Why must science & religion disagree?

Continuing evolution of this planet and all it contains has been proven scientifically. The only "theory" is that humans split off from the ape. If/when science and religion disagree on something, it usually is because science has yet to make a discovery or religious standings are based on ancient superstitions or misinterpretation of Sacred Texts. As a Baha'i, I believe in evolution but NOT that man evolved from the ape because, even in his most humble beginnings, man has always had a soul and knowledge of his creation (from a theist's pov, of course!).

As a Baha'i, I believe in evolution but NOT that man evolved from the
ape because, even in his most humble beginnings, man has always had a
soul and knowledge of his creation (from a theist's pov, of course!)


But… That isn't what evolution says.

Science and religion do not have to disagree.

17. Then from the throng | did three come forth,
From the home of the gods, | the mighty and gracious;
Two without fate | on the land they found,
Ask and Embla, | empty of might.
18. Soul they had not, | sense they had not,
Heat nor motion, | nor goodly hue;
Soul gave Othin, | sense gave Hönir,
Heat gave Lothur | and goodly hue.

world citizen wrote:Continuing evolution of this planet and all it contains has been proven scientifically.

Well, no, actually it hasn't or evolution would be spoken of as a scientific fact. Scientists are mostly agreed that evolution might as well be referred to as factual; however, until the theory reaches the point at which it is declared factual, it is incorrect to refer to evolution as having been proven.

The only "theory" is that humans split off from the ape.

As SG pointed out, this is also an incorrect representation of evolutionary theory.

As a Baha'i, I believe in evolution but NOT that man evolved from the ape because, even in his most humble beginnings, man has always had a soul and knowledge of his creation (from a theist's pov, of course!).

Weeelll, I think it's questionable that the earliest humanoids had much knowledge of their creation. It wasn't until a good many millennia after humankind began reproducing that people figured out that a sperm and an ovum unite to form the beginnings of a future child. There were all sorts of bizarre ideas about what caused pregnancy up until that point.

I suppose we can presume that people have always told imaginative stories about how the Earth began and how people came to be here, but the likelihood that they have doesn't demonstrate much of anything about the essence of being human other than we like to make up stories when we don't know.

The bottom line is that science and religion differ because science endeavors to find a demonstrable basis for the stories religions tell. Religions generally stop at the insistence that their respective stories are absolutely true with no proof of that.

What then does evolution "say"? My understanding of it is that all life (and the planet itself) keeps evolving, from whatever its original form to its present state, and will continue to do so. From what you and Dot are saying, it is ALL just a theory and not just that man split from the ape is unproven? From this should I conclude that the next time I hear/read that today's birds (raptors) evolved from the dinosaurs, I can simply say they're full of it?

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestory through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth. This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other likenesses between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. To distinguish from other uses of the word evolution, it is sometimes termed biological evolution, genetic evolution or organic evolution.[2][3][4]

....
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

WorldC, you seem to understand "theory" in the common sense of any idea that isn't proven.

Evolution is a scientific theory which means it has had to progress through various stages from hypotheses to experimentation which showed that the hypotheses were correct (or needed to be altered and re-tested), and so forth. Enough evidence has been amassed that it's close to certain that evolution is fact. However, scientists maintain that niggling little distinction of using the label "theory" until they are confident that something deserves to be relabeled a fact.

Fossil evidence found thus far indicates that apes and humans had a common ancestor, but the latter decidedly did not evolve from the former. There are DNA and other similarities that suggest the common ancestor but distinctive enough differences that the one could not have been the ancestor of the other.

world citizen wrote:What then does evolution "say"? My understanding of it is that all life (and the planet itself) keeps evolving, from whatever its original form to its present state, and will continue to do so. From what you and Dot are saying, it is ALL just a theory and not just that man split from the ape is unproven? From this should I conclude that the next time I hear/read that today's birds (raptors) evolved from the dinosaurs, I can simply say they're full of it?

Humans didn't split from the ape. Apes and humans had a common ancestor.

Oops, I see you answered first, Dot.

Eh, well...nothing like reiteration.

GMTA, Gilly, that's what it was.

gillyflower wrote:Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestory through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth. This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other likenesses between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations. To distinguish from other uses of the word evolution, it is sometimes termed biological evolution, genetic evolution or organic evolution.[2][3][4]

....
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

I might have said it in far less words w/o the use of scientific terms but I thought that's what I was saying all along.

DotNotInOz wrote:WorldC, you seem to understand "theory" in the common sense of any idea that isn't proven.

Evolution is a scientific theory which means it has had to progress through various stages from hypotheses to experimentation which showed that the hypotheses were correct (or needed to be altered and re-tested), and so forth. Enough evidence has been amassed that it's close to certain that evolution is fact. However, scientists maintain that niggling little distinction of using the label "theory" until they are confident that something deserves to be relabeled a fact.

Fossil evidence found thus far indicates that apes and humans had a common ancestor, but the latter decidedly did not evolve from the former. There are DNA and other similarities that suggest the common ancestor but distinctive enough differences that the one could not have been the ancestor of the other.

For the most part I think it can be agreed much (most?) of the theories HAVE been proven through fossils, plates, etc. What hasn't been proven and that which remains a theory is man/ape evolving from a common ancestor. Man shares 50 percent DNA with a banana and 60 percent DNA with a fruit fly. So what? Did they also come from the same common ancestor? I believe it will remain a theory...

Er, not quite. I'm going to repost part of my post.

Ultimately, life is descended from a common ancestory through a long series of these speciation events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Study first. Then, if you still do, say why you disagree. Right now there is just so much that I don't even know where to begin.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=41

Wow, All! That appears to be a really good breakdown of evolutionary theory.

I just "favorited" that site for further study.

Thanks much for linking it.

That humans and apes share a common ancestor is more theoretical at this point in the sense of having less clearly demonstrable evidence supporting the idea than is evolution itself.

You oversimplify to the point of reductio ad absurdum if you choose to dismiss the likelihood of a human-ape common ancestor based upon DNA alone.

Thanks Dot.

Very good discussion. Thanks to each of you! WC

world citizen wrote: If/when science and religion disagree on something, it usually is because science has yet to make a discovery or religious standings are based on ancient superstitions or misinterpretation of Sacred Texts. [emphasis added]

One more fairly minor quibble with the above statement as indicated by the emphasis--

While I know that it's a relatively common and somewhat cherished belief that science will eventually verify insights that religions have into the workings of life and the natural world, I've found that more frequently the opposite is true. Rather than confirming such beliefs, the advancement of scientific knowledge resulting from discoveries renders these beliefs mistakes arising from ignorance.

For instance, the Christian OT insists that Joshua stopped the sun in the sky so that he would have sufficient daylight to finish the battle. However, science later demonstrated conclusively that it's the Earth's rotation which makes the sun appear to move across the sky; the sun does not move and thus could not have been stopped, miraculously or otherwise.

There are others, not exclusively Christian others, but this example should be sufficiently illustrative.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:Thanks Dot.

world citizen wrote:Very good discussion. Thanks to each of you! WC

Quite welcome, both of you.

world citizen wrote:The only "theory" is that humans split off from the ape.

Not so much "split off", really. Man is still one of the Great Apes, just highly advanced in brainpower and technology.

Well, moderately advanced in brainpower....

Some more than others! Nonetheless I have just composed two marvelous and rather long replies, the second of which expanded on the first, and I somehow have managed to lose them both somewhere in the cyberspace ether, so I think I'm undergoing some devolution at the moment...

I generally regard vanished postings as the universe's way of telling me to shut-the-eff-up.

Not that that might ever be a worthy admonition or anything...

It has happened to me here lately too, the disappearing posts. I'm wondering if there is a glitch in the site.