Are some of the asumption to apply Biblical congruence with Evolution Theory a probabilistic One?
537291
Well first of all what you ask takes a book or at least a thesis to fully answer. Is it probabilistic? well I guess so it is happening already, but it is Theologists that are showing the correlations ( I believe you must find correlations before extending to congruences)of evolutionary theories  to those of biblical events. This has been going on for centuries.\n\nThe study of science  can create empirical data, but mainly relies on using empirical data. The Bible is and has been a source of empirical data for scientists looking into Darwin's theories of evolution. Evolution exists, but to what degree does it exist in the in the development of the species inhabiting this planet. That is where the debates with Darwin's theories and other evolution theories collide with theological beliefs; resulting in some to go off and search for the " Missing Link".\n\nThe Missing Link, a concept that has yet to be put into solid theory, is being sought out to bridge the gap some believe that separates Adam and Eve from the caveman/ape-man. \n\nNo science can not be wrong, the fallibility only falls on those who apply it, theorize it, and study it.
1138125
Evolution is a theory. It is what science is all about. Religion and Science can go hand in hand. I believe the biblical creation story of 7 days to God is actually like a million years to us!! god gave man intellect to study the creators creation therefore study God's marvelous works. peace.
715140
Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I am not an Evangelical Christian, so I have a broader interpretation of Christianity.  With that said, let me answer your questions.\n\n******\n"Do you not believe in EVOLUTION and SCIENCE?\n(dinosaurs, man came from the ape..etc)"\n\nEvolution and science are not necessarily contradictory to religion.  For example, evolution could be considered *how* the Divine created the "what."  This is my argument, as I do believe in both evolution and science, as well as the Divine.  There are many who denounce evolution saying that it is theory--it is not.  Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" (a term that was not coined by him) is theory, but opponents of evolution have lumped the two together.  While evolution is not simply "man came from the ape," it does lead us to observe microcosmic and macrocosmic changes in the world.  Theologically, evolution can be considered the "tool" the Divine used to create everything.\n\nIn general, religion can be considered to be similar to philosophy--both of which are humankind's attempt to, through mythology and ideology, understand the world in a way that is more meaningful than a scientific approach.  Actually, the science of today originated from philosophy and religion.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think the bible is full of CONTRODICTIONS?\n(adam and eve were the only two people so where did everybody else come from)"\n\nOf course, but contradictions can be found in any field, including that of science.  There are three main problems that can be found with the Bible, though:\n\nFirst, the text was written over many years by a handful of people.  This could easily lead to contradictory content.  Of course, you must be sure what you are reading is correct, which leads to the next problem.\n\nSecond, the majority of the Bible has been transliterated, which means it was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek/Latin to English/French/etc.  This means that much meaning has been lost.  The only way you can honestly say the Bible is full of contradictions is to read it in the original languages.  Much insight can be found by doing so.\n\nThird, the Bible is incomplete.  There are many "books" and documents that have not been included in the text.  This is due to the watchful eye of papal administration.\n\nI personally don't take too much stock in the stories of the Bible--they are simply written in the mythological/archetypal language of the human psyche.  They are wonderful stories and can speak to a person in very meaningful ways, but they are just stories.  It must be noted, however, that an increasing number of these stories are being backed-up by archaeological evidence.\n\n******\n\n"Do you not think its something that people choose to believe in in order to feel that life has meaning?"\n\nNot necessarily.  Unfortunately, there are many who "believe" in Christianity just because that is what their parents (or parental figures) believed.  All mythology (Christian mythology not excluded) speaks to our base understanding, which relies on symbols and archetypes.  All humans use myth to create their realities (Atheists not excluded).  These myths can be a Creator God, a Sacrificial God, Science, or no God at all--the same archetypes are there.\n\nSince pre-history, human beings have strived to better understand the world in which they live.  This brought meaning to their lives.  However, they have had many "tools" to accomplish this task, tools such as science, religion, mathematics, and philosophy.  Each of these tools were created to bring meaning and understanding to a person's life.
894605
Fine. I'll level with you.\n\nI believe evolution is possible. I think that certain organisms have developed over time to better their "fitness" (if you will). However, I am a Creationist and believe that God created the Earth and the creatures on it. Sorry if I find it hard to believe that a blob evolved into the life on the planet today.
803709
Why should they be mutually exclusive?  The concept of God is in many religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  He/She/It is believed in in Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, by the ancient Hermetics and by Hindus just to name a few.  So, if there is a God, it's certainly possible that He/She/It DID indeed cause evolution to take place.  In fact, there are many Christians, Jews and probably a large number of Muslims who believe that.\n\nBelief in God is separate from the literal belief in a holy book.  First of all, a holy book can be interpretted metaphorically.  I think the concept that the six "days" of creation in Genesis may be longer than days now is a perfectly good one.\n\nAlso, many believe that God is ineffable and mysterious and therefore that no words and no book can accurately express who He/She/It is, but only provide us with metaphors that approach but never really get to that understanding.  If that's true, than it's meaningless to say that some holy book rules out evolution.  Science has proven evolution (the only reason we say "Darwin's Theory of Evolution" is that Darwin explained the fact of evolution by the notion of natural selection and it's only that explanation, not the fact of evolution itself, that scientists ever dispute - and even then they only point out that mutation plays a role AS WELL AS natural selection - but I digress).  So, it seems to me that it makes more sense for anyone who believes in God to believe that God caused evolution to take place.\n\nMoreover, there are other ways to look at God besides purely literal ones.  The mythologist Joseph Cambell believed that all myth is metaphor and saw God as a metaphor for whatever is best for humanity.  One can look at God in terms of gnosis, too, rather than knowledge.  Knowledge is the objective truth of science.  Gnosis is how we experience our universe, which is different from objective truth, because of psychology and also because of our own perspectives as living beings trying to make the most out of life.  Many people of many religions have had experiences of the Divine (some of various Deities or and others of a One God).  That doesn't mean that the Divine is literally true, only that they had powerful experiences.  But, if those experiences make us better people, maybe this gnosis of the Divine is still worthwhile even if it's NOT literal truth.\n\nSo, in summary, I think you need to figure out what you mean by "God" and what exactly you believe about God before you can know whether or not evolution is mutually exclusive with that concept.
763023
The scientific method is the only self-critical and verifiable method used to explain phenomonology.  If something in the Bible stood up to the scientific method that could confirm the existance of a Christian God, I'd believe.\n\nUntil then, probaby not.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
785532
No evolution does not disprove god.  But it does pose a very large challenge.  Evolution and Christianity are not as compatible as you may think.  If evolution is the correct theory, then that means that the literalist biblical theory is not right.  Sure you might be able to save it by saying that it is metaphorically true (say, a day to god equals a billion years or whatever).  But if some parts of the bible are not literally true, then why think that any of it is literally true?  Jesus, God, etc. can all be seen as being metaphors for the natural world and the human condition.  With no way to really tell what is literally true and what is metaphorically true, allowing that at least some of it is not literally makes the rest questionable.  If one part is not true, or only becomes true if you take it as a metaphor, what does that say about the rest?  What the bible says then cannot be believed just because it is in the bible anymore, and one of the central justifications of christianity crumbles.  of course god can still exist, but its a major challenge.\n\nOk as for your other question about how can an atheist account for the existence of anything without a God:  all i have to do is ask you where god came from.  Did god come from nothing?  Was he always there?  If you say god came from nothing, then you violate your own rule that nothing can come from nothing.  If you say he was always there, then why can't the atheist just say that the universe was always here?  Why can't the atheist just say that the universe always existed?  Its more likely (by occam's razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor ) than the belief that god was always there.  Religion doesn't answer the question of where things came from, it only begs the question of where god came from.  Under the religous explanation nothing is really explained.\n\nI admire your call to tolerance and hope of compatibility, but i'm afraid its nothing more than political correctness.  It would be nice if both sides could be right, but when you think about it there really is a tension.
340817
Oh good grief.\n\nHow can someone not believe in evolution?  The evidence is freakin' everywhere.\n\nFirst off: evolution is not incompatible with creation theory.  You just have to widen your theological perspectives and stop being a tool.\n\nSecond, there is a host of evidence for evolution.  Just look at the biological tree.  Life has trended from simple life to complex.  There are also fossil records that demostrate quite concretely (excuse the pun) that creatures have changed over the centuries.\n\nIf you write such glaring evidence off as some sort of "demonic trickery" then I truly have to wonder about your gullibility.  I mean, some people seriously need to think about the full rammifications of their religious beliefs.
702239
God is Creator of the Universe (Big Bang). He created not only objects and stuff. He also created the laws the universe would develop. Thus evolution is one of the laws God prescribed to Nature.\nI expect this would not satisfy your parish minister, as all of them are conservative. But here and there the Holy Script is not translated correctly because unlike other dead tongues the ancient Hebrew (not modern) is mostly vague. But Bible is still a very great scientific book. The modern theory of evolution (and Darwin’s as well) is not flawless of course. And there are evident facts!\nThe issue demands more space and time to discuss it here. Sorry!
617690
God uses evolution as part of His plan.
69537
Conclusive no, it's still a theory. However, in 2005 probably more than any other year, the theory has received it most compelling validation through DNA analysis.\n\nComparison of DNA between species is mapping out a family tree which matches what the theory of evolution predicts.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
357135
Evolution is a fact. People, plants, animals, weather, land masses and bodies of water all evolve. The word evolve means to develop or achieve gradually. However, the theory that evolution and the big bang are the origin of life is not a fact, only a theory. The beginning of life and matter is the one most significant and extraordinary event of all time, so how it happened is likely to be similarly extraordinary story. The Bible does not say "Thou shalt not evolve", nor does it say that "nothing ever develops and changes", in fact it calls us to evolve - spiritually, socially, and mentally. The Bible teaches us that there is only one thing that never changes - God. Why is it easier to believe that all of a sudden everything blew up and here we were - oops! No, things happen on purpose more often than they do by accident. Especially extraordinary things. They say that a bunch of monkeys could type the works of Shakepeare if given enough time... but wouldn't it be more efficient and infinitely quicker to let Shakepeare do it on purpose? And isn't one of the basic principles of nature efficiency? (i.e. the path of least resistance) So, no I don't think it's difficult to believe that an organized and developed being created an organized and developed universe. Also... as a Christian, I do not believe that we were created to assuage God's boredom. I believe we were created to love God - by our own free will rather than by force.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
55009
"Given where mankind has achieved from even the year 1901 to now where can man go or achieve by 2101?"\nWho knows, maybe our "superiority" will lead us to finally blow ourselves up. :-P\nI absolutely agree with Professor Beatz; I only wish to add one thing. You make it sound as if the whole evolutionary process is a matter of random events. In fact, randomization occurs in the generation of variability (mutations, crossing-over), but natural selection is not random. Evolution does not have a purpose, but neither is it aleatory.\nAlso, evolution is not a "one-time deal" unless you are considering it as a process leading to humans. That is arrogant. \nAnd thinking that evolutionary processes in other places of the universe will work as they did here and lead to human-like beings is more arrogant, in my opinion.
1052544
There interpritations range from acceptance to out right denial, and I for one (while not Christain anymore) do believe in we evolved over time. My reason for this is that we humans cannot truly say what a 'day' is to the Divine, and the word humanoid means human like in apperance, movement or shape, not that it is human.\n\nI do not think it is a hoax, there is so much about this world that is not discused in the Bible. So I would say that evolution happened, and that while a part of would like to rant on this topic I won't do it. That would be disrespectful to everyone, and I don't want that.