manner?

I don't know Marcel I'm not specialized in psychoanalysis; personally i don't meet with these persons, but i met many greedy people (or payed for) who use close milieu home, working place, car, etc.. for doing bad in the purpose of hurting a special person (in Arabic language it is called 'sihr') which couldn't be translated in English word magic but the more appropriate translation is satanism

Dear Fairouz,

I always try to understand why people are doing what they are doing. I learnt not to be sensitive to people that deliberately do egocentric actions towards me, especially when I know the reasons why they are doing that. I also can understand that someone can have a 'good' or a 'bad' day. People are often involved in a complex social network, of which we often know less than 1%, so how judging behaviour of others in these conditions?

And to make a link with 'unusual' feelings during the day:

- When I am in front of someone that needs help, whatever the status, there is a strong energy field around my body;

- When I see someone falling down, I feel a biological organ probably because of oversensitivity of one of my neuroendocrine axes;

- When there are potential problems I feel the action of the brain on the front of my head at the place where Indian women paint a dot (e.g. sign of responsibility)?

These are personal empirical observations of biological expressions of my own body that are linked with changes in the social environment or the perceived social environment.

No Marcel i'm not judging behavior of others; everyday we could meet with good or bad day people, we could distinguish egocentric people or only naturally bad people, and we could or not pay attention to them. People are complex as the life is, we have to do with. My posts follow your comments where i tried to give my opinions on very special and bad experiences that arisen to me from some people (some unknown from me) which gets me understand at what limit some people are able to focus on a person only for destructing her. Those are able to contract agreements even with Evil 'evil is part of them'

Excellent discussion. Well Marcel, as I read through, you are indeed a gifted man, with sensitive aura able to interact with your environment in a beautiful way. I do know other people like you and I am happy to hear you sharing your gift experiencing those special moments of pure human interaction.

I believe that God has given special gifts to each and every one of us and we use those gifts in different ways. Many people interact with their surroundings with high sensitivity that sometimes elevate them to a higher hierarchy of spirituality. What is important is not to immediately judge but to study the phenomena and bring the reason to it if possible.

What Ziad put in front of us is a debate-able argument, that will never, bring scientists to religious people on equal par simply because of the differences of looking and believing in things around them. With all this ongoing, I use my rationality and judgement supported by my own beliefs, religiously based or not.

I think you read about the Black Swan concept. Everything is possible within the realm of the impossible.

Ziad,

I believe that your question reduces to one that is probing the question of science vs Religion as a methodology for understanding the world we live in. Some religious theory on creation is based on mythology and depends, in majority, if not in total on the faith of the individual devotees of that religion to accept the teaching as truth.

Scientific method is based on hypothesis, and evidence to corroborate or disprove the hypothesis. Because of the differences in these two approaches, along with the deeply sensitive nature of religion, attempts to reconcile the two are filled with many challenges. This is made even more difficult when we see that there are scientists who are religious, and people who are religious that understand the teachings of science.

Understanding how we perceive science and religion with respect to understanding our world may provide some context to give a good response, but of course will require some work just to get a wider array of these perspectives. In some cases we view religion and science as two totally different entities. In other cases the two are seen as just different approaches to solving a problem.

So which is it? and, How can the two be reconciled?

Before even trying to tackle the problem it may be helpful to review how these disciplines perceive each other. Because many people in this forum are scientists, engineers I would suggest that reviewing how science is perceived by various religious schools of thought would be appropriate.

An excellent starting point would be a book titled the Tao of Science, ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Science-Western-Knowledge/dp/0262690047)

which explores this topic from the perspective - Western Knowledge and Eastern Wisdom .

I will leave it up to readers to make their own conclusions but my perspective is that first understanding the two approaches to understanding our world is not mutually exclusive, but requires very careful thought and recognition of the parallels between the two, while at the same time understanding the limitations of these methods.

Thanks for a very thought provoking question. Its been great reading the responses from everyone.

Hi Ziad,

To use the phrasing of Darwin himself.

Religion is the domain of study and worship of people who believe in God (or Gods), typically Theology.

Biological Evolution is the domain of scientists, and the Origin of Species the start of Modern Biology.

Nobody likes a soup of Biological Theology or Theological Biology. It's a toxic mix for both of the disciplines. I tend to agree with Darwin on this! Cheers and don't mix-up science with religion or vice versa. Follow your Master (in Sciences)

Cheers,

Frank

PS.: For the creationists! They belong in paradise according to me. Everything is simple and easy there. Science is complex and difficult. And since I like challenges I am an atheist. That's logical no?

Hi Dr Frank!

We -as creationists- are ordered to think about the creation in a scientific way. Yes, you are right, science is so complex and this supports the idea of "intelligent design".

So may creationists won Nobel prize and so many prestigious awards because they serve the humanity by their scientific achievements. I cannot find any reason to make the religion and science away from each other.

The question of Dr Ziad is regarding the Darwinism, the theory that until now there is no "scientific proof" for it and tends to be a "Science Fiction" not a "Science Fact" !! But the question now is what Darwinism brings to the humanity except Fascism and Nazism and so many examples of dominance?

Regards,

Islam

May I be allowed to share my piece?

As a person, who has grown in the midst of a Catholic community, I was taught and I believe in the presence of God, on the basis of the orientation and teaching I learned and the faith that developed in me.

As a researcher, validity and reliability of data are my concern.

Are the data in Darwin's articles valid and reliable? Were they peer refereed?

Many other researchers have re-searched and Darwin's theory stood its ground to remain as a theory, and not as a hoax but has not succeeded in becoming a fact or a law.

Are the data in these religious sources valid and reliable? Were they peer-refereed? Because religious writings are closer to being popular articles than research journals, validity and reliability may not be appropriate descriptors. Faith is.

The scope and limitation involved in religion, if it is to be considered research is so wide, deep, and even unlimited for me as a researcher to comprehend, hence on the basis of validity and reliability, I cannot make a good judgment between Darwin and the religious writers.

At present, our comprehension of God may only be a speck of what He or She is hence I see conflicts between religion and Darwin. But I have faith that someday, we will have an understanding of God that will make me say "There is unison between Evolution and Creationism."

What if both God and evolution are real?

As a Christian and a scientist myself, this type of discussion has always irritated me a bit. Not that I think we should not have this discussion, but because it always (and I mean: Always!) is based on the same fallacy of the excluded middle: A) God exists, therefor evolution does not or B) evolution is real, therefor God does not exist.

God exists. At least, my experiences in life have left me convinced He does and that He takes an interest in each of us personally. However, unless you take an overly literal view of Genesis 1, that does not exclude the reality of evolution.

Evolution exists. At least, the evidence gives us some strong hints the history of the Earth includes natural selection leading to new species, to fill new niches. One could hypothesize this mechanism was purposely built into Creation to grow it, and with a guiding hand make it into us and all that is around us. I do not see any legitimate reason why God could not use evolution as a tool. A Gardener God, if you will, judicially pruning and shaping the tree of life to His desire.

Whether or not one accepts the existence of God has no rational bearing on the question of the reality of evolution. Neither does the existence of evolution prove in any rational, logically sound manner the non-existence God.

So what we have here is a battle of wits between two camps, who are both defending an indefensible statement. That could be highly enjoyable, were it not for the acrimony that seeps in so often (and is starting to here as well).

ask Richard Dawkins ;)

Dears Hussin, Dave, Frank, Eddie, Islam, Herwin, Michal, et al.:

I have been away from RG for a while so I could not follow the debate on a day-by-day basis; but, I would like to express my appreciation to the differing and valued opinions that have been expressed in this mostly sensitive topic.

@Herwin - I like your argument!

Nice way to put things Herwin. Yes, I agree keep our minds open always to look at things with supporting arguments.

By the way, thanks God you did not get a "foul" down vote by our "virtual companion" in this thread.

Marcel, your ant metaphor says it all, difficult to add any substantial.

How to reconcile evolution and religion? The same way you reconcile gravity and religion, or a round planet earth and religion.

Thanks Robert - Thanks Luiz for your nice comments.

Darwinian theory was certainly a huge step in the right direction for explaining life, but science today has gone even further in explaining life and evolution from a physical and chemical perspective. Prof. Karo Michaelian and I are currently engaged in explaining life and evolution from a thermodynamic perspective, and I can ensure you there is absolutely no need for mystical forces, only plain physics.

Thank you Aleksandar for your interesting comment - Good luck in your work!

Aleksandar, I am sure that there is, indeed, absolutely no such need.

This being said, it's not because there is no need for something that that something does not exist in some form or rendition - reality is full of such examples (beyond the obvious that you can logically demonstrate that the sentence is false.)

As Hamlet put it, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. One thing that is certain however is that all religions are man made, and that nobody but man is in need of dogmas, rites, songs, flowing dresses, miters, and the whole kit and caboodle.

Studies show a clear correlation between a higher need for religious rites and lesser IQs (Google to see the graphs). I am sure that any putative being with, by definition, an infinite IQ does not need any of this and could not care less.

There is also a clear mathematical proof that we are logically utterly unable to second-guess any godhead (In a nutshell, because of the phenomenon of emergence.

e.g. an IQ= 100 or 200 person cannot ever second-guess an infinite-IQ wight (a wight is a being) , because all kinds of unforeseeables crop up at higher and higher IQs.)

Even right-brain learning, i.e. knowledge acquired by some other means, would be inevitably filtered through the finiteness of the recipient (IQ, etc.) and hence become inevitably massively distorted (a bit like a Mercator projection, only far worse.)

As a case in point .... a true snapshot from a Church conference. Pictured is Bishop Walter Mixa. (The finger is not pointed at the pompom but is from a seat neighbour who was addressing a question during the conference.)

I rest my case. This looks inane.

A meeting of Benedict 16th with Orthodox prelates.

@Aleksandar,

could you please give an idea of what is the special way you are trying, for me Darwins adoption is already physics and chemistry, which has proved to be working in nature. What are your new ideas?

Regards

Hi Hanno,

Well, Darwins theory has a small dose of metaphysics, especially the metaphysical "will to survive" which according to the theory is the driving force behind evolution. Our approach uses non-equilibrium thermodynamics to describe the origin and evolution of life. We don't negate Darwinian theory, on the contrary, we show that it is only a special case of a much general phenomenon.

For further information please read Karo Michaelian's paper on this subject:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/37/2011/esd-2-37-2011.pdf

Regards, Alex

Dear Aleksandar,

I´ll try to understand your PDF. Thanks and regards

Dear Aleksandar,

highly interesting paper and aspects.

But in this review I read very often the world "possible". Do you have some more aspects, proofs, further scientific papers?

Hi Hanno,

Yes, you are right, the word 'possible' is frequently used because it is still an untested hypothesis. Here are some more quantitative approaches to the same issue by Prof. Karo Michaelian:

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/16/2629/2012/hess-16-2629-2012.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.5924v1.pdf

Best regards, Alex

@Aleksandar,

thanks for the prompt response. I will read the papers.

I depends on the religion:  Many religions can be very literal of their interpretation of their  "Holy works".     Hence, there is not much room for science and evolution.  However,  it has always amazed me that genesis got it scientifically correct and in right order: 1st the void, light, great waters, land,and then plants animals and humans.  Religious works have been and are written by Humans over thousands of years and handed down and translated, and therefore (human error?) will have many "mistakes" and "interpretations".  There are some more liberal religions that don't have problem with evolution.   There are also some very religious and excellent scientists who believe in evolution and "God"  (and even belong to more literal religions) and do not have problems with the two.  Who's to say that evolution wasn't "God's plan" for the continuation of life?  I don't know.  I'm not a "religious" type!

Even though some (many?), religions are "anti-evolution", they often have many excellent core human values to teach; love thy neighbor, don't kill, reverence for earth land, and other rules of ethical conduct.  Also hope, comfort, and faith, can be need by all people in bad times.  As well as great community support and charity.  The darker side of religions (or the interoperation of that religion by "people" of said Holy works!) can be; intolerance, subjugation of women, genocide, war, and unfair competitive behaviors.  I love evolutionary biology, but my husband and I are taking our 5 year old twins to church.  Our public schools do not stress ethical human values enough!  However,  I want/will teach them to believe and understand evolution and human adaptation and selection.

Dear Ziad,

What religious belief(s) do you have in mind that are to be reconciled to evolution? Put this clear so that we may not be pushed into the the pool that we can't swim!

Very interesting comments and views. I agree with my colleagues, it is a complex issue to look for reconciliation.

Heidi, I like your spirit.

S.J Goul worked on this topic... for example http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

I'm agree with almost everything that said Chris Ransford, I consider myself as an agnostic... but i think that in certain context, mainly in catholic schools or other religious, is very important do clear the relation between science (in particular evolution) and the religion, with the purpose of avoid any kind of censure. But the way to do the connections have started for many previous authors, i mean is a continuos topic of investigation in teology.. for example the pope Jhon Paul II accept the implications over the human been of the evolutionary theory, althoug view the two field as compatible

see http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

Hi all, sorry to revive a thread that might be dormant.

I am a protein chemist by training. I have studied protein sequences and what effects mutations have on their structure and function.

Natural selection is the only mechanism that can explain how a mutated protein can perform better than an unmutated protein under specific circumstances.

That is why we find enzyme structures that are heat stable/heat labile, cold stable/cold labile, etc, etc.

These enzymes are found in organisms that live in extreme conditions. Natural selection determines which mutations are beneficial for these organisms and which ones are not.

Bottom line: Religion will never define science and science will never define religion.  

@Steingrimur,

I totally agree. If we are talking about evolution, we are talking about evolution, nothing else!

Let us be fair, evolution is highly hypothetical than scientific. there some significant insights from geology but they certainly not proof many 'hypotheses' suggested by evolution. We must be aware that even the formulation of evolution theory came about through dominant presupposition of denouncing God or any Supernatural Designer. We may try to reconcile physical or scientific facts but never 'hypotheses' since they were build on weak and fake foundation.

Hi Emmanuel, in science terms, a hypothesis is never proven. Only math offers proof.

A scientific hypothesis is either supported or rejected based on evidence. Every hypothesis is continually tested when new discoveries are made.

Darwin's hypothesis about the origin of species is supported by evidence from many diverse fields of science, including biology, herpetology, chemistry, anatomy, genetics, botany, physiology, geology, ecology, physics, ornithology, entomology, embryology, anthropology, biochemistry, virology, paleontology, plate tectonics, mineralogy, etc.

To date, Darwin's hypothesis on the origin of species has only been supported by new discoveries. Plus, there is no other scientific hypothesis presented that offers a better explains the many lifeforms we find on earth better than Darwin's hypothesis.

Finally, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

Science works on this premise: "Natural explanations for natural processes". Many natural processes can be tested in the lab, but the results have to be reproducible by other scientists. This process is vital for science. If results by one scientist can't be reproduced by other scientists, they will be discarded.

Science does not deal with the supernatural because Acts of God cannot be reproduced in a controlled laboratory setting and verified by other scientists.

Again, the bottom line is: Religion will never define science and science will never define religion.

Hi Emmanuel, I forgot to add that science progresses by a process called the Scientific Method.

Here is a good description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.

(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).

(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Howdy folks,

Let's dig in history, because I have the very strong impression that many in this thread are ignorant about Darwin''s biography. Therefore folks, you should read this very revealing article:"From Wilberforce to Dawkins" by Katy Horder. Don't miss this revealing article,which goes into into the original question of this thread in depth.

And  those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it ! Saying from George Orwell.

Katy.Horder is a Writer

Favourite Darwin quote of Katy:

'A (hu)man daring to waste an hour of time did not discover the value of life'

Frank

Science and religion use different languages and are not 'comparable' or even compatible.

"Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution explain that the first life came from the accumulation of inert matter and that biodiversity is a result of random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionary theory and the principles in biology are applied directly to behavior, and they avoid psychological or cognitive level analysis. Both abiogenesis and evolution theory are outcomes of mechanistic or reductionistic thinking and that is why they cannot explain how organisms have cognitive features like thinking, feeling and willing. These concepts also do not explain how matter developed the 2 fundamental characteristics that life has (Naturzweck and bildende Kraft). Therefore, both the origin and evolution of life must be rewritten on the basis of sentience."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Hi Bhakti,

Why don't you quote Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. Founding Director

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute. http://scsiscs.org/

His writings are a rehash of old Christian creationist arguments and display stunning ignorance of biology in general and evolution in particular.

" We have never in the course of human history observed a dog give birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of plants giving rise to a population of insects, etc"

"no transitional forms have ever been observed being produced from any species in the history of mankind."

"The original idea of Darwin was based on specious reasoning only. The change in the size of bird beaks, does not indicate a drastic evolution of giraffes from zebras."

"The vast complexity of even the smallest cell shows that such organisms have no conceivable chance of ever having arisen by a random combination of chemical or biological parts. Thus advancement of science has provided more substantial evidence against evolution than ever before"

This institute is dredging up old, tired and discredited fundamentalist Christian creationist claptrap and dumping it on Hinduism.   

Bhakti, you are right that "Communicative & Integrative Biology" is a peer-reviewed journal, but you quote your "Opinion Article".

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

It is not "our article", You are the sole author.

DearSteingrimur Stefansson you are wrong. On this paper there is an interesting discussion going on: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/online_sadhu_sanga/Mcv2O-yhqLE

Hi Bhakti, Your paper was an "Opinion Article"!!

I am hoping that Research Gate is far more discerning than Google Groups when it comes to discussing science.

I have presented quotes from your director that display great ignorance. I have also questioned some of your claims. Care to elaborate?

Hi Bhakti, from a different thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Darwin_outdated_by_St_George_Mivart/1

Hi Bhakti,

"(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness."

Really? So neurology, neurobiology, etc. are just made up professions? Alzheimer's does not affect patient consciousness?  What about glioblastoma, Parkinson's, etc.

"(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities."

Really? So newborns are capable of speech and cognition? After all, they were exposed to language for 9 months as multicellular organisms.

Dear Bhakti, also, please comment on your directors writings: http://scsiscs.org/

" We have never in the course of human history observed a dog give birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of plants giving rise to a population of insects, etc"

"no transitional forms have ever been observed being produced from any species in the history of mankind."

"The original idea of Darwin was based on specious reasoning only. The change in the size of bird beaks, does not indicate a drastic evolution of giraffes from zebras."

"The vast complexity of even the smallest cell shows that such organisms have no conceivable chance of ever having arisen by a random combination of chemical or biological parts. Thus advancement of science has provided more substantial evidence against evolution than ever before"

Dear H Chris, your third paragraph brings forward many subjects which are continuously debated. The point, is there a clear objective in doing so? Are we here to convince that one party is wrong and the other is right? If the hidden agenda is so, then the whole discussion will lose track. If the discussion leads to more thinking and more elaborate discussion , then this is the purpose of open forums.

As for the ongoing discussion by other colleagues reasoning needs reasoning to make sense.

Best to all

Hi Hussin, there may be a discussion if you and your friends are not spamming threads with your copy/paste answerers.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Darwins_Theory_of_Evolution_How_to_reconcile_religious_teaching_with_evolution_What_is_your_view_on_this#view=5631f66b5e9d978c8b8b4567

Any supposed conflict between religion and evolution was sorted out over two centuries ago by Darwin, Erasmus that is, in his Zoonomia.  As a favor to religious persons who have problems with evolution, I published the relevant extract in Neurology.

 Both teachings are important. Through science we can understand the very origin of life, how unique it is in the universe and also how it is independent from God. Life appears as an emergent property of the system rather than one imposed in the system by external influences (I cite the article about the uniqueness of life in the universe at the bottom). We can see the independence of nature from God. In the other hand, religion gives us a way in which we may get closer to God from that independence that happened in genesis as it is for Christianity and Judaism. We can decide how to use our freedom to believe in God and His purpose for each one of us.  It is our decision and for both options to belive or not, all due respect is deserved.

Article Evolution through the stochastic dyadic Cantor Set: the uniq...

It would be like trying to mix oil and water.

Lou

I cannot see any reason for reconciling the two views. One is based on ancient myth, the nature of which has been understood and revealed by many academics, and the understanding of reality without the imposition of priests, holy books of highly doubtful provenance and the emotional needs of human beings in general.

Unfortunately, many confuse the satisfaction of human needs with reality.

Hello all; The discussion seems to have lost it's focus. Allow me to attempt to refocus.

First, allow me to offer my own characterization of evolution. Species arise, they change over time and they are extinguished. The science is about evaluating the proposed mechanisms that would account for such a set of observations.

Discussions in this forum between scientists and creationists ought to be framed in sound scientific theory. I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS POINT ENOUGH. Be sure that the participants recognize that a new claim can overturn a current theory but to do so it must:

a. have more explanatory power than all competing theories,

b. have more predictive power than competing theories,

c. be able to account for more observations than any competing theory.

d. require fewer ad hoc assumptions to make it work.

e. provide a program for further research.

So far as I am aware no standing theory in any field accounts for all the data. It must only account for more of the data than any competing theory. Precisely this logic belongs at the very beginning of every response to a creationist claim. It will be the predicate for any developing discussion.

It is worth noting that finding flaws in a standing theory will not cause the science to discard the theory unless there is a superior one to put in its place. I am not aware of any explicitly stated creationist assertion that meets even one of the minimum requirements mentioned above. Discussions like this one typically devolve into a forensic debate. Since the rules of forensic debate are a poor tool for resolving scientific disputes, getting the conversation out of that mode quickly is more informative and better science. In this open environment it is particularly important to get out of a debate mode because of its adversarial tone and the bad effects that has on what I hope is a collegial environment.

I’d like to add one philosophical point about scientific objectivity. Objectivity is an emergent property of the methods of science. Darwin’s “hunches” of the mid-19th Century were subjective speculations based on very limited evidence (Matthews, 2000). Subsequently, as the evidence accumulated two things happened. We learned how to measure the subjects of his hunches and, at the same time, his hunches became less consequential in our thinking about evolutionary processes. That is, modern evolutionary theory can trace some if its ancestry to Darwin’s hunches but the field has grown so much in the intervening 160 years that the credibility of the theory today depends not at all on those hunches or even on the results of his own research. That fact is a source of great surprise to nearly every creationist that I have ever corresponded with.

The methodological materialism that is the hallmark of modern science requires that scientific explanations of natural phenomena are valid only when they resort to natural processes. This methodological requirement is neutral to religion. It simply excludes any explanations that are not testable. Materialistic evolutionism goes further than that. Philosophical materialists maintain that natural processes are all there is and that the supernatural does not exist (Scott, 1999). That claim cannot be defended scientifically. Many creationists object to evolutionary theory because they do not distinguish between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. Practicing scientists are all methodological materialists because that is how one does science but probably most of them are not philosophical materialists.

The Institute for Creation Research (Biblical literalists) and Phillip Johnson and colleagues associated with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, USA (Intelligent Design) particularly, have made a fine art of structuring the Creationists' dispute with science as if it contains only two alternative views and that if they can mount a negative argument to show that “evolution is false”, then, therefore, creation is right. The logic is flawed. It is a contrived dualism. Johnson was a professional lawyer and so it isn’t surprising that he prefers this legalistic framework, inappropriate as it is for a scientific arena. As a lawyer he also knows the nature of the logical flaw, yet he exploits it nevertheless.

The dispute is framed by most creationists as a “contradictory”. That is, if evolution is false then creation must be true. That logical structure would be correct if there were only two possible explanations. In fact, there is quite a wide range of possible explanations. Therefore, the dispute should be framed as “contraries” (Ruse, 1996, p35, note 24). That being the case, even if creationists were able to show that evolution is a false explanation they would NOT have proven their claims. However, were the dispute framed as “contraries” a panoply of other, non-Scriptural explanations would have to be admitted. Broadening the number of possible explanations is certainly not part of the creationists' intent.

REFERENCES.

Matthews, R. 2000. Base Instincts. New Scientist. 165(2223): 44-45.

Ruse, M. 1996. But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution

Controversy. Prometheus Books. 406 p.

Scott, E. 1997. Antievolutionism and creationism in the United States. Annual Reviews of An- thropology 26:263-289.

______ 1999. The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports: National Center for Science Educa- tion. 19(4):16, 21-23.

Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

There is an apparent ans trivial answer to the question. If we believe that God created the Universe, it implies that the entire evolution of the Universe in space and time has been created. Which obviously includes the biological evolution. In simple terms, God created the biological evolution.

Regarding "Darwinian evolution": it probably means the natural selection which Darwin reformulated as "survival of the fittest". The fittest are those who survive. Then it is "survival of those who survive". The entire "theory" is a tautology.

Anything else?

Hello all; Let me refocus on the comments I made above. The proposition that species change through time is testable by a wide variety of scientific methods. And...the proposition has not been falsified in the century and half that it has been tested. Thus we conclude that evolutionary theory accurately describes this aspect of nature.

Invoking a deity is an untestable proposition and thus doing so falls outside the perview of the sciences. If I speak as a scientist that is as far as the science can go...there is no objective evidence of a deity. The philosophers and theologians will have to take over from here. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

James Des Lauriers,

I am afraid you confuse the phenomenon of evolution and theory of evolution. The former is an observable fact. The difference between a fact and a theory is quite simple: the former is what you see, the latter is what you think. Don't confuse these two.

Hello M. What I did was to make a distinction between explanations for observable phenomena from explanations that evidently have no physical manifestation. I'm sorry if I didn't make the distinction clear. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers