Creationism vs. Evolution

[jcluvzgamez 0]

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

[Bdub01 201]

@jcluvzgamez I'll buy your theory but do you have anything to back your statement up besides a book that was written by humans for humans. In other words is there any scientific proof of your statement?

[jcluvzgamez 0]

The Bible isn't just "a book." It is the Holy Book of God.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

[beebs 129]

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

We didn't evolve from the apes of today, we evolved from a common ancestor. Our evolutionary paths diverged, with humans gaining larger brains and mental capacity, while the other apes that are alive today evolved other advantages (ie. Gorillas are much, much stronger than us, others are much better climbers). 

[Cobraroll 138]

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

 

I have a strong feeling this is just a troll. Nobody in their right mind register on a forum specifically to derail one thread with silly antics and blatant misunderstandings, unless they do it "for the lulz". Why on earth would anybody join a city-building forum just to "discuss" religion? Heck, even his username suggests the account is created specifically to troll this one topic.

[arcology 224]

This forum thread is for the debate that spun off of the Kentucky Museum thread. It is for intellectual discussion only. Matters of religion will be discussed in a civil and polite manner, and I trust those that post here will keep things in a respectful tone. That being said, here's some ground rules:

1) Your beliefs are your own. Please respect those of your fellow Simtropians, as you would have yours respected in a similar manner.

2) Stay on topic.

3) No insults. No flaming. Let's keep the tone and choice of words civil and respectful.

4) Please cite sources for any claims that aren't your own. Don't plagiarize or quote someone offhand. If you get your information from a source, provide a link (or reference.)

The topic under discussion is the fundamental arguments behind creationism vs. those of evolution in today's society and their impact on our education, the fields of science and religion, and their effect on us and our beliefs. Discuss.

 

 

 

I personally believe, that one can't exist without the other.  Even if life were "created", it would have needed to evolve inorder to survive on this earthly "plane". 

 

There has to be a reason we are so complex (along with many life forms), however, we are still biologically tied to the organic matter that we need to survive. 

[Meg 368]

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

 

If God created human beings, he sure has a sick sense of humor.  Take, for example, the fact that the male sex drive far exceeds the male drive to be responsible to raise the resulting children.   From an evolutionary point of view, that makes sense.   But there is nothing intelligent about that design. 

 

 

 

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

 

I have a strong feeling this is just a troll. Nobody in their right mind register on a forum specifically to derail one thread with silly antics and blatant misunderstandings, unless they do it "for the lulz". Why on earth would anybody join a city-building forum just to "discuss" religion? Heck, even his username suggests the account is created specifically to troll this one topic.

 

You do have a good point there.

[blunder 1,079]

Ha! I didn't even know this thread existed until it just popped up in the little box on the home page.  So much /facepalm on both sides of this argument, especially the stereotyping and blatant generalizations made by both sides.

[Jt1996 3]

The way I think of religion, is that it all started when we first started to have a desire to understand how everything worked. It started very primitive, we believed in spirits were in everything, "This antelope I killed has a soul and must be treated with respect." As we evolved into starting small agricultural societies the believes evolved with it, "The Earth mother blessed me with this bountiful harvest." As we further evolved into the forming of empires the "divine right of king" became a way to establish a ruler. Once we evolved to the point of rejecting the "divine right of king" and created democracies we started to experiment and develop science, and soon began to slowly reject religion.

 

Now just as physical evolution is a slow process, that fosters the growth the most adaptive species, religion will still survive until it finally falls to the same fate as the dodo.

 

And for anyone that wants to read some pro-atheism reasoning, http://www.dangeroustalk.net/?page_id=1615.

[LexusInfernus 908]

If we "evolved from apes" why, pray tell, are there still apes today? Adam and Eve were the first people on this earth. God created this earth, and everything on it.

 

I have a strong feeling this is just a troll. Nobody in their right mind register on a forum specifically to derail one thread with silly antics and blatant misunderstandings, unless they do it "for the lulz". Why on earth would anybody join a city-building forum just to "discuss" religion? Heck, even his username suggests the account is created specifically to troll this one topic.

Actually, the only reason I joined this place was because it had a serious discussion section. I mean, I also play Sim City, but when I look for forums to join, pretty much my only requirement is that it has a place for potentially intelligent discussions. So it does happen.

 

Besides, a rather silly topic to troll if your intention is to troll. If you really want to troll, you don't start such a silly argument about evolution on a city builder forum. You either troll topics that are about Sim City or something, or you go to an Atheist forum and troll them there. You'd be surprised how easily you can troll Atheists with comments like that, and I must say, it is a lot of fun seeing them explode with fury as a result

 

 

@simdownload lol, that Atheist site is full of...well...nonsense. Historical inaccuracies, flawed logic, disregarding or misrepresenting facts and even things for which there is simply no basis at all (free will does not exist, good luck proving that), basically the same thing Atheists accuse Theists of doing. In the end, all such sites achieve is turning Atheism in the one thing they all despise: a religion. A religion based on its complete and utter dislike for other religions, which will eventually turn into intolerance and that turns into a great basis for the next war based on religion. 

[Darth Apple 54]

Personally, I think that if you are simply left saying "God created everything," and that's all there is to the story with no explanation for anything else, then sure, this God has a very cruel sense of humor. But when there is more than just this to the story, a lot can change. If you take the Bible at its full word, believing every word it says, it actually provides some pretty interesting explanations for things as well. Of course, you have to prove that the Bible is true, but in my mind it's difficult to truly mark something off as simply being false before you really consider what it actually has to say.

 

Of course, the idea of creationism isn't exclusive to the Bible either. Islam, along with many other religions, also hold creationist viewpoints.

[Jt1996 3]

@simdownload lol, that Atheist site is full of...well...nonsense. Historical inaccuracies, flawed logic, disregarding or misrepresenting facts and even things for which there is simply no basis at all (free will does not exist, good luck proving that), basically the same thing Atheists accuse Theists of doing. In the end, all such sites achieve is turning Atheism in the one thing they all despise: a religion. A religion based on its complete and utter dislike for other religions, which will eventually turn into intolerance and that turns into a great basis for the next war based on religion. 

 

I never noticed any inaccuracies (would you please give an example), about the free will part, it sounds odd at first, but if you think about it, it kind-of makes sense. It's funny you say it make it seem like a religion, while it has on there Atheism 101: Is atheism a religion?. And at least 70% of wars have been based on religion.

 

Oh and if you want to see some hilarious arguments between Staks and a theist, read the comments of Atheism 101: Can prayer heal the sick?.

[Indian007 25]

Originally posted by: Micah It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.

WELL SAID!!!

I believe in Creationism. Evolution has some great points, but some of it is bizzarre, like we once were primates. I don't believe that, I think we were just created by God.

What God, I think believing is some kind of invisible man, is just an ancient way of thinking, when you're in trouble and things go wrong we try to justify it or make it right by calling on someone or something to fix the problem that we've created. It's the lack of knowledge why we believe. The bible is nothing more in my opinion, than Jewish folk tales, I would never believe that an author of a book that told you a snake was talking, or a giant fish swallowed a man, spit him out somewhere else to deliver a message, or a guy holding a stick across the red sea for it to open to let an entire set of people to cross which I am sure included children old people cattle so on and so forth, to be a literal story, or even a true story as a matter of fact. If you check the span of the red sea, The Red Sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 km² (169,100 mi²). It is about 2250 km (1398 mi) long and, at its widest point, 355 km (220.6 mi) wide. It has a maximum depth of 2211 m (7254 ft) in the central median trench, and an average depth of 490 m (1,608 ft). Google it. Anyone who believes this story is to me, kind of outsane. This is not different from what we call in Jamaica as an ashanti folk tale where we use to listen to stories about a spider going around a trying to trick people to do bad things. It would be ridiculous for us to think that is was a true story. Here are a few quotes from America's founding fathers, and I believe them to be true. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." Benjamin Franklin. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!" John Adams. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson.  

What God, I think believing is some kind of invisible man, is just an ancient way of thinking, when you're in trouble and things go wrong we try to justify it or make it right by calling on someone or something to fix the problem that we've created. It's the lack of knowledge why we believe. The bible is nothing more in my opinion, than Jewish folk tales, I would never believe that an author of a book that told you a snake was talking, or a giant fish swallowed a man, spit him out somewhere else to deliver a message, or a guy holding a stick across the red sea for it to open to let an entire set of people to cross which I am sure included children old people cattle so on and so forth, to be a literal story, or even a true story as a matter of fact. If you check the span of the red sea, The Red Sea has a surface area of roughly 438,000 km² (169,100 mi²). It is about 2250 km (1398 mi) long and, at its widest point, 355 km (220.6 mi) wide. It has a maximum depth of 2211 m (7254 ft) in the central median trench, and an average depth of 490 m (1,608 ft). Google it. Anyone who believes this story is to me, kind of outsane. This is not different from what we call in Jamaica as an Ashanti folk tale where we use to listen to stories about a spider going around a trying to trick people to do bad things. It would be ridiculous for us to think that is was a true story. Here are a few quotes from America's founding fathers, and I believe them to be true. "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." Benjamin Franklin. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it!" John Adams. "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson.  

[Zukunftstraume 220]

The Bible isn't just "a book." It is the Holy Book of God.

 

What makes the bible any different than The Quran, The Great Works of Homer, The Torah, The Scriptures of Siddharta Guatama, The Tao Te Ching, The Popol Vuh, or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

If anything, all the other thousands of confident religions and ideologies would say the same about the Bible... So, what makes Christianity as a whole any "better" or "more accurate" than the others?

 

Give me ONE good reason why the Bible is any different than the others... One reason that isn't because it's "Holy", or that "It's God's book", or that "Jesus intended to lead us to salvation with this" because every other religion would say the same exact thing about their own great book or scripture.

[LexusInfernus 908]

@simdownload lol, that Atheist site is full of...well...nonsense. Historical inaccuracies, flawed logic, disregarding or misrepresenting facts and even things for which there is simply no basis at all (free will does not exist, good luck proving that), basically the same thing Atheists accuse Theists of doing. In the end, all such sites achieve is turning Atheism in the one thing they all despise: a religion. A religion based on its complete and utter dislike for other religions, which will eventually turn into intolerance and that turns into a great basis for the next war based on religion. 

 

I never noticed any inaccuracies (would you please give an example), about the free will part, it sounds odd at first, but if you think about it, it kind-of makes sense. It's funny you say it make it seem like a religion, while it has on there Atheism 101: Is atheism a religion?. And at least 70% of wars have been based on religion.

 

Oh and if you want to see some hilarious arguments between Staks and a theist, read the comments of Atheism 101: Can prayer heal the sick?.

Just because they claim they are not a religion doesn't mean they don't exhibit all the signs of being one. Actually, that 'Can Prayer Heal the Sick' discussion at the end of it is a pretty good example of it, that whole discussion reeks of dogma. In any case, that discussion is pretty much how I sometimes see Christians argue with Muslims on various topics. They quote scripture at each other, call the other party idiotic for not believing them and ending the discussion with some final insult involving hell or something. This guy keeps quoting 'studies' that show prayer doesn't work and when someone tells him how utterly worthless such studies are and instead quotes scripture they begin calling each other names. 

 

As for free will, yes you can make a strong argument against having free will. However, free will or no free will, it is out there with God, there is no science to support it so stating it with absolute certainty is flawed. If you give religious people trouble for supposedly believing in things that have no evidence, then practice what you preach and don't make similar statements about other topics. On top of that, the argument on that side is flawed as well. We are not control of what we do, yet we still have choices? No, a choice is by definition something you only have when you have control over the outcome. No free will means a fixed outcome which means that there is no choice. On top of that, it really makes the whole discussion between atheists and theists...moot. Theists believe because the forces around them compel them to believe and Atheists are compelled to not believe. It makes the whole debate between the two nothing more than a silly puppet show. 

 

As for 70% of the wars being fought because of religion....well...no. Religion may have played a role, it may have been used as an excuse even, but that does not make a war a religious war. War is political, is fought over political objectives and for political reasons. Religion is seldom the cause of it. Even if it is in some cases the cause of it, it is a downright false argument to state that without religion there would have been far less wars.

 

What is also a false argument here is the idea that religion makes you a horrible person, while being an atheist makes you a reasonable fellow who would never do other people harm. It reeks of asserting moral superiority of Atheists over Theists. But being religious and being a horrible person have nothing to do with each other, and the same works for Atheism. Put the right Atheist in the right spot and he will just as easily become a genocidal maniac as the right religious person in the right spot. The communist revolutions and their subsequent slaughter of all who opposed them should have made that abundantly clear by now. Historically this argument is also flawed. As they will likely point out, the long list of horrible people who killed millions of people over the course of the past several centuries were all Theists. Yes, obviously when in a time pretty much everyone is Theist, and being religious is pretty much a prerequisite for anyone who wants to have some measure of power, you won't find any Atheists in places where they could do real harm. That isn't proof that Atheists are supposedly better people, it simply means that Atheists haven't been around long enough to fill the history books with horrible Atheists. 

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Actually, when you come to think of it, agnoscism is the only way to be non-religous:

- Most religions are convinced that there is a God, multiple Gods or higher beings, despite having no proof for their existence...

- Atheism are convinced that there is no God, , despite having no falsification for His existence...

- Agnoscism says that you can't proof nor disprove it and therefore it's useless to take any standpoint about the subject.

 

I personally go for the third one. There may be or may not be a God; I just don't know for sure...

[Gn_leugim 853]

Actually, when you come to think of it, agnoscism is the only way to be non-religous:

- Most religions are convinced that there is a God, multiple Gods or higher beings, despite having no proof for their existence...

- Atheism are convinced that there is no God, , despite having no falsification for His existence...

- Agnoscism says that you can't proof nor disprove it and therefore it's useless to take any standpoint about the subject.

 

I personally go for the third one. There may be or may not be a God; I just don't know for sure...

 

 

indeed atheist don't have proofs of the non existence of gods, but in the same way, we don't have proofs that flying ponys exists ( lol ) do we even question ourselves about if they do exist or not? well, I think no, despite we have a lot of books and stories, written and told by man, as in god's tells, talking about them.

 

I think most atheists, like myself, think that gods doesn't exist because they are creations of man in the first place, in a time where everything was "mystical", and most of their claims were meanwhile disproved. Most atheist don't question just the existence of gods, we question the whole thing together and take conclusion of the whole thing.

 

Nevertheless, I (and now I speak for myself) won't say with 100% certain that there is no gods, but I will say I have strong reasons to say that is likely that there are no gods.

 

*flies away in a little pony*

[astronelson 339]

Actually, when you come to think of it, agnoscism is the only way to be non-religous:

- Most religions are convinced that there is a God, multiple Gods or higher beings, despite having no proof for their existence...

- Atheism are convinced that there is no God, , despite having no falsification for His existence...

- Agnoscism says that you can't proof nor disprove it and therefore it's useless to take any standpoint about the subject.

 

I personally go for the third one. There may be or may not be a God; I just don't know for sure...

 

There are two definitions of atheism. One is what you have said, the belief that there is no god. The other is the lack of belief in god, which is both more common and not the same thing.

 

Agnosticism does not relate to whether you believe in gods or not, though - it is a position on whether the existence of gods (or lack thereof) is knowable. It is easily possible to be an agnostic atheist (and many, such as myself, are). I do not believe in any gods, but I don't claim to have knowledge that no gods exist, nor do I think the existence of god(s) can be proven. It is likewise possible to be an agnostic theist.

 

There might be a god, there might not be, I don't believe there is. Agnostic atheism.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

^^ Well, when putting it that way, I would be an agnostic atheist I don't believe in a God, but I cannot rule it out completely..

[Gn_leugim 853]

^^ Well, when putting it that way, I would be an agnostic atheist I don't believe in a God, but I cannot rule it out completely..

 

I second that XD

[macvirt 361]

The Bible isn't just "a book." It is the Holy Book of God.

 

Which god. 

 

Also, you do know that particular book itself is a result of the historic version of a convention where people decided what to include, what to discard, and more importantly what to rewrite? 

[jcluvzgamez 0]

The One true and only God. Not the false gods that some other religions worship... And when all of a sudden did I lose MY right to MY religion?

 

 

EDIT: And about the comment about me only having 3 posts... I usually hang out over at SC4Devotion not Simtropolis, I don't post here normally...

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, OK, that's enough guff from both sides.

 

Science without religion is blind and religion without science is empty.  This is a paraphrase of something said by one of the most distinguished scientists in the 20th century, Albert Einstein.  Dr. Einstein was a devout Jew AFAIK.

 

As for does God care about humanity?  The point isn't even moot.  It doesn't.  There is no anthropomorphizing God allowed.  God is unknowable, so there is no point in discussing It under the terms of any ancient beliefs.  God is an expression for what we don't know about the cosmos, and let's leave it at that.

[macvirt 361]

The One true and only God. Not the false gods that some other religions worship... And when all of a sudden did I lose MY right to MY religion?

 

 

EDIT: And about the comment about me only having 3 posts... I usually hang out over at SC4Devotion not Simtropolis, I don't post here normally...

 

So ... you do not see how such a statement enforces the very same type of thinking and actioning that you feel threatened by? You don't see how the sheer absence of conscious tolerance creates the very threats to your perception of choices? Really? Honestly?

 

Human beings do not have innate rights. Rights are a concept created by human thinking and effectuated by human actioning. We can engage in a lot of philosophical and theological debate on that, but even the Vatican is wary of going there because the "one and only true" god of christianity in its original Kaananite incarnation made rather abundantly clear that humans exist solely in servitude without rights. Wonderful thing, scripture. Or maybe suddenly we want to see god as an evolving identity?

 

Serious though, nobody in his or her right mind is going to attack anyone's choices of belief as long as it adheres to the one universally shared condition of all belief systems (though we should note that many organised versions - religions - that make use of belief systems steer far from recognising it): first do no harm and recognise the individuality of man (if anything, because god tells you to - pun intended). But if you cannot see how your statement causes harm you are either victim to indoctrination, dogma, trauma or troll. That is not a personal attack, far from, it's up to you to demonstrate to not be either if you are willing to participate in the debate. 

 

Nobody can establish truth on any part of "true" or "only" in relation to god or gods. That is because it is a concept of belief. That belief can only exist if the person or persons sharing a belief recognise that it is an individual and not an organisational choice. This is one of the differences between tolerance and fanaticism as much as it is one of the differences between belief and religion or faith and the differences between live & let live versus convert or die.

 

Tolerance is what enables you to practice your belief. Taking a stand of principle of being the only one with truth or right is a guarantee to make yourself a victim through a sea of blood of others before you drown in it yourself. God wills it, after all, such a principle excuse. Then again, let's be honest, Christian religions are incredibly good at forcing people to feel as perpetually potential victims - where do you think governments learned the art of ruling through the management of fear as instrument from? 

 

Have a think, honestly. Count to ten, before falling prey to the profile of victimisation that is a required element of keeping people embedded in a religious system as opposed to people practising their beliefs. If that does not help, try something very human and divine alike: step in to the shoes of another person, and look through his or her eyes for a moment.

 

Note the distinctions between having a belief and being religious.

[Haljackey 17,319]

Raised Christian, but believe in evolution.

 

I find myself stuck in this conundrum:

 

 

I treat the Bible and other holy scriptures as books. The creation story is just that... a story. Something to make you think and maybe have a moral at the end.

 

I couldn't see myself blindly following it... It's human to question stuff. We question rules and law all the time, so why not this?

 

 

EDIT: How is this topic a 'current event?'

-It should be moved to general off-topic or something.

  Edited February 20, 2013 by Haljackey  

[macvirt 361]

It's a current event because every day people kill each other because they challenge each other's beliefs, I'd say. Instrumentation in service of such ongoing conflicts is continuously relevant for discussion, and creationism is part of that instrumentation. 

[macvirt 361]

I know, don't worry. I only replied for the slim but deserving chance that someone who actually is caught on the treshold between having belief and being religious reads this topic, and might have or take a moment to think without reflexively falling prey to the constraints of dogma or doctrine. 

 

Besides, if he does respond, chances are that it is going to be highly entertaining at worst, and at best a completely blatant red flag to anyone who might be on the edge of falling prey to becoming religious. Never bad odds

[da-mattster 2]

I choose both. I believe in God and believe he created all things. The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days, how long is a day in God's terms? There is evidence to support Evolution, do I believe we evolved from some Primate, no. I can see the argument behind that, but in my opinion I don't believe in it. I am willing to see both sides, and argee with points on both sides. But I don't believe this is a one side vs one side argument.

[macvirt 361]

I choose both. I believe in God and believe he created all things. The Bible says the Earth was created in 6 days, how long is a day in God's terms? There is evidence to support Evolution, do I believe we evolved from some Primate, no. I can see the argument behind that, but in my opinion I don't believe in it. I am willing to see both sides, and argee with points on both sides. But I don't believe this is a one side vs one side argument.

 

I once had a very interesting discussion with a professor of economics, who also was a priest. One of the things he mentioned is that time is an incentive from god to be proactive, but with god standing outside of man until that point of omega planned for man he stands outside of that reality which man shapes with the instruments given to him by god. A statement which after much further debate with not just him but several physicists present turned out to be perfectly in tune with not just theology, but also science. I can give a long piece of text on string theory, quantum foam, the relation between presence of an observer, perception of observer and reality states and so forth, but that would take matters too far. 

 

But you raise an interesting point. The part of days in the bible is a result not even of translation issues or even errors, but of selection issues. When the bible was put together (our modern day version of it was created not that long ago in our history at an in retrospect utterly strange and forced convention put in place by a roman emperor) it was a very messy process. A lot of texts were discarded because of politics, even simple hate of that which cannot be controlled, or directives of conversion put in place to make it easier to guide other beliefs into merging with christianity. Other texts were redacted, yet others were combined, and so forth. Not a single gospel was preserved in original form. What we today refer to as "days", as we now know from digging up precursor texts as well as finding original texts preserved over time) was not days, but ages. 6 ages of creation. Each age evolving, after prime instigation. As Einstein or Bohr would have said (actually have said) "a brilliant program".

 

That is quite a difference, isn't it. It even avoids - out of simple clarity - having to face an issue of dealing with the notion of a god with its own perception or even reality. It simply is in line with both the human and the divine. 6 ages. Which incidentally are once again a perfect match to the evolution of the multiverse as science is managing to chart. Also incidentally, that is something which every precursor belief systems shares, whether it is the vedda's or the oral traditions of the dogon, the dreaming voids of precursor aboriginees, the creation tradition of the bushmen, the sun cults of the egyptian precursors or even further back to the origins of all the abrahamic religions, sumer. Among quite a few other things actually, but that aside.

 

On the part of coming from apes, we are indeed apes. But we are also more than just genetics. Like every animal with an evolved or granted empathic capacity (depending on whether one adheres to empyrical science or scripture and/or both) man is more than the sum of parts. Quite a few other animals are as well. It's why quite a few saints and other by now holy figures took time and occasion to point out such things. Ok, sometimes it was a bit abused during history (for example how Christianity forbade the eating of horse meat because Germanic tribes had too much of a reverence for the animalistic during their conversion stages), but even today even the Catholic Church has  clear doctrine on the place of empathy among the animals of this world and the responsabilities of mankind to them and the world that is shared. 

 

What is interesting is that the creation tale we find in the bible today is a derivative of a much more detailed and earlier set of creation tails. It is the same story for example that the tribes carried with them on the road to Kanaän once upon a time long ago. The short version we have today pretty much guarantees a conflict between the story and the science. Much the same way as earlier science of man guaranteed conflict between itself and that story. Yet again today we find increasing paralles in the analogies and symbolism between that tale and what science is slowly finding. Building blocks of DNA, the various elements used in splicing, but that too is going to take us far too much off track here. Suffice to say that our beliefs as preserved by our species are increasingly turning out to be established not just by belief, but also by science. What tends to confuse the matter is the symbologies in place in these "seperated" worlds of perception. As mentioned before, one of the best theorists today in string theory is an incredibly devout man who sees no divide between belief and science there, because it is a perfect match. It is just different names and analogies. We see the same pop up in genetics, biology, everywhere. As one scientist once told me "the problem is not who is right or wrong, the problem between us and the church is who's language is used to explain matters to people - it's like who gets to publish". Humorously ofcourse, but quite an intruiging statement. 

 

By the way, the Vatican has no issues whatsoever with the science of man being an evolution of an ape. It is perfectly in line with accepted doctrine of a man created by god in an evolution from alpha to omega, as from god to part of god in all things. Ofcourse that is not something people tend to be taught at sunday school, but it is interesting to get slapped with such a statement from a bishop as happened to me once. I can assure you, it really makes one raise an eyebrow or two, such a moment.

 

Something funny, is an increasing shift in scientific communities, under the influence of emerging theories as quantum and string theory, of a computational universe. A universe which has a point of creation, and not just a point of coming in to existance. A universe model which also comprises an evolutionary model based on entropy and exergy unnervingly similar to concepts such as this relation of alpha and omega which many belief systems have known both individually and seperately over the course of history. Even those which tell a tale of several cycles of man across history know these very concepts, reincarnation or no reincarnation, indian or proto african or european. Intruiging isn't it. 

 

We as a species are too heavily influenced by our own very human tendencies to fall prey to behaviour that prioritises the self and here & now rather than the group and the future. It is the bane of our history. Even when we as a group make an effort to focus on group and future we tend to allow ourselves to have objectives in that be misused by individuals and misleading of the group dynamics. Most of our religions are textbook examples of those traps, unfortunately. As much good as some try to accomplish, we have to be honest. And we cannot fall prey to the trap of "yes but it also does good". If doing good requires doing bad than the price is simply not one to pay. Again something all ancient scriptures are rather clear on. We use people's beliefs in organised manners for the purpose of managing fear. On a psychological level it is understandable, that does not make it right however.

 

Look at how we push ourselves to take texts literally. We know that words were given in different times, under different conditions, to different people, for specific circumstances and lessons. The words themselves are clear of that, and time and again the texts caution against that trap. Yet we push each other to reach for literal interpretation because if we can point to a written word it is equal to a concept of law. It is self justification, and that is something entirely different. We really should look at how conditions and matters were different, exactly because we are dealing largely with lessons, because it is not the lessons or the people that are that important, but the conditions themselves. After all, just about every god or gods we ever came up with (so to speak, obviously) warns us that history repeats itself if we do not study it and learn from it. We need to know what conditions result in what consequences under what circumstances. Only that way we can take a new road, and thus no longer fall prey to those same mistakes. We will make new ones yes, but that is the actual learning curve. It is the secret of life as god teaches it: choose, and choose again. At every fork in the road. Look back, learn who went where and how, and choose again and again. In doing so make the way go forward until it reaches god itself. It is an evolutionary concept present in our science, ir our theology, in our philosophy, everywhere. 

 

But no, deus le volt. Ergo <insert person, city or country of choice here> delenda est. God forbid we would use our brains and hearts together. So that the whole would be more than just the sum of parts.