What is Digg?741 Comments
- Hetman, on 11/19/2008, -20/+154No one ever said they could not coexist. They just cannot coexist in science class. Just like alchemy and chemistry cannot coexist in science class. God is faith based. Evolution is based fact.
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/19/2008, -23/+119Of course they can. Scientists know this. open-minded believers know this.
Religious fundamentalists who fight over this have closed their minds, they are incapable of seeing this.
Intellectual elitists who fight over this are just following their singular purpose of destroying religion.
The fight over this will likely do more harm than good to both sides. And, there's a worst-case scenario on both ends that actually has chilling consequences. It would be best for everyone if this fight just simply died. - writer0213, on 11/19/2008, -30/+115It's about time somebody stepped up and said something like this
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -6/+91snes > genesis
- lovemorgul, on 11/19/2008, -25/+79In fact, reflecting on our role in an evolutionary universe can help us to deepen our faith.
- Orangey, on 11/19/2008, -68/+111Yes they can. God is imaginary so it can co-exist with anything it wants
- MacEnvy, on 11/19/2008, -4/+44"The Pope said it a few weeks ago."
Decades, actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Rom ... - slothlovechunk, on 11/19/2008, -17/+56As long as the god you believe in doesn't actually do anything.
Then yes, they can coexist. - jakatak, on 11/19/2008, -11/+49I can believe this. Scientists can prove the big bang theory. This doesn't mean that God could not have created the university with this explosive theory. It's a tough topic to discuss, especially on Digg.
- moviscop, on 11/19/2008, -12/+48i suppose it just depends on how you want to interpret genesis. does it really matter though?
- oboshoe, on 11/19/2008, -11/+46Of course.
Science buff, Christian who believes in evolution checking in here.
I've never understood the fundamentalist on both sides of this argument who think they have ALL the answers. - Hetman, on 11/19/2008, -0/+34I think he is pointing out that it makes the world more complex, and one would believe that God would create a complex universe. Instead of just saying God created everything as is and their is no room for change.
- serif69, on 11/19/2008, -3/+35The Pope said it a few weeks ago.
- stonebear, on 11/19/2008, -13/+44I think any reasonable person has no problem reconciling science and spirituality. But, on the other hand; institutionalized religion, with its dogmatic thinking and ulterior motives, complicates otherwise plain things, whether that religion is based on science or God.
- Shaqueefa, on 11/19/2008, -6/+34Seriously, it's sad that this is news. Even Catholics have said evolution is dandy for many years, and we all know they're not exactly the most accepting religion of new scientific theories.
Still, the public eye could use more scientists like this guy. - falstaff, on 11/19/2008, -1/+29I know a university evolutionary biologist who just happens to be a devout Roman Catholic. Most of the western world discounts a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible.
It's just that US southern Protestants happen to be an incredibly loud minority that think they speak for everybody else. - Screwy1138, on 11/19/2008, -2/+23This isn't news to Catholics. Since Pope John Paul II we've acknowledged evolution (acknowledge sound weird but there is no good way to say it).
We also do not take the story of Gensis literally (at one point it was considered a sin, now it's just a 'mistake' to take it literally) - suckanucka, on 11/19/2008, -24/+44A true biblical belief in God and science cannot co-exist.
However, the concept of God can co-exist with all science.
Science explains the what and how, not the why.
Eventually we go back far enough, and why is always the question? Why is this all here? Why does our universe have conscious life when conscious life isn't needed for the universe to operate?
Religion is the problem, not the concept of God.
Religion and the suppression that goes along with it is the problem, not God.
Imagine how effective Richard Dawkins would be at pointing out the absurdities of Christianity if he were a deist, instead of an atheist? - Kohaxx, on 11/19/2008, -1/+20I doubt it matters what you believe. No matter what faith you take up you can't will a god in or out of existence so why bother? Believe whatever makes it easier for you to deal with death, religious texts have many interpretations and misinterpretations.
As long as faith doesn't prevent factual understanding and good will towards others there won't be a problem. - CCB0x45, on 11/19/2008, -10/+28Of course they can, the only problem with the God side is there is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever, so of course you can say the co-exist considering you can make up any part of the religious side to make it co-exist with anything.
Its like saying, magical invisible flying unicorns can co-exist with gravity, because they don't weigh anything. - BradOFarrell, on 11/19/2008, -10/+27A concept that can be constantly redefined to fit behind any scrap of unfalsifiablity can co-exist with actual evidence? Neat!
- bsl4doc, on 11/19/2008, -2/+19in the butt
- tallguyg, on 11/19/2008, -4/+20I think it matters hugely. The article put it rather well. Fundamentalists are dumbing down the text and doing themselves a huge disservice by simply interpreting it literally. Not only do they get laughed at by less ignorant folks but even for their own spirituality. There is deep spiritual meaning to be derived from the genesis story. As my theology teacher put it, the Genesis story is a "theological anthropology" of the human race, not a literal history.
- CarStan, on 11/19/2008, -2/+18A common agument by creationists is that God put false information out there(universe being >13billion years old, evolution) to test our belief. What if he put the bible out there to test our common sense, and he only awards those who live a righteous life because they believe its the right thing to do, not out of fear.
- discoltk, on 11/19/2008, -20/+36Sure they can co-exist. It's called cognitive dissonance and it happens to smart people every day.
- albel65, on 11/19/2008, -0/+15*stares at bowl of cereal*
- kingmanic, on 11/19/2008, -0/+15Nitpicking: Scientists can support the big bang theory. Science is not in the business of Proofs. That's math. Science in the business of creating plausible falsifiable hypothesis which then are scrutinized and accepted if they cannot be disproved. Science can draw conclusions and make more predictions, theories and hypothesis but strictly speaking theories are never "proven" in the formal sense of that word.
- zeldor, on 11/19/2008, -3/+17science and faith can certainly coexist.
science and treating the bible as literal fact cannot. - CCB0x45, on 11/19/2008, -4/+17I don't think any aethiest will say that they have "all the answers" but most say that religion is incorrect because there is no proof whatsoever for it, and they aren't going to believe it just because someone told them its the truth with nothing to back it up.
- Archos, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." - Albert Einstein
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." - Albert Einstein - ZurMacht, on 11/19/2008, -2/+14It really isn't a matter of if they can coexist, but if they need to. If we have a theory which so simply explains the origin of life, along with the evidence to back it up, why would one then assume a God exists when there is no reason to? It is a matter of skepticism and faith.
- oboshoe, on 11/19/2008, -5/+17What if God created evolution?
If thats the case, there going to be alot of people feeling pretty silly after the die. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/19/2008, -1/+13Bingo. I think people make a huge mistake with a literal interpretation.
- LeviTheSmith, on 11/19/2008, -3/+13As if you can say that. GENESIS DOES WHAT NINTENDONT!
- suckanucka, on 11/19/2008, -1/+11Burst out laughing, and my boss was like... wut wut
- Screwy1138, on 11/19/2008, -3/+13Science does the same thing. It's called LEARNING.
- bigsteve, on 11/19/2008, -5/+14Purely food for thought, but why can't evolution explain "how", and religion explain "why"? Everything that science explains, why couldn't "god" have set it in motion? So until a "god" comes back and says "hey, here's the deal", all we can do as scientists is explain more and more of our universe.
And like it or not, with every explanation that science provides, religion can be the catalyst of the events explained one level deeper. - UberNick, on 11/19/2008, -9/+18Nah, we can play the "interpretation" game to negate pretty much any religious text. I prefer they actually stand by the same solid proclamations that believers of past have tortured and dismembered fellow citizens for renouncing.
- ApokalypseNow, on 11/19/2008, -0/+9Please learn some epistemology, and pay particular attention to the differences between "belief" and "knowledge" - specifically, the part where they say that no amount of the former can make it equal the latter.
- vilago, on 11/19/2008, -0/+9B-I-N-G-O and bingo was his name-o
- Bith8654, on 11/19/2008, -3/+12So you would prefer that religious people are ignorant and violent?
- kamel, on 11/19/2008, -0/+9Dogs and cats, living together. Mass hysteria!
- inactive, on 11/19/2008, -6/+15It's true. The Hebrew word in use in Genesis for "day" is "yom" and does NOT demand a literal 24-hour period of time. It has been used elsewhere to be one day, a day's travel, indeterminant long period of time, and nondescript age.
To skeptics, if you have never read Genesis, much less studied Hebrew or the Bible as a whole, then back off and consider than you might be wrong.
And don't just copy/paste arguments from skeptic websites blindly. You're no different than a guy who belongs to a cult and believes whatever he's told. - IKORKYI, on 11/19/2008, -1/+10you know what i would like to see? i think it would solve A TON of our problems...
HEADLINE: God and Evolution Can Co-exist, Priest Says. - Brownds, on 11/19/2008, -3/+11@GoneGreen
What you said is just as retarded as when Bush stated "You are either with us or against us." People are infinitely more complex spiritually and intellectually than your own stale thought process. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/19/2008, -3/+11And isn't that preferable to people being asshat sticks-in-the-mud, screaming that your Godless science is wrong because God said so?
- Kohaxx, on 11/19/2008, -4/+12I wish they taught an optional theology class in public school so people could understand the various religions. If religion is going to be such a force in politics and law people deserve to be informed instead of clinging to philosophies and positions just because their parents told them so. It would force creationism out of science class.
Also if you think kids should spend their time learning "things that could help them advance in life" you clearly don't understand much of the pointless material being taught in public schools. - HillerMylife, on 11/19/2008, -1/+9Priests are Catholic, Catholics are okay with evolution.
- flip2trip, on 11/19/2008, -0/+8"There is no grey area when it comes to believing in imaginary people."
Glad you got it all figured out bub. - Disgod, on 11/20/2008, -0/+8You can replicate some very fun religious experiences with LSD and having your brain ***** with by science. Personal experience doesn't mean crap to science. Our brains are so faulty, just look at schizophrenics or any other of the hosts of people with mental diseases. They believe they are talking with god, but we know they aren't. Your personal experience could literally be your brain doing something funky.
And I actually do agree with you that Darwin's theory of evolution was just a primitive version of actual evolution, but as with Newton Vs.. Relativity it is still a mostly correct theory. Everything we learn just refines our understanding of evolution and reconfirms it's validity. -
Show 51 - 100 of 749 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is