Why don't people combine religion and science?

well if you claim to be Christain…then that means you believe we came from God..not apes..so u saying u believe that we evolve from apes yet your a christain? that just seems strange to me..i agree that some scientific findings DO make sense..but i do not, however; believe we evolve from apes…its just that science and religion are wayy too different things..scientists ‘seem’ to argue with religion alltogether in my opinion..saying theres no God or making excuses and predictions to ‘try’ to make their theory stand out or whatever…its all about your beliefs and opinions i guess..such a touchy subject that has been in debate since the beginning pretty much and it will always be in debate til the end of time…

1. Not everyone who believes in evolution is an atheist. I know plenty of christians who believe in evolution. They believe we were all created by God, but God simply used evolution as a way to carry it out. 2. You’re right. We did not evolve from apes. Any evolutionist who tells you that is misinformed. We share a common ancestor with apes. Two totally different things. 3. Scientists rarely argue with religion. Throughout history, it has been religion that has had a problem with scientific discoveries….Just look at Galileo.

Because religion isn’t science……

What makes you think nobody has? Buddhism is a religion that relies heavily on scientific facts, and before anyone tries to dispel that by saying “Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion” remember that religion is defined also as a belief, or faith, and we have both.

Most rational and sane Christians do accept evolution as a real and proven natural phenomena. The largest christian church in the world, The Catholic Church, accepts it is fact. They accept that the story of creation in the bible is allegorical, and not real. Almost all of the christians I know believe in evolution. The ones that don’t are fundamentalist christians who think the earth is only 6000 years old, and that is completely irrational. As long as you don’t take the story of genesis literally, there should be no problem believing in both god and science.

I agree chartreusechick. I am a Christian who believes in evolution. The facts are there. I just believe like u said that that is the way God planned for it to happen. Because even with evolution there is no beginning.

Evolution and erligion can coexist. Remember the bible was written by man. So genesis may have mistakes. The bible may have mistakes all through it. Also it is said that the devil will twist and mend the words of the bible to trick u. Who knows. All i no is i believe and Jesus is my saivor and in times of hardship and i question myself i ask myself WWJD. I hope in the end i can find out the real truth

Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. The theory has been in existence for 150 years, and not once has it been dis-proven. But the theory only say how it happens, not if. The fossil records have absolutely proven that all life on earth evolved from singles celled organisms that first appeared on earth 4.5 billion years ago. There is no doubt that evolution does occur, despite the protestations from religious fanatics.

I am a devote Christian too and even though I do believe in some science I do not believe we evolved from apes. God says he created us in his own image not apes in his own image and this is how we turned out. Bert Thompson is a college professor. He has mad a class over this subject that shows many scientists that were evolutionists and now realize it is not what they once thought it was. You should look him up.

absolutly right. evolution is real. Religion and Evolution can coexist. as we have been through b4 lol

“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” —Albert Einstein

Actually, you realize the Catholic church has stated, within their encyclicals and other documents that they do believe evolution as well as the big bang theory? They say that the God, however, had a hand in making both things happen. Everything in the Old testament is supposed to be read on a more symbolic level while the New testament in a more literal way. I went to a Catholic high school for four years and was shocked to hear this. Obviously not all Christians and Catholics believe this. I wish everyone would at least actually try to research/understand before raising such arguments.

Actually, you realize the Catholic church has stated, within their encyclicals and other documents that they do believe evolution as well as the big bang theory? They say that the God, however, had a hand in making both things happen. Everything in the Old testament is supposed to be read on a more symbolic level while the New testament in a more literal way. I went to a Catholic high school for four years and was shocked to hear this. Obviously not all Christians and Catholics believe this. I wish everyone would at least actually try to research/understand before raising such arguments.

Whoops was supposed to be under Mesara Robert’s answer.

My religion is 100% true without any doubts. I see the bible as partially allegorica, partially literal, and partially bill crap that people put in so that it obliged by there values

But that doesn’t mean science can’t be part of religion.

I agree. Its not to be taken so literal. I see the new test as a path to live the right way by Gods grace and revalations as a warning for wat is to come when its that time. Even revalations cant be taken so literal. It was written so long ago that things and people have upgraded so when it says “They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.” I think that might be helicopters. Maybe a war. But since back then they didnt have no clue wat a helicopter is they had to say it somehow. a lot of things like that are in the bible. But it could also mean that there are consiquences to a victory

First off, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. That is something fanatical religious folks made up to make it sound like evolutionary science is a religion. It is good that you don’t believe we evolved from apes, because that is not true. What is true is that all primates (including man) evolved from a common ancestor. In fact all life on this planet evolved from single celled organisms that first appeared on the planet 4.5 billion years ago. This is not theory, this is an absolute fact that has been proven through fossil records. I have no desire to hear what pseudo-scientists have to to say. I have heard it all before, and nothing has changed. They cherry pick any data that supports their view, and completely ignore the overwhelming evidence that debunks it.

Religions in fact do. All religions change over time. The problem is that scientific discoveries happen quicker than many religions can incorporate new discoveries into their worldview. The Catholic Church opposed anesthesia during childbirth because painful childbirth was part of God’s punishment for Adam and Eve’s transgression in the Garden of Eden but eventually quit demanding that people needlessly suffer. The church imprisoned Galileo because he said that the solar system and universe didn’t revolve around the Earth. 400 years later the church pardoned Galileo (better late than never I guess) but did not admit they were wrong but said that whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth was simply a mater of perspective so they were both right! The Church has accepted both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Evolution holding that the Biblical accounts of creation and origins are meant to be read as metaphoric rather than literal. Given enough time religions could incorporate new scientific discoveries but the problem is that there is a lot of inertia to overcome so the time between when scientific discoveries are made and when religions integrate them into its teachings science and will religion disagree.

I do. the bible says, God created the world, it does not say how, science explains the how. I wrote my first doctoral thesis on how religion was married to science and vise-verse.

That’s awesome!!!

You know, just because thats what you and a lot of other people believe, doesn’t mean it true…. :)

Is that directed at me Kate? Because what I have stated is not belief. It is known fact. That is like saying that the sky is blue is only a belief. If it is a fact, it is true.

Thank you, finally someone who knows what they’re talking about.

Kate that statement is flawed because I could use it against you as well, so it’s a pointless argument to say “just because you and many other people believe it doesn’t mean it’s true”

Jesus was the greatest Scientist on earth. He didnt solve math formulas he created the formulas. God creates matter from nothing. I love the story of the scientist who challenges God that he can create just as well as God. God picks up a handful of dirt and blows it out of his hands and poof! out comes a beautiful gazelle. The scientist says “no Problem” and grabs a handful of dirt, and God says: “no, make your own dirt.” lol. I dont think you can tell the story of creation, their not be a science built into it, or visa versa. The big bang theory makes zero sense without a creator, if you say it does then you either havent studied it or you are just lying to yourself. Contrary to popular belief, even Darwin himself was not an atheist, in fact there is rumor that he gave his life to Christ in the end. No matter if that is true, he WAS a self-described agnostic, which is someone who believes in a non relational God.

 I believe in evolutionary ideas, except when it comes to humans. Our abilities to create go way beyond any reasonable explanation that evolution can provide.

Lol, does no one know my name has an “i” in it? :P Anyways, it was directed toward you :) Not in a “I wanna argue with you” tone. Just sayin’…. and Will yes you very well could :) I’m not saying what I believe is true just because I believe it.

Ok that is the most biased and circular reason I have heard ever. I could again say the same thing, your argument is poor

Katie (got the “i” that time), there is a difference between belief and fact. When something is unknown, like the existence of a god, that would be a belief. When something is a fact, like evolution, it is simply true. As I said, you could believe the sky is yellow all you want, but it would be absolutely untrue. Evolution is not a belief, it is a fact. So if evolution is a fact, it does mean it IS true. No matter how much you want to believe it isn’t, it is.

The big bang theory does not require a creator. One theory is that of an oscillating universe that expands to a certain point then collapses starting the whole process over. Another theory is the multiverse theory that our universe will indeed keep expanding forever but there are an infinite number of similar cosmoses and when the expanding mater from various universes interact and accumulate enough mater to collapse they will and start another universe. Humans have big brains because we have found an evolutionary niche where we can use it as an advantage for our species’ survival. Our brain is biologically expensive requiring 20% of the calories we consume. Where food is scarce this could be a huge liability over smaller brained animals but like I said, we used our superior intelligence to our advantage. As marvelous as our brain is, it is no different than the cheetah being the fastest land animal. Cheetahs are magnificent to see running because their niche was to be the fastest animal; it is biologically expensive for cheetahs to be the top fuel dragsters of the animal world but the conditions they evolved under allowed them to use it to their advantage.

because religion and science is different ….and it cant be combined….LOL

Hey freefromself, sorry, but I couldn’t resist.

“The big bang theory makes zero sense without a creator, if you say it does then you either havent studied it or you are just lying to yourself.”

I have studied it some, but by no means an expert. I have not seen any evidence for a creator. I see nothing to suggest anything other than a natural phenomena. What exactly is your evidence?

“Contrary to popular belief, even Darwin himself was not an atheist, in fact there is rumor that he gave his life to Christ in the end.”

That is only a rumor on creationist websites. All his writings point to him having lost all faith when his daughter died. He kept up pretenses in public for his wife who was a devout anglican. He certainly was not a chrisitan when he died. He certainly did not believe in the biblical story of creation.

“he WAS a self-described agnostic, which is someone who believes in a non relational God. “

He was probably an agnostic, but what you describe is not an agnostic. That would be a deist. An agnostic just thinks that the existence of a deity is unknowable.

“Our abilities to create go way beyond any reasonable explanation that evolution can provide.”

Why? Just because we have intelligence? Many animals have intelligence. We just have the most. To say it has to be the result of a creator with any evidence of such is just wishful thinking.

One question… Who created the creator? If your answer is that he has always existed, then why can’t the universe have always existed?

The big bang does not require a creator??? So where did the universe come from that u say is expanding??

I’ll tell you where the universe came from when you tell me where the creator came from? And I don’t say it is expanding, the evidence says it is expanding.

cuz each one of them wants to be the leader of the world , by thinking that it’s the real reason for us to live , and the reason of us to be on this earth ..

I see that we should have this balance between them both ..

Expanding earth or growing earth is a hypothisis.No one created God he is outside of time. We cannot comprehend this because we are all going by time. He was acting b4 time when he created the universe

Well evolution isn’t fact it’s a theory. Even though there is some evidence for it, there is evidence against it, and there really is no proof that every creature evolved from on microbial being. So even though it is widely accepted it isn’t fact

That’s bs they aren’t different

That the UNIVERSE (not earth) is expanding is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. It has been observed. The cause is a hypothesis. The big bang just says that all matter in the universe was at one time all consolidated into one intensely dense object called a singularity, which began to expand rapidly. It does not say why it happened, nor does it say that the universe did not exist before hand. Some hypothesize that it is a continuing cycle of expansion and contraction, and we are currently in an expansion phase. Bottom line, there is no concrete evidence of a creator. None…

Will the fact that it happens has been proven. How it happens is a theory. And a theory does not have some evidence. It has overwhelming evidence, otherwise it would not be a theory. And there has not been any evidence that has ever debunked evolution. I suggest you do a little research.

Well of corse not. If there was then we would all believe without doubt and its about faith. I believe God started the whole thing ;)

Yes, you believe, but you do not know. We know the universe is expanding, and there is no evidence that it is anything but a natural phenomena.

I do believe.. I do not not for certain. I look at it as even the biog bang the ball of matter had to come from somewhere. I look at this world and see that as proof of God. It may have been in Gods plan for the expansion of the universe. still no beginning. there is my proof.

I suggest you research because it’s the other way around, thy know for a fact how it happens just not for a fact that it all started with one microbial creature

dude …they are different …u wont find any religion in science ……………….in science there is no concept of GOD….:D D

But science adds depth to religion. They are two separate things but they work together. If you religious you can still trust science. And if you are devoted to science you can still be religious

Faith in the unknown is older than mankind itself. i explained that these are my opnions. I will not argur the existance of my God. I also will never ever ever, try to convert others to my thinking, unless they seek my opinion.

 Agnostic's are not atheists in that they will not deny the existance of God, nor do they find any proof. Come on though, singularity? The only thing I can say is that belief in a loving creator has saved my life, and I have seen this take place in many more lives as well. I like your analogy of the Cheetah Spammy. :) Thanks Jimahl for taking it easy on me.

I never said one microbial creature. Fossil records are quite clear. They know for a fact that no life existed prior to 4.5 billion years ago. Then the single celled organisms showed up for the first time. No other life existed at that time. And as time move on, more complex organisms show up. And they keep getting more complex as time goes on. This is known. The only possible explanation, other than spontaneous generation of new life forms, is that the later life forms evolved from the earlier ones. How those first single celled organisms came to be, we can only hypothesize, but there is no doubt all life on the planet evolved from them. The theory refers to the mechanics of evolution, like natural selection, mutations, survival of the fittest, etc. I have done my research.

Freefromself, I have no desire to talk you our of your faith, nor am arguing about the existence of god. The only thing I was talking about are claims many believers use as actual evidence of a creator. That is not arguing against existence. It is examining evidence. And what is so hard to believe about a singularity? There are many examples of them in the universe. That is what a black hole is. The singularity of the big bang is just on a much much larger scale obviously. But the concept is well-founded in physics and cosmology. And agnostics are not the same as atheists in a technical sense, but they are in a practical sense. This is from Wikipedia: “Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.” I would say that describes me. But I am also an atheist, which is “a” (the absence of), “theist” (belief in a deity). Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I really am glad you find comfort in your beliefs though. That, in the end, is all that matters.

“the biog bang the ball of matter had to come from somewhere.”

Angel, then god had to come from somewhere. There is no more evidence a god created that ball of matter, then there is for it always existing. What you are calling proof is not evidence in a scientific sense. And that is fine. But if you are going to discuss a theory like the big bang, then you need to stick to scientific evidence. None of that is scientific evidence.

Well i think that all matter has to have a beginning. I believe that God is outside of time and created b4 time as i said. I dont believe a ball of matter could always exist. And we are talking about God and science so yea science will have evidence. I dont have to stick with scientific evidence to talk about God. There is none. because we have to have faith. It always comes down to this. And im not trying to change ur thoughts. I wont change mine either. It is always interesting tho. But we always end up here lol.

“Well i think that all matter has to have a beginning.” Why? What are you basing that on? “I believe that God is outside of time and created b4 time as i said.” Then who created god? “I dont believe a ball of matter could always exist.” Again, why? One of the most basic laws of physics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed. So science already has determined that all matter has always existed. “I dont have to stick with scientific evidence to talk about God.” No, but if you are going to claim scientific theory is wrong because you think god created everything, then you should be sticking to the scientific reasons why the theory is wrong. The theological ones are irrelevant. “And im not trying to change ur thoughts. I wont change mine either. “ I am not trying to change your beliefs. I am only pointing out the illogic of some of your claims, (i.e. all matter has to have a beginning). I don’t understand why you can’t accept scientific facts and still have faith. There are billions of people who do.

God is not Logical. :)

Further proof that god must be a woman….

I said i do accept scientific facts. I have posted over and over that i believe God had a hand and still does in evolution. the ponit is there is no beginning. With God there is. Proof enough for me. Freefromhimself said it better than me God is not logical. We cannot comprehend his ways. Nor are we supposed to.

Firstly, Hello, I have not posted for a while but I dropped in to check on my profile and I thought I found you presenting a false dichotomy. Science or religion? Nevertheless, I was wrong. I looked over your post again and saw the entire context of your post. Your contention is a subjective one and simple one. To ask us the question of…”What do you guys think, are they different or can they be the same?” Let us define religion and science shall we… Religion:”1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods” Science: 2.”The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” That being said Religion and science are not the same because they both claim differential forms of knowledge. Science is what we can see here touch etc. Religion is potential knowledge that is outside ones senses according to definition but… this is not to say we cannot prove necessary beings (God) through science i.e. the first cause argument. This argument user’s science and gives us evidence of God by stating the impossibility of the contrary. Thirdly this evolution and creation Nonsense again? The two are often presented as science but the fact is that you cannot prove that fossil had a baby for example… Evolution and creation are irrelevant especially when talking about TRUE origins… My conclusion Religion is outside science but not necessarily against it. Bias: Christian theist. In addition, science can be subjective if certain assumptions are made E.g. I think, therefore I am.

i do

Yay someone who agrees with me

although im not christan

Too bad natural selection is a red herring when trying to prove evolution to a creationist.

Too bad natural selection is a red herring when trying to prove evolution to a creationist.

Too bad natural selection is a red herring when trying to prove evolution to a creationist.

Sorry spam, please delete two of my posts. I don’t know how.

Joshua, natural selection has been a valid scientific theory for over 150 years and has never once been dis-proven. It is as close to being a fact as any scientific theory can be. Creationism on the other hand has not one single piece of real evidence to support it.

Who said anyone was talkiing about evolution? I thought we were talking about operational science :D

Jimahi, Do you not understand what a red herring is? Creationists believe in natural selection in fact a creationist came up with a similar concept before Charles darwin and Wallace.

Because the church is afraid of being proven wrong and to lose their followers

It is because we are trying to put together a puzzle without the picture.