<p>Man with Heart,</p>
<p>If you can site a specific book, journal article, or scientist, that would be very helpful. I would be very interested to read it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I’m convinced that the way to get the next big breakthrough is to find validity in previously discarded theories. </p>
<p>Speaking of discarded theories, I greatly prefer the infinite turtle theory to the Copernican one.</p>
<p>It’s turtles all the way down.</p>
<p>I’m a computer scientist, it’s yaks all the way down >.<</p>
<p>Heresy! Blasphemy!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s all I’m trying to say.</p>
<p>Religion and evolution don’t conflict.
“Darwinism” and religion do, and that’s probably the explanation for the 11%. Usually when people hear evolution, they don’t think about the scientific phenomenon but rather this doctrine, since we always hear “evolution vs. creationism.”
End of story.</p>
<p>^ What aspect of Darwinism but not evolution do you think religion conflicts with?</p>
<p>@PiperXP When I say “Darwinism,” I mean the doctrine that humans evolved from monkeys with the help of no superior being (God). This conflicts with religion.
Evolution is just a scientific phenomenon. That doesn’t conflict with religion, it’s just an explanation of the world God created.</p>
<p>I want to answer this poll for fun.
On a scale of 1-10, how religious are you? - 10.
On a scale of 1-10, how religious is MIT? - I would say 3ish.
Who believes in an afterlife? - unanswered. Who doesn’t believe in an afterlife? - unanswered.
Who believes in god? - Yay. Who doesn’t believe in god? - Nay.
How many think only his or her religious views are correct? - Yay (Jewish).
Whose faith has strengthened at MIT? - Nay. Whose faith has been weakened or lost altogether at MIT? - Nay.
Is it difficult to reconcile science and religion? - Nay.
Who believes in evolution? - Evolution, yes. Caption, however, says:
89% of respondents believed that humans and other living things evolved due to natural processes or that a supreme being guided the evolution of living things.
Sneaky, so nay.
Who’s active in a religious group? - Yay.
Who thinks it’s very important that their partner shares their religious views? - Yay.
Who thinks it’s very or somewhat important to convert others to their religion? - Nay, Judaism isn’t a very “spreadable” religion.
Who supports legalization of same-sex marriage? - Nay.
Who supports stem cell research? - Unanswered.
Who’s pro-life? Who’s pro-choice? - Against late-term abortion. Pro-choice before week 20.
Who believes in waiting until marriage for sex? - Unanswered.
Who uses or would use contraception? - Condoms, yeah, but not many other methods.
Who supports the death penalty? - Yay.</p>
<p>@undefined123 - There are Christian sects (and possibly other sects) that state that all animals were created during the week God created the Earth, and there has been no significant change in species since the beginning of time (which, incidentally, only started a few thousand years ago).</p>
<p>Are you really unaware of that? Evolution directly conflicts with people who belong to those sects.</p>
<p>Piper, I think undefined is agreeing with you. He is pointing out the difference between evolution on a micro-scale (evolution of bacteria or changes in a particular species) and on a macro-scale (e.g., evolution of humans from animals).</p>
<p>Regardless, I think what usually happens when scientists believe in God is that they adjust their interpretation of religion around science. For instance, the “6 days” of creation are not considered literal by many people.</p>
<p>@PiperXP Well, I’m Jewish and my rabbi teaches that it’s possible that during the 6 days of creation, God EVOLVED all animals from one animal (except humans!). Or let them evolve on their own. Or made them really similar; guideline is, we don’t know. However, there’s nothing in the bible that says that he DIDN’T do it, or that evolution is IMPOSSIBLE, hence no contradiction is made. Nothing says God created each individual specie, humans are the exception.
Basically what I’m saying: There’s nothing that says evolution isn’t real, or didn’t happen to create all species. EXCEPT humans. My rabbi says that it’s possible that God evolved a human from monkeys or that humans evolved from monkeys as biologists predict, HOWEVER - it’s not possible that it happened completely naturally. Humans have aspects that animals don’t have that makes them rule this world - aspects such as ambition, innovation, etc. These aspects could not have been put into humans without God, that’s basically the argument we make against “Darwinism.”</p>
<p>TL;DR - There’s nothing in the bible against evolution. However, the evolution of humans couldn’t have been 100% natural; God had played SOME role in the process to adjust spiritual aspects of humans compared to other animals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even monkeys participate in “social climbing”, and animals have many human traits. </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s not that evolution can’t produce “human” traits. It’s something your rabbi concluded. Making your own arguments is something which is encouraged in the Jewish faith, I understand, but your rabbi’s conclusion is not definitive or universally held. I don’t think it’s even universally held in the Jewish faith. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think anything in the bible necessarily conflicts with science.</p>
<p>^ Your rabbi may teach that, and thus you have no conflict between science and your religion. There are other people’s religions that do conflict with evolution, so you cannot claim “Religion and evolution don’t conflict”. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether or not the Bible contradicts - nearly all Judeo-Christian sects add elements that are not in the Bible, and they do not deal with the contradictions in the Bible. It is still fact that not all of them get along with evolution.</p>
<p>(And I disagree with you that evolution can’t be 100% natural, but I think if we go further down that road we’ll be completely derailing conversation.)</p>
<p>@PiperXP I believe it’s applicable for Judaism entirely, since every rabbi I’ve watched speak anywhere always said that science doesn’t conflict with religion, meaning that they can just interpret things differently. And I didn’t say that evolution can’t be 100% natural, I said that the evolution of humans wasn’t 100% natural.</p>
<p>@collegealum314 When I say human traits, I mean the things that make us superior to animals. Animals spend their entire day looking for something to eat, or through some set cycle. They go on the same cycle every day. They are like a human baby in the sense that they have none of the characteristics I mentioned before, such as innovation. Humans aren’t like that, and that’s why we dominate the world. A monkey can’t invent the Internet, not this generation, and not in a million years. It will continue to remain an “animal” even if it evolves to look very different from the monkeys today, and will lack the unique human characteristics that make us superior. That’s why “Darwinism” conflicts with religion, but evolution doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if this is so, you cannot truthfully claim “Religion and evolution don’t conflict” - your religion is not the only one. If you want to claim “Judaism and evolution don’t conflict”, be my guest. But that is not what you said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree on both counts. But this is irrelevant to my point.</p>
<p>@PiperXP Fine then, Judaism and evolution don’t conflict. However, I don’t see why Christianity/Islam would conflict either, since they’re based on the Torah (Old Testament) as well.</p>
<p>^ The Old Testament is up for a lot of interpretation. You may trust your rabbi’s interpretation, but I’m dubious that it’s somehow objectively the only correct interpretation.</p>
<p>Realtalk: if anyone knows anything about epigenetics I would actually be like a laymen’s summary because I read a few blog posts which blew my mind and it seems like we might as well talk about something interesting in this thread.</p>