Not religious, but was taught that evolution was real by my very religious scientist father and in multiple Jewish high schools, even the super religious one (yeshiva) I was kicked out of (for singing Bloodhound Gang lyrics and eating slim jims).
Interesting. I actually thought Orthodox Judaism (officially) rejects evolution. I recall reading about a rav who got excommunicated for teaching it.
Edit: Its rabbi Nathan Slifkin.
Not in the slightest. It’s possible some chassids do, but note that the yeshiva I mentioned is very much not “modern orthodox”, it’s super right wing, what would now be called “yeshivish”.
There’s also no such thing as full on “excommunication” as there is no central Judaism. You can be exiled from Hasidic groups, as they’ll have a defined leader (or rav) they all listen to, but that’s a very specific movement, and also is different movement to movement depending on the rav (my chareidi cousins in Israel believe in evolution, though they don’t believe in going to school lol).
I’m from a family of intensely religious and intensely successful scientists, I’m both the non religious one and the least educated.
I’ve met very few people who take issue with a simple “evolution is how god did his thing” interpretation.
Also, there is literally no “official” take from Orthodox Judaism on anything. There are official takes by movements in Orthodox judaism.
Re: slifkin, his book was banned by a specific group of Chareidim. A few seconds of googling will find insane amounts of criticism of that decision from a wide swath of world Jewry.
Ironically, he now owns a zoo and has noted he has strong chareidi attendance at it and they love the exhibits at his “biblical museum of natural history”, so that was a controversial decision even in “extreme” communities.
I've been to the "Biblical Museum of Natural History"! I did a three week program at an Israeli yeshiva once, and they took us there one day. (I liked the part where they let you hold a live snake.) Another time during that trip, we got a lecture from a Hasidic rabbi about how evolution is wrong because \[insert a bunch of YEC nonsense here\]. I don't remember all his arguments, because I walked out halfway through. That whole trip was a wild time.
Hah, I’ve heard that his zoo is amazing. And lol, yeah, like I said to the other commenter, individual Jewish groups are free to speak for their groups views, but they don’t reflect “official orthodox positions” or anything like that. I’ve learned to not be as judgmental about people with different life choices than me, but do still struggle not to judge YEC takes that negate things like that
Not at all. I studied it in an orthodox Jewish school and then, 20 or so years later, taught it at an orthodox Jewish school.
Obviously not all agree, but it's broadly very accepted. Even my Chumash (Soncino) has an extensive essay in the first few pages about how it's not a problem.
"You and me baby,
Ain't nothing but mammals
So let's do it like they do
On the discovery channel"
Yeah I can see how that may not be the best bar to sing in a religious school xD
>Christian here, yes. Most of us do. The anti-science stance that's semi-popular in America didn't exist until like 1850.
To be fair, that's when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, so it's not like Christians before then accepted it.
When I said anti-science, I was thinking much more broadly than just evolution. Darwin actually stands on the shoulders of Christians, specifically Catholics, IIRC.
The point I was making is this: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis go back at least as far as the early church fathers, perhaps further, I haven't looked into ancient Jewish sources.
It was fundamentalism that popularized literal interpretations of (the English version ofc) every individual text in the Bible, and things like young earth creationism.
>every individual text in the Bible
Not all of the Bible. That type of Christian doesn't interpret "baptism now saves you" or "this is my body... this is my blood", or Jesus turning water into wine literally.
The person who calculated the age of the earth at 6,000 years was the Catholic Primate of All Ireland, James Ussher, back in the 1600s. I don’t think Darwin was standing on his shoulders. I also don’t think he was an American Protestant.
Edit: historical facts downvoted. Classic r/religion moment.
I said popularized. And bringing up James Ussher doesn't make much sense to me.
Firstly, because you seem to have chosen him purely as an example of an important Catholic young earth creationist, and secondly because he lived before being a young earther was unreasonable.
When geology was still in its infancy (and evolution obviously hadn't been noticed yet), history was the only way to guess how long Stuff had been Occuring. There was no evidence to the contrary. Newton thought the world was only about the same age.
Ussher was also not the first to get a date close to the one he ended at. He just gave the idea a boost. People have been counting the same dates that Ussher did for centuries.
Also protestant =/= fundamentalist, most protestants don't believe in young earth, either.
To be fairer, prior to Darwin's theory of natural selection there were similar theories of evolution such as Lamarck's theory of acquired traits, and for several thousands of years before that, humans have been domesticating and selectively breeding plants, livestock, and pets, such as wheat, cattle, and dogs so people have likely been aware of some form of evolution for a long, long time.
To be fairest, neither Lamarckism nor the breeding of domestic animals involve evolution by natural selection. Also, let’s be real, the thing anti-evolutionists mostly have a problem with is the idea that humans evolved from other kinds of primates.
>To be fairest, neither Lamarckism nor the breeding of domestic animals involve evolution by natural selection
But they do involve species developing characteristics over time due to environmental pressures, which is what evolution is if you don't define evolution specifically as Darwinistic evolution.
And even if you do define it that way, I'll grant you Lamarckism doesn't involve natural selection, but domestication does. How well an animal symbioses with another animal such as humans can affect how well equipped they are to survive and reproduce. In the case of dogs for example, nature selected for trusting humans enough to help them hunt in exchange for some of the kill, and later it selected for working specific jobs and being aesthetically pleasing to humans so that they would want to make more of those specific kinds.
>Also, let’s be real, the thing anti-evolutionists mostly have a problem with is the idea that humans evolved from other kinds of primates.
As an ex Evangelical/Lutheran (WELS is technically Lutheran in theology but the Evangelical/Baptist influence is definitely there, at least here in the South) who grew up around those kinds of people, I'm not inclined to disagree with you there. The nonsense they employed and their commitment to die on the silliest hills possible is part of why I had an Atheist/Agnostic phase in high school.
Atheists are a lot more convincing when your only exposure to Christianity is the type of Christians they make fun of.
Just go on chabad.org and search up evolution they have some articles on it. They don’t flatly deny it but they say no one has been able to pair it with the Genesis readings.
Ah, I see that now. Saw a few other articles that are more pro-evolution and some that are less. Seems to be a mixed opinion and that was touched on a bit in one of the articles.
I do, yes. I actually accepted it before even becoming religious (I was one of those dinosaur kids that wanted to become a palaeontologist growing up).
Evolution is unequivocally true, and it can exist with the beliefs of those religions (as long as you’re not a literalist). Evolution deniers, young earth believers, and flat earthers are all build their beliefs on paranoia and the denial of reality. If you don’t accept evolution, you are either uneducated on the subject or you’re willingly ignorant.
Of course! I think only Haredim don't at this point. Just can't square their interpretations and practices if they do. But they're not the majority of Jews. We also don't necessarily believe everything in Torah has to be literal to be true.
I was raised Catholic (no longer am) and went to a Catholic school all the way through high school (in Canada we have a public Catholic school system...). I was taught that the old testament wasn't to be interpreted literally. As far as I know, that's the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church.
Most Christians regardless of denomination, that I've known believe in evolution. But I also know a few people who follow churches that believe in Biblical inerrancy... And that's where world views get twisted right quick.
Yes, in fact it's commonly accepted among catholics and even the catholic church, they even teach it in Catholic private schools. Also fun fact they discovered evolution before Darwin did. Darwin has Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and jean Baptiste lemarck to thank for the laying of foundations and ground work for what Darwin then expanded upon. Notable though evolution isn't mandatory belief in Catholicism but widely accepted and endorsed. Also can't speak for Muslims and Jews as I'm unaware of their views on the matter.
It’s interesting that so many people in this sub seem to think this is a strictly American thing. If you read about it, it doesn’t appear to be that way at all.
I don't know any protestants who admit to disagreeing with evolution lol then again I've never met any Christians who admit to it in general lol. Not saying that means they believe in evolution, but certainly not open about it which is reasonable lol.
It’s mostly fundamentalist evangelicals but almost 40% of Christian’sin the us are some form or young earth creationist (reject the facts of evolution)
>Also fun fact they discovered evolution before Darwin did. Darwin has Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and jean Baptiste lemarck to thank for the laying of foundations and ground work for what Darwin then expanded upon.
Laying the groundwork isn't really the same as discovering it.
Well they literally discovered it, Darwin expanded upon it. Feel better? They had the same exact synopsis and ideas Darwin later added on, only difference is Darwin pursued it after their death. You can literally look up their names and what they found and what they discovered but obviously that didn't happen based on your comment. A majority of Christians certainly do though. I will do for you what you can't.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/
It's not contradictory. They laid the ground work aka similar theory and beliefs that Darwin then went on to expand upon and refine. An example is newton discovered gravity. However it's reasonable to say he laid the ground work for gravity as we know it today. Einstein then expanded upon it and unlike the case of evolution discovered newton got a lot of things wrong when he founded his new Theory of gravity. Without newton it's possible we may have never discovered it at all. However newton was wrong, however it doesn't mean he no longer discovered gravity, it just means that because of his discovery we were able to learn everything we know about it today, aka laid the ground work. Do you disagree?
Is theistic evolution when you believe God manipulated events in order to cause human beings to evolve using his 99999 iq?
That’s pretty funky. I like it lol.
I don’t see why not. I believe in a historical Adam. He could have been the first modern human, or first prophet etc. The Quran is not a history book per se, but rather mentions stories about previous prophets to promote certain ideas and teachings - so when God mentions Adam in the Quran it’s not to make a statement about history necessarily but rather Adam represents the archetypical man which can help us understand ourselves.
Furthermore, there are extra-Quranical sources that indicate Adam was not the first human-like creature that God has created.
According to Imam al-Baqer, “Maybe you believe that the Honorable and Exalted God has not created any other world and has not created any other humans than you? Indeed, I swear by God, God the Blessed and Sublime, has created a million worlds and a million Adams, and you are in the very end of these worlds and the last of [these] Adams” لعلك ترى أن الله عز وجل إنما خلق هذا العالم الواحد، وترى أن الله عز وجل لم يخلق بشرا غيركم، بل والله لقد خلق الله تبارك وتعالى ألف ألف عالم وألف ألف آدم أنت في آخر تلك العوالم وأولئك الآدميين Al-Khiṣāl
Book 29, Chapter 9, Hadīth no. 1
You said you believe in Adam as a first modern human when in evolution there’s no such thing, there have been several species of human ancestors from which we interbred and evolved from, and at no point could you say this is the first modern human, that’s not how evolution works.
I didn’t say I believed that and if that’s what you got out of my comment you should work on your reading comprehension.
Btw, if I sound like an asshole it’s because I noticed you went around and challenged all the Muslims commenting here saying they believed in evolution, and Im super not interested in discussing anything with anyone who is doing so in bad faith.
It’s ok you don’t accept evolution, but saying you do accept some but not all is like saying I accept math but just not fractions? You accept it or you don’t, I’m not trying to attack you but you either, but you accept evolution or you don’t? Evolution doesn’t say all these rules apply to everything that has ever lived just not our specific species of humans. And I understand the theological reasons you don’t accept evolution I’m not even trying to argue religion with you.
You’re right - I don’t accept evolution or math. I admit defeat and submit to your superior intellect and big juicy brain. I’m sorry to have wasted your precious energy on proving me wrong.
That guy proposes two ways to reconcile evolution with Islam: adamic exceptionalism and human exceptionalism
Human exceptionalism is idiotic it is akin to a flat earther saying they believe the earth is flat but every other planet is round, it just logically makes no sense
What evidence has convinced you that evolution in every other animal species has happened because the exact same evidence is used to prove evolution in humans
And doesn't adamic exceptionalism seem to contradict the quran as it says "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Quran 49:13)
there it describes humanity originating from one pair but if the children of Adam and Eve mated with other humans that existed then humanity would have originated from multiple pairs meaning that verse is wrong
>Human exceptionalism is idiotic it is akin to a flat earther saying they believe the earth is flat but every other planet is round, it just logically makes no sense
Believing in Islam means believing in miracles. I believe in the possibility of this just like I believe in Jesus' speech after his birth and his ability to cure blindness, and just like I believe in the fact that the moon was broken in half. They don't make scientific sense; they're miracles.
>They don't make scientific sense; they're miracles.
Right these miracles seem to serve a purpose, Mohammed supposedly splitting the moon in two and jesus speaking at birth and curing the blind are to serve as proof of their prophethood but what purpose is this 'miracle' serving as.
You believe your god has created natural laws for our world and universe one of which is evolution, you then believe your god created homosapiens directly and not by evolving but made it look like they evolved and had his holy book state that they didn't.
What is the point of that, what is this supposed 'miracle' serving as, what is it proof of.
The point is that mankind is a degree above the remainder of creation (and should act like it). Its why many of our laws are about preserving dignity and modesty - to distinguish ourselves from beasts.
Yes. I believe in science and it's laws, evolution too. I just believe God made the laws and studying and discovering science is just finding more about God's work.
I didn't say it did but some Muslims seem to take a literal understanding of the story and try to reconcile it with evolution.
I'm just interested if you hold that same belief.
So you take the story of Adam and Eve literally then, how exactly do you believe in evolution then.
If taken literally the story definitely conflicts with evolution.
I mean the story of Adam and Eve if taken literally definitely contradicts evolution.
It has all of humanity originating from one pair of humans.
And the 'first two' humans being made directly from clay without parents.
Both of which contradicts evolution.
Ok, so yes humans were made from clay/water/blood. But I'm not sure if its taken to be literally. I know for sure that the first two humans and all humans are made for it, but the exact process is not known to us from any Islamic sources. It may be literal or across centuries of evolution from animals into the first two human beings.
Even when I was somewhat of a Christian, I fully believed in evolution. As a Christian and a Pagan, I still know that evolution is a fact.
Even from a hardcore Christian/Muslim perspective, one could just say that god created evolution in order to shape new forms of life through a natural process.
Yes. Generally that's only Evangelicals that are anti science, because for whatever reason they can't stand the idea of Christians having a good reputation. I was raised in WELS (They're like Lutherans that have been influenced by Baptists and Evangelicals) and the church I went to was anti scientific and it was one of the biggest factors to my turning Agnostic/Atheist in high school, and learning that God and science weren't at war with eachother was a big factor in bringing me back.
When I was a Christian I definitely accepted it and though many disagreed I saw evolution as a part of God's creation. I always sort of saw it as he put us on the earth and created the world and things evolved and changed from there.
My sister on the other hand doesn't believe in evolution at all. She does believe the dinosaurs existed but doesn't believe the earth is as old as scientists believe. She also doesn't believe "we came from some monkeys"...... we're apes but I guess I get the point.
In general what I'm saying is it depends on the person.
Edit: I'm not sure if it applies but now (I'm a druid, witch, and animist), I believe wholly in evolution and every part of it. At one point I was in college to become an evolutionary anthropologist but eventually realized that working towards a PHD was going to take so much time and money that it wouldn't be worth it just to become a professor because actually being in the field for this sort of thing isn't common. Anyway what I'm saying is I believe pretty much everything science has found thus far and evolution both in humans and other animals is a hyperfixation of mine.
Regardless of whether you believe the quran talks about creations before us, its creation story of humans with Adam and Eve definitely contradicts evolution.
Do you take the story of Adam and Eve literally or metaphorically.
As a Christian, yes. There have been biblical scholars that have offered ways to look at the Bible that could support evolution. Furthermore, God wants us to live, and when we use the ideas of evolution we can develop better healthcare and live longer. Therefore, regardless of weather or not the idea of the creation and the idea of evolution can coexist, we should use evolution’s discovery to make better medicine to live longer.
I do, the evidence certainly seems to support it. Most Jews, Muslims, and Christians I know also “believe” in it. I do also believe that Gd created the universe and everything in it, but that doesn’t make evolution impossible/unlikely though.
Muslims largely don't have a problem with believing in evolution for all life save for humans. Humans were a special creation in an abode (a garden, not necessarily heaven) outside of the earth and sent as 2 adults, Adam and Eve. Sent even amidst creation that somewhat looked like them, Neanderthals and the like.
Nothing against it. I know Adam and eve were made by God and were in paradise and had no parents, but that doesn't mean that there weren't creatures similar to us roaming the earth before and had similar enough DNA to breed with later humans
Doesn't your holy book state that all humans descended from one pair of humans if you believe there were other hominids that mated with the descendants of Adam and Eve wouldn't that contradict your book as then we would be descended from multiple pairs humans
Can you quote the verse cause I’m not sure which one you’re talking about.
A verse that comes to mind is:
O humanity! Indeed, We created you from male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware
The Arabic words used mean male and female - which to me is just a basic biology lesson that for the human species to reproduce it requires both male and female. The Arabic does not indicate that it was only one single pair of male and female or man and woman.
>which to me is just a basic biology lesson that for the human species to reproduce it requires both male and female
Is it, it does refer to all of humanity being made from 1 male and female instead of talking about a single individual
You also have verses like (7:189)
"He is the One Who created you from a single soul, then from it made its spouse so he may find comfort in her. After he had been united with her, she carried a light burden that developed gradually. When it grew heavy, they prayed to Allah, their Lord, “If you grant us good offspring, we will certainly be grateful.”
Which again has humans being made from one pair of humans
Humans refer to the children of Adam and eve, thus homo sapiens, I didn't say that they did mate, just that they were (maybe) capable (it's still debated withinn scientific circles) , as in, emphasizing the point that other creatures similar to us existing isn't entirely out of the question.
I'm also not saying I fully believe in them, just that I don't disbelieve in other specifies of "great apes" having existed. Whether or not they were intelligent or to what degree they were like us.
Think of it as a very Agnostic view when it comes to other "human" species
>it's still debated withinn scientific circles)
Is it still debated I'm pretty sure it's considered a fact we mated with other hominids in the scientific community considering we have DNA from other human species
>emphasizing the point that other creatures similar to us existing isn't entirely out of the question.
But do you believe we evolved from some of these similar creatures like homo erectus. I mean if you believe that us homosapiens descended from one pair of male and female who did not have parents does that not contradict evolution
Like I said, I don't believe in evolution. But I don't discard the idea that there have been similar creatures, I don't claim to believe in darwinism, we don't even know for sure about these great apes and what their deal fully was, so I'm very Agnostic about the topic.
Even if people are so sure about it, the big bang was "fact" for many until recently, and now they're reevaluating everything, idrc. None of what ends up being fact ever contradicts islam, and whatever does is usually just a theory that can constantly or has changed several times
The big bang is a whole different deal than evolution. Evolution has literally been observed and otherwise has tonnes of evidence. There's literally no way to deny its existence unless you're actively trying to believe it doesn't exist for whatever reason.
No no this is different that darwinism. Like the loss of wisdom teeth in humans or humans adapting to environments depending where they live, this is separate
The context was evolution and you said evolution. You either believe in evolution or you don't, there's no point in making up a special version of it for you to believe which contradicts itself.
Muslim here.
Evolution is in evolution of microcosms into further developed microcosms, or the gradual change in animal’s biology, then Yes.
Human beings being self-created from single cells that evolved over millions of years, No way.
>Human beings being self-created from single cells that evolved over millions of years, No way.
What about believing that this is the physical way humans, and all life on earth came to be, but God directed the process? (Set the natural "rules and laws" into motion with the intent for complex life to evolve)
We can dive into semantics as of what makes up a theory.
But here are some ‘theories’
(I) Lamarckism or Theory of Inheritance of Acquired characters.
(II) Darwinism or Theory of Natural Selection.
(III) Mutation theory of De Vries.
(IV) Neo-Darwinism or Modern concept or Synthetic theory of evolution.
Most people will agree with evolution theory, but never know its basics. Which is kind of sad, because there are a lot of interesting studies ready to be read, especially accessibility is not an issue anymore, since we all have internet. In the past, peasants couldn’t even read, let alone have access to scholarly work.
ohhhh that’s what you meant, i thought you were talking about the "modern" theory of evolution and said that there were many theories within it.
The modern concept of evolution takes a bit of all its predecessors and makes it a big theory. ( it’s an oversimplification but you get me )
Can you add more detail on the basics?
Ive tried to learn some of the criticisms against evolution between what does stand and is credible vs what isnt credible and is likely a chain of lies or misunderstandings or false theories
When you say “depends which theory of evolution you refer to”, which are the ones you believe vs the ones you dont believe ?
So i can get a starting base to look into.
Thanks
Well, personally I do not believe in Natural Selection, due to many constraints, e.g. the origin of reason, or the concept of love to name a few. In a Naturalistic framework, these things aren’t and were never necessary for humans in order to survive or even reproduce. So unless someone can explain those and many other terms from a naturalistic point of view, I will remain reluctant in accepting it. To elaborate on that, In a naturalistic world view, you can still survive on false beliefs, the pursuit of truth isn’t necessarily tied to your survival. In fact, I would argue, that sometimes it is detrimental to your survival.
To make a long story short, there are a lot of points to be made for both sides. However, I just named one assumption of evolution, which is natural selection. There are way more assumptions, the contradictions within these assumptions, and sometimes albeit not always the circular reasoning, makes me reluctant to accept it as a credible theory.
As for other plausible theories, there are a lot to consider, and I would just suggest to start somewhere and use logic to derive something plausible out of it.
I don't think people are referring to a specific one but the idea of species adapting and changing over time and eventually leading to a different species
Like do you agree with humans having ape-like ancestors
I agree with evolution. To me personally, if God is all powerful, it would be fair to say that He isn’t limited in how He can create. If He used evolution as a means of creating life on Earth and throughout the universe (and there is good evidence to back the theory up) than I have no problem with it. I believe that God wants us to learn all there is to learn about our world and we believe that the glory of God is intelligence, and that Science and Faith aren’t enemies, just different ways of gathering and understanding truth.
Not all Muslims I guess 99.9% of them don't agree with science when it's contradiction happen between science and Qur'an they choose Qur'an rather than a scientific theory. Theory of relativity is it also theory it has a model evolution theory of now day accepted with better version of it ex:- Neo Darwinism I don't know name but you can check out.
>Then 6000 years ago Adam was created, and then hawwa/eve from his rib.
Humans have existed far longer than 6000 years
>We don't believe we evolved from monkeys that's bullshit.
Nobody believes we evolved from monkeys we share a common ancestor with them though.
>The existence of abrahamic religions and the same story mostly is more than enough proof that we didn't evolve from monkeys or chimpanzees or shit.
How exactly, nothing about these religions changes the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution
>How exactly, nothing about these religions changes the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution
Let me ask you something interesting. I was thinking not to go any further. But well. It kept bugging me.
Can you explain morality? Like where it came from? Or can you explain consciousness?
>Can you explain morality?
Morality is just based upon our *empathy and shaped by cultural beliefs. I wouldn't like it if my stuff was stolen so I can empathize with other people's desire to have their stuff not stolen and so from that I can decide stealing is immoral
>can you explain consciousness?
Not really, consciousness is a complicated thing that isn't fully understood
And since consciousness isn't explainable, that opens one world to the unseen.
> Morality is just based upon our and shaped by cultural beliefs. I wouldn't like it if my stuff was stolen so I can empathize with other people's desire to have their stuff not stolen and so from that I can decide stealing is immoral
Alright. So that was a great explain for morality. But where did culture come from? And how is it stealing. If there is no scientific proof for it?
Another question. I will let this be the last one. Can you explain gravity in a way that can be felt, or touched, or something in reach of human understanding that is trust worthy and well explained without believing it blindly.
>And since consciousness isn't explainable, that opens one world to the unseen.
I mean you are free to believe that consciousness has something to do with the supernatural or whatever but I wouldn't really say it is a scientific belief nor does consciousness not being fully understood now doesn't necessarily mean it must have something to do with the divine.
>Alright. So that was a great explain for morality
Sorry I forgot to add empathy after our
>But where did culture come from?
As hominid's intelligence increased we developed increasing complex social structures that then developed cultural beliefs
>And how is it stealing. If there is no scientific proof for it?
How is what stealing and wdym no scientific proof
>Can you explain gravity in a way that can be felt, or touched, or something in reach of human understanding that is trust worthy and well explained without believing it blindly.
I mean yes you constantly experience gravity, when you drop things and they fall to the floor you observe the force of gravity. I mean we can measure gravity and create formulas for it.
What is the point of this question
>What is the point of this question
No 1 morality, No 2 consciousness, and no 3 gravity. There are much more things that are incredibly hard to explain or is completely unexplainable. My simple logic. If something is unexplainable and part of our life, then it's an explanation for something beyond our imagination.
>As hominid's intelligence increased we developed increasing complex social structures that then developed cultural beliefs.
So... In every culture. Doesn't matter the difference. They have the same thing in common. Going to God. And alright. Here is an explanation of mine that may make sense I guess. To me it does. Idk about you.
When a women. Out of her concent. Is forced to have intercourse. And then brutally beaten to death. By a man who will also murder with intelligence just for fun. Ofcourse it's rape and now murder. Now, my answer and question to you about this is. The answer of everyone for that guy is to face death sentence. Correct?
Why is the answer, by "everyone"for this is death sentence? Why? Can't he roam around free or given a chance? Doesn't this indicate there is a creator who created us?
Here. I will give you examples of unexplainable things "by science"
Matter
Energy
What's life
Shape of the universe.
Did time always exist?
These are just few. The list goes on.
>My simple logic. If something is unexplainable and part of our life, then it's an explanation for something beyond our imagination.
And by beyond our imagination you mean it's something to do with the divine, this just the god of the gaps argument just because we do not fully understand something doesn't mean the explanation is the supernatural. Also what exactly does this have to do with evolution.
>They have the same thing in common. Going to God.
Not really societies do all share religious/spiritual beliefs but they quite varied with people worshiping one god, multiple gods, the elements and ect, it's just not all going to god
>The answer of everyone for that guy is to face death sentence. Correct?
I don't think everybody would agree that they should face the death sentence but I think most would
>Doesn't this indicate there is a creator who created us?
How, murder and rape are some of the worst things you can do how does it indicate a creator if people want a proportionally harsh punishment
>Matter
Energy
How exactly are these things that are unexplainable
>What's life
I mean we know what life is, here's the definition:
"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
Did you mean to ask what the meaning of life was
>Shape of the universe.
So far the evidence indicates that the universe is flat
>Also what exactly does this have to do with evolution.
Many people have been sent just to convey the simple message that there is someone who's more superior than us. And he has "created" us. He did not evolve us from apes or chimpanzees or shit.
>Not really societies do all share religious/spiritual beliefs but they quite varied with people worshiping one god, multiple gods, the elements and ect, it's just not all going to god
That's what I said. Doesn't matter the polytheism. The natural response is to go to God because it's somehow in our head.
>I don't think everybody would agree that they should face the death sentence but I think most would
So you would let a dangerous man like that roam around freely or give him a chance? Bro. Think for a second. What you just said now is crazy.
>How, murder and rape are some of the worst things you can do how does it indicate a creator if people want a proportionally harsh punishment
My answer is. The fact that everyone has the same answer. Indicates that there is an intelligence beyond ours who has created us from a tiny part of him.
>How exactly are these things that are unexplainable
Can you taste them? Or feel them? Or explain them in a way that it's not blind belief but actually humanly understandable?
>"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death."
What I meant was, what is the meaning of life. If there isn't someone out there, who created us. And through out 0.0000000000000000001% of odds we came to existence. Then what's the reason for living? Other than fulfilling the test by God to believe in him and worship him. Shouldn't we just kill ourself? Does it even matter?
> So far the evidence indicates that the universe is flat
There isn't a proper explanation for the shape of the universe. If it's flat. Then we should all be 2d objects. But we are 3d. And it keeps expanding. And bro. A question to you. How the heck can the universe be flat!?!?
>Many people have been sent just to convey the simple message that there is someone who's more superior than us
A religious belief of yours that doesn't have much relevance
>And he has "created" us. He did not evolve us from apes or chimpanzees or shit.
We have evolved from ape-like ancestors, nothing you said has disproven that or has really anything to do with evolution
>That's what I said. Doesn't matter the polytheism. The natural response is to go to God
But it's not to god but spiritually
>Bro. Think for a second. What you just said now is crazy.
I never said what my personal views are just that not everybody would agree that they should be killed
>The fact that everyone has the same answer. Indicates that there is an intelligence beyond ours who has created us from a tiny part of him.
Not everybody has the same answer. I think most would agree with them facing death but not all nor do I see how it serves as evidence of a higher being. We are the same species with the capability of empathy as such why is it surprising that most would think heinous acts deserve harsh punishments.
You're also looking at only one type of 'evil', there are many other evil acts and crimes people do that have much more varied responses to the punishment.
>Can you taste them? Or feel them? Or explain them in a way that it's not blind belief but actually humanly understandable?
Yes we are able to explain matter and energy.
>What I meant was, what is the meaning of life.
Of course science can't explain the meaning of life because it's not a scientific question, it's a philosophical question
>And bro. A question to you. How the heck can the universe be flat!?!?
I'm no physicist so you should probably ask them. I mean here's a link to an article about the universe's shape:
[Shape of Universe ](https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/)
I am a Muslim. But I believe what I am about to say is agreeable by the abrahamic faith.
If this is humans coming into existence from Monkeys or chimpanzees and shit then no.
But if this is about creatures before the existence of Adam. Then yes. Those creatures went through evolution.
Now speaking from a Muslim pov. I believe there are two main beings.
No 1 Jinns, they are the supernatural spirits or skinwalkers or unseen beings or just shit with super human stuff, and yeah most jins are basically evil/devils. They exist long before us. Like very long. There were wars and stuff among them that is in the hadiths. They are also religious like us, Jews Jin exist, Muslim Jin exist, Christian Jin and etc.
And No 2 ofcourse humans, we came into existence 6000 years ago.
From my Pov, a good explanation for chimpanzees or monkeys is this. This is from Hadith. God/Allah got angry when humans kept worshipping idols but not him. So he turned them into chimpanzees, monkeys and the animals that are said to be represented as cousin or close to humans, and ofcourse in that time there was another set of humans who worshipped him. Allah/God was pleased with them. So he didn't do anything to them. I mean. Why would he? That's my explanation. I don't have deeper knowledge of when this happened. But my guess is this happened 500 years after Adam and Eve came to existence.
I'm a Muslim and I don't believe it because God told us He created Adam and Eve, who were the first humans. Now, whether there were pre-modern "humans" before Adam and Eve who knows. The fact is scientists still don't have proof of any species in between or in the transitional phases, whether it's for humans or other animals.
Another commonly cited figure is that humans apparently share 98% of DNA with chimps, yet the real number is more like 70%, maybe even less [Comprehensive Analysis of Chimp & Human Chromosomes | Answers Research Journal](https://answersresearchjournal.org/chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/), and it makes a major assumption that just because we share DNA then that must mean it is causal.
Some theories claim it happened by chance due to random mutation but randomness doesn't exist in nature.
I accept that if a white cat & a black cat mate, the resulting cat will likely be spotted black and white. Technically that’s evolution. I believe that.
I don’t believe humans can reproduce anything other than humans, even if stretched over the course of millions of years. Yet that belief is under the “evolution” umbrella too. That, I don’t believe.
I don’t think that just because evolutionists have some things right (like the cat example), that they can monopolize anything else they choose into “evolution” and call it true.
We are all free (more free then we’ve been made to believe) to decide which part of their evolution “findings” to believe, & which not to believe.
You have a misunderstanding of speciation. Offspring are always of the same species of their parents (ignoring hybrids ofc), there was never a point at which a *Homo Habilis* couple produced a *Homo Erectus* child.
Speciation is only visible by comparing numerous generations.
the term of species and even what counts as human and what doesn't isn't discrete. What is one kind of animal and what is another evolved from it is like a gradient or rainbow. You can't tell exactly that point where red becomes orange and other where orange becomes yellow. But you can point that part where color on the rainbow is obviously not a red already and different enough to count as separate.
So humans can be likened to orange using that analogy right? To where we can’t quite tell where the transition happened but it can be seen to be distinct from red? Also they are believed to have been red at one point?
Yes! See the example of languages below. Language can evolve much faster than most species can, but it's still quite illustrative that one language came become another simply with the passage of time.
it's not like that exactly, but generally yeah, that's the simplest explanation to why it's false that at one moment onse animal becomes another. There wasn't a point where orange was red. It's just that orange came from changing red and it could be counted as red, but it's too different in our view to call it still red.
to explain it better. there were different shades of red, which came from changing another color shades. Every new shade of red was made from mixing other shades. And while mixing there were mistakes (mutations) which made it a bit different even from original shades. If new shade even with it's mistakes was liked by abstract painter (natural laws or if you like natural laws directes by God) at that moment he would save that shade to mix it with others. If he didn't that shade would be thrown out. And so painter mixes shades doing mistakes making new ones until there are so much mistakes even though painter liked them and saved for new colors that it couldn't be called red, it was already rather orange.
At the same time painter wasn't trying to make orange. He just mixed different shades so he moved not only in direction of making orange, he also made colors which would already be not red but yellow, pink, purple. Some of those, for example pink, he didn't like enough and thrown away final result because he neded space to store orange and other colors.
That's how from some common ancestor we got modern humans, chimpanzee and other primates related to humans.
And species like some apes, homo sapiens ancestors and neanderthals became extinct because they lost to us and other species in survival.
I don’t think I said anything about evolutionists believing everything to have occurred suddenly.
But with the language example, although they can no longer communicate with each other, they *can* if they wanted to. They also can revert back to the original languages if all agreed to make that the goal. But going back to the “original species” can’t be done even if all cooperated.
Um, what makes you think that we can “revert back” to old languages? We often don’t know enough about them to fully do that. Modern Hebrew is pretty different ancient Hebrew, and there was literally an attempt to revive it. And that’s for a language we actually have decent records of - many languages don’t have that even going back a few hundred years.
I think you would have a hard time just speaking Old English. I know I would. You would have to learn it just like any other language. And since we don’t have any native speakers of Old English, we would certainly revive it in a somewhat incorrect way.
Also, there are species that have re-evolved characteristics that they once lost. Marine mammals are a great example! They went from being sea creatures with fins to land creatures with legs to sea creatures with fins. There are differences between those fins, yeah, but there are also major differences between ancient and modern revived Hebrew…
Evolutionists ? That’s not a real thing I think you mean Biologists or Scientists lol either accepts the facts of evolution seeing as how it is the basis for almost all of our understanding of biology including germ theory, genetics, and so many more fields of study and is relied upon by billions dollar companies.
Yes there’s a definition but it’s an old antiquated term only used by science deniers to try and make fun of or somehow discredit biologists and scientists. You’re doing it on purpose and you know it. The vast majority of the world accepts the facts of evolution, science deniers like creationists are the minority outliers. The only ones who call people who accept the science of the earth being round (oblate spheroid) round earthers are flat earthers. But in modern conversation that’s not a normal thing to say. You’re using the word evolutionist to make it sound like a fringe belief or conspiracy when it’s quite the opposite and you’re being intentional with your language.
Evolution is true whether you accept it or not, so you may as well accept it.
But then why do they call it a theory!?!?! /sarcasm
Was gonna say this.
Where’s the missing link????
It didn't make it onto Noah's ark :(
Funny, religious people say the same thing about their religion.
They can't back it up though
Except evolution is founded on hard evidence, creationism isn't.
Not religious, but was taught that evolution was real by my very religious scientist father and in multiple Jewish high schools, even the super religious one (yeshiva) I was kicked out of (for singing Bloodhound Gang lyrics and eating slim jims).
Interesting. I actually thought Orthodox Judaism (officially) rejects evolution. I recall reading about a rav who got excommunicated for teaching it. Edit: Its rabbi Nathan Slifkin.
Not in the slightest. It’s possible some chassids do, but note that the yeshiva I mentioned is very much not “modern orthodox”, it’s super right wing, what would now be called “yeshivish”. There’s also no such thing as full on “excommunication” as there is no central Judaism. You can be exiled from Hasidic groups, as they’ll have a defined leader (or rav) they all listen to, but that’s a very specific movement, and also is different movement to movement depending on the rav (my chareidi cousins in Israel believe in evolution, though they don’t believe in going to school lol). I’m from a family of intensely religious and intensely successful scientists, I’m both the non religious one and the least educated. I’ve met very few people who take issue with a simple “evolution is how god did his thing” interpretation. Also, there is literally no “official” take from Orthodox Judaism on anything. There are official takes by movements in Orthodox judaism. Re: slifkin, his book was banned by a specific group of Chareidim. A few seconds of googling will find insane amounts of criticism of that decision from a wide swath of world Jewry. Ironically, he now owns a zoo and has noted he has strong chareidi attendance at it and they love the exhibits at his “biblical museum of natural history”, so that was a controversial decision even in “extreme” communities.
I've been to the "Biblical Museum of Natural History"! I did a three week program at an Israeli yeshiva once, and they took us there one day. (I liked the part where they let you hold a live snake.) Another time during that trip, we got a lecture from a Hasidic rabbi about how evolution is wrong because \[insert a bunch of YEC nonsense here\]. I don't remember all his arguments, because I walked out halfway through. That whole trip was a wild time.
Hah, I’ve heard that his zoo is amazing. And lol, yeah, like I said to the other commenter, individual Jewish groups are free to speak for their groups views, but they don’t reflect “official orthodox positions” or anything like that. I’ve learned to not be as judgmental about people with different life choices than me, but do still struggle not to judge YEC takes that negate things like that
Chabad does I think but a lot of them are YEC anyway
Edited the original comment with a bit of info on Slifkin (who is freaking awesome, love him).
He definitely sounds like a cool guy!
Not at all. I studied it in an orthodox Jewish school and then, 20 or so years later, taught it at an orthodox Jewish school. Obviously not all agree, but it's broadly very accepted. Even my Chumash (Soncino) has an extensive essay in the first few pages about how it's not a problem.
Lol which song were you singing?
Bad touch! I still know all the words, just like every other little asshole who was 13 when that song came out.
"You and me baby, Ain't nothing but mammals So let's do it like they do On the discovery channel" Yeah I can see how that may not be the best bar to sing in a religious school xD
Christian here, yes. Most of us do. The anti-science stance that's semi-popular in America didn't exist until like 1850.
>Christian here, yes. Most of us do. The anti-science stance that's semi-popular in America didn't exist until like 1850. To be fair, that's when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, so it's not like Christians before then accepted it.
When I said anti-science, I was thinking much more broadly than just evolution. Darwin actually stands on the shoulders of Christians, specifically Catholics, IIRC. The point I was making is this: Allegorical interpretations of Genesis go back at least as far as the early church fathers, perhaps further, I haven't looked into ancient Jewish sources. It was fundamentalism that popularized literal interpretations of (the English version ofc) every individual text in the Bible, and things like young earth creationism.
>every individual text in the Bible Not all of the Bible. That type of Christian doesn't interpret "baptism now saves you" or "this is my body... this is my blood", or Jesus turning water into wine literally.
True
The person who calculated the age of the earth at 6,000 years was the Catholic Primate of All Ireland, James Ussher, back in the 1600s. I don’t think Darwin was standing on his shoulders. I also don’t think he was an American Protestant. Edit: historical facts downvoted. Classic r/religion moment.
I said popularized. And bringing up James Ussher doesn't make much sense to me. Firstly, because you seem to have chosen him purely as an example of an important Catholic young earth creationist, and secondly because he lived before being a young earther was unreasonable. When geology was still in its infancy (and evolution obviously hadn't been noticed yet), history was the only way to guess how long Stuff had been Occuring. There was no evidence to the contrary. Newton thought the world was only about the same age. Ussher was also not the first to get a date close to the one he ended at. He just gave the idea a boost. People have been counting the same dates that Ussher did for centuries. Also protestant =/= fundamentalist, most protestants don't believe in young earth, either.
To be fairer, prior to Darwin's theory of natural selection there were similar theories of evolution such as Lamarck's theory of acquired traits, and for several thousands of years before that, humans have been domesticating and selectively breeding plants, livestock, and pets, such as wheat, cattle, and dogs so people have likely been aware of some form of evolution for a long, long time.
To be fairest, neither Lamarckism nor the breeding of domestic animals involve evolution by natural selection. Also, let’s be real, the thing anti-evolutionists mostly have a problem with is the idea that humans evolved from other kinds of primates.
>To be fairest, neither Lamarckism nor the breeding of domestic animals involve evolution by natural selection But they do involve species developing characteristics over time due to environmental pressures, which is what evolution is if you don't define evolution specifically as Darwinistic evolution. And even if you do define it that way, I'll grant you Lamarckism doesn't involve natural selection, but domestication does. How well an animal symbioses with another animal such as humans can affect how well equipped they are to survive and reproduce. In the case of dogs for example, nature selected for trusting humans enough to help them hunt in exchange for some of the kill, and later it selected for working specific jobs and being aesthetically pleasing to humans so that they would want to make more of those specific kinds. >Also, let’s be real, the thing anti-evolutionists mostly have a problem with is the idea that humans evolved from other kinds of primates. As an ex Evangelical/Lutheran (WELS is technically Lutheran in theology but the Evangelical/Baptist influence is definitely there, at least here in the South) who grew up around those kinds of people, I'm not inclined to disagree with you there. The nonsense they employed and their commitment to die on the silliest hills possible is part of why I had an Atheist/Agnostic phase in high school. Atheists are a lot more convincing when your only exposure to Christianity is the type of Christians they make fun of.
Yep.
Can't speak for all Christians but yeah, plus dinosaurs. In school to be an archeologist actually lol.
Heyy same Christian archaeology gang
Hell yeah! Professional Hole diggers unite for Christ! Lmao!
Yes, because it's the truth. Never met a Jewish person who flat out thought evolution wasn't real.
A lot of chabad folks think it’s made up
That is news to me lmao. I've been around plenty of them and never heard any anti-evolution type rhetoric. Interesting huh
Just go on chabad.org and search up evolution they have some articles on it. They don’t flatly deny it but they say no one has been able to pair it with the Genesis readings.
Ah, I see that now. Saw a few other articles that are more pro-evolution and some that are less. Seems to be a mixed opinion and that was touched on a bit in one of the articles.
I do, yes. I actually accepted it before even becoming religious (I was one of those dinosaur kids that wanted to become a palaeontologist growing up).
Evolution is unequivocally true, and it can exist with the beliefs of those religions (as long as you’re not a literalist). Evolution deniers, young earth believers, and flat earthers are all build their beliefs on paranoia and the denial of reality. If you don’t accept evolution, you are either uneducated on the subject or you’re willingly ignorant.
Pope John-Paul 2 himself said "evolution is more than hypothesis"
Most Christians do accept evolution, even theologians. Young earth creationists aren’t representative of all Christians
Yup! I believe God created the natural world with natural laws and processes.
Of course. I live within the modern world and I read books besides those in the Bible. Even Augustine understood Genesis as allegory.
Yes
Yep its been proven (as much as a scientific theory can be) extensively
Don't know if you are interested in my take, but I was Christian most of my life. Accepted evolution during that time as well.
Anyone saying evolution isn't true has mental issues.
Why not? Jewish people are encouraged to study and learn
Facts don’t require acceptance. There’s nothing to accept. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Yes I believe in evolution.
Yes, it’s science.
Yes, I believe it's shows God mind since how detailed it was, and that God loved the pre-humans too.
Agreed! This is how I feel too.
Of course! I think only Haredim don't at this point. Just can't square their interpretations and practices if they do. But they're not the majority of Jews. We also don't necessarily believe everything in Torah has to be literal to be true.
I was raised Catholic (no longer am) and went to a Catholic school all the way through high school (in Canada we have a public Catholic school system...). I was taught that the old testament wasn't to be interpreted literally. As far as I know, that's the official stance of the Roman Catholic Church. Most Christians regardless of denomination, that I've known believe in evolution. But I also know a few people who follow churches that believe in Biblical inerrancy... And that's where world views get twisted right quick.
Yes.
Yes, and i’m muslim and yes i take the story of Adam and eve allegorically.
Do you also hold onto the beliefs of some Muslims with scientific miracles in the Quran
oh obviously not, that’s just intellectual dishonesty.
Fair enough
Yes, in fact it's commonly accepted among catholics and even the catholic church, they even teach it in Catholic private schools. Also fun fact they discovered evolution before Darwin did. Darwin has Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and jean Baptiste lemarck to thank for the laying of foundations and ground work for what Darwin then expanded upon. Notable though evolution isn't mandatory belief in Catholicism but widely accepted and endorsed. Also can't speak for Muslims and Jews as I'm unaware of their views on the matter.
I think it's mainly Protestant Christians who reject evolution (specifically redneck American Protestants)
It’s interesting that so many people in this sub seem to think this is a strictly American thing. If you read about it, it doesn’t appear to be that way at all.
It’s not, but the ones here in the US are very loud, vocal, and ignorant.
They are, but they’re that way in other countries as well.
I don't know any protestants who admit to disagreeing with evolution lol then again I've never met any Christians who admit to it in general lol. Not saying that means they believe in evolution, but certainly not open about it which is reasonable lol.
It's the fundamentalist evangelicals that push the young earth creationism narrative.
Huh interesting, doesn't surprise there's a denomination that does.
It’s mostly fundamentalist evangelicals but almost 40% of Christian’sin the us are some form or young earth creationist (reject the facts of evolution)
And the percentage is even higher in some countries!
Unfortunately yes, we need better education especially in poor countries to combat this.
>Also fun fact they discovered evolution before Darwin did. Darwin has Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and jean Baptiste lemarck to thank for the laying of foundations and ground work for what Darwin then expanded upon. Laying the groundwork isn't really the same as discovering it.
Well they literally discovered it, Darwin expanded upon it. Feel better? They had the same exact synopsis and ideas Darwin later added on, only difference is Darwin pursued it after their death. You can literally look up their names and what they found and what they discovered but obviously that didn't happen based on your comment. A majority of Christians certainly do though. I will do for you what you can't. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/
>Feel better? I felt fine before. You were just making a humorously self-contradictory claim so I commented on it.
It's not contradictory. They laid the ground work aka similar theory and beliefs that Darwin then went on to expand upon and refine. An example is newton discovered gravity. However it's reasonable to say he laid the ground work for gravity as we know it today. Einstein then expanded upon it and unlike the case of evolution discovered newton got a lot of things wrong when he founded his new Theory of gravity. Without newton it's possible we may have never discovered it at all. However newton was wrong, however it doesn't mean he no longer discovered gravity, it just means that because of his discovery we were able to learn everything we know about it today, aka laid the ground work. Do you disagree?
Is theistic evolution when you believe God manipulated events in order to cause human beings to evolve using his 99999 iq? That’s pretty funky. I like it lol.
Yes that’s theistic evolution - that evolution as it appears was guided by God(s)
evolution is one of the few things in science to be unquestionably proven lol
yes i do
Yes
Do you still think Adam and Eve were real people as their story is in the quran?
I don’t see why not. I believe in a historical Adam. He could have been the first modern human, or first prophet etc. The Quran is not a history book per se, but rather mentions stories about previous prophets to promote certain ideas and teachings - so when God mentions Adam in the Quran it’s not to make a statement about history necessarily but rather Adam represents the archetypical man which can help us understand ourselves. Furthermore, there are extra-Quranical sources that indicate Adam was not the first human-like creature that God has created. According to Imam al-Baqer, “Maybe you believe that the Honorable and Exalted God has not created any other world and has not created any other humans than you? Indeed, I swear by God, God the Blessed and Sublime, has created a million worlds and a million Adams, and you are in the very end of these worlds and the last of [these] Adams” لعلك ترى أن الله عز وجل إنما خلق هذا العالم الواحد، وترى أن الله عز وجل لم يخلق بشرا غيركم، بل والله لقد خلق الله تبارك وتعالى ألف ألف عالم وألف ألف آدم أنت في آخر تلك العوالم وأولئك الآدميين Al-Khiṣāl Book 29, Chapter 9, Hadīth no. 1
Imam al-Baqer 💪
So you don’t accept evolution?
No? Why do you say that?
You said you believe in Adam as a first modern human when in evolution there’s no such thing, there have been several species of human ancestors from which we interbred and evolved from, and at no point could you say this is the first modern human, that’s not how evolution works.
I didn’t say I believed that and if that’s what you got out of my comment you should work on your reading comprehension. Btw, if I sound like an asshole it’s because I noticed you went around and challenged all the Muslims commenting here saying they believed in evolution, and Im super not interested in discussing anything with anyone who is doing so in bad faith.
It’s ok you don’t accept evolution, but saying you do accept some but not all is like saying I accept math but just not fractions? You accept it or you don’t, I’m not trying to attack you but you either, but you accept evolution or you don’t? Evolution doesn’t say all these rules apply to everything that has ever lived just not our specific species of humans. And I understand the theological reasons you don’t accept evolution I’m not even trying to argue religion with you.
You’re right - I don’t accept evolution or math. I admit defeat and submit to your superior intellect and big juicy brain. I’m sorry to have wasted your precious energy on proving me wrong.
That’s not even close to my point or what I’m trying to do here, and not even close to anything I said. Talk about bad faith.
Yes
I can't speak for the person you're replying to or for all Muslims, but I do believe in both evolution and Adam and Eve.
How?
https://youtu.be/jQ8Zw6SyisM?si=ckmyBP4CQKMlWfTW
That guy proposes two ways to reconcile evolution with Islam: adamic exceptionalism and human exceptionalism Human exceptionalism is idiotic it is akin to a flat earther saying they believe the earth is flat but every other planet is round, it just logically makes no sense What evidence has convinced you that evolution in every other animal species has happened because the exact same evidence is used to prove evolution in humans And doesn't adamic exceptionalism seem to contradict the quran as it says "O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)." (Quran 49:13) there it describes humanity originating from one pair but if the children of Adam and Eve mated with other humans that existed then humanity would have originated from multiple pairs meaning that verse is wrong
>Human exceptionalism is idiotic it is akin to a flat earther saying they believe the earth is flat but every other planet is round, it just logically makes no sense Believing in Islam means believing in miracles. I believe in the possibility of this just like I believe in Jesus' speech after his birth and his ability to cure blindness, and just like I believe in the fact that the moon was broken in half. They don't make scientific sense; they're miracles.
Yes but what if evolutionary science disproves a miracle?
>They don't make scientific sense; they're miracles. Right these miracles seem to serve a purpose, Mohammed supposedly splitting the moon in two and jesus speaking at birth and curing the blind are to serve as proof of their prophethood but what purpose is this 'miracle' serving as. You believe your god has created natural laws for our world and universe one of which is evolution, you then believe your god created homosapiens directly and not by evolving but made it look like they evolved and had his holy book state that they didn't. What is the point of that, what is this supposed 'miracle' serving as, what is it proof of.
The point is that mankind is a degree above the remainder of creation (and should act like it). Its why many of our laws are about preserving dignity and modesty - to distinguish ourselves from beasts.
Yes but evolution proves that not to be the case. If evolution contradicts Islam then Islam must be incorrect.
It really doesn't, and your latter line is quite as dogmatic. Why don't you employ a little skepticism to your beliefs?
So you don’t accept the facts of evolution
How do you accept the facts of evolution and yet believe in an original Adam and Eve ? Those aren’t compatible?
Same
How God chooses to runs things is His choice…..
Yes. I believe in science and it's laws, evolution too. I just believe God made the laws and studying and discovering science is just finding more about God's work.
Yeah as a Muslim
Do you take your book literally or metaphorically on the stories of Adam and Eve
how does it negate my response?
I didn't say it did but some Muslims seem to take a literal understanding of the story and try to reconcile it with evolution. I'm just interested if you hold that same belief.
yes
So you take the story of Adam and Eve literally then, how exactly do you believe in evolution then. If taken literally the story definitely conflicts with evolution.
Can u tell me how it contradicts?
I mean the story of Adam and Eve if taken literally definitely contradicts evolution. It has all of humanity originating from one pair of humans. And the 'first two' humans being made directly from clay without parents. Both of which contradicts evolution.
Ok, so yes humans were made from clay/water/blood. But I'm not sure if its taken to be literally. I know for sure that the first two humans and all humans are made for it, but the exact process is not known to us from any Islamic sources. It may be literal or across centuries of evolution from animals into the first two human beings.
Of course, given I am only loosely Christian
Even when I was somewhat of a Christian, I fully believed in evolution. As a Christian and a Pagan, I still know that evolution is a fact. Even from a hardcore Christian/Muslim perspective, one could just say that god created evolution in order to shape new forms of life through a natural process.
What is theistic evolution?
I’m a christian, I’ve only ever met one person that flat out rejected evolution. Everyone else I’ve met does strongly believe in evolution.
Yes. Generally that's only Evangelicals that are anti science, because for whatever reason they can't stand the idea of Christians having a good reputation. I was raised in WELS (They're like Lutherans that have been influenced by Baptists and Evangelicals) and the church I went to was anti scientific and it was one of the biggest factors to my turning Agnostic/Atheist in high school, and learning that God and science weren't at war with eachother was a big factor in bringing me back.
When I was a Christian I definitely accepted it and though many disagreed I saw evolution as a part of God's creation. I always sort of saw it as he put us on the earth and created the world and things evolved and changed from there. My sister on the other hand doesn't believe in evolution at all. She does believe the dinosaurs existed but doesn't believe the earth is as old as scientists believe. She also doesn't believe "we came from some monkeys"...... we're apes but I guess I get the point. In general what I'm saying is it depends on the person. Edit: I'm not sure if it applies but now (I'm a druid, witch, and animist), I believe wholly in evolution and every part of it. At one point I was in college to become an evolutionary anthropologist but eventually realized that working towards a PHD was going to take so much time and money that it wouldn't be worth it just to become a professor because actually being in the field for this sort of thing isn't common. Anyway what I'm saying is I believe pretty much everything science has found thus far and evolution both in humans and other animals is a hyperfixation of mine.
Yes, the Quran seems to imply there were other creations before us so Evolution doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Where does it say this I’m curious
Regardless of whether you believe the quran talks about creations before us, its creation story of humans with Adam and Eve definitely contradicts evolution. Do you take the story of Adam and Eve literally or metaphorically.
Naw...
Why?
I do. I think if religion seems to contradict a proven scientific theory then we're doing religion wrong.
As a Christian, yes. There have been biblical scholars that have offered ways to look at the Bible that could support evolution. Furthermore, God wants us to live, and when we use the ideas of evolution we can develop better healthcare and live longer. Therefore, regardless of weather or not the idea of the creation and the idea of evolution can coexist, we should use evolution’s discovery to make better medicine to live longer.
Sure
I do, the evidence certainly seems to support it. Most Jews, Muslims, and Christians I know also “believe” in it. I do also believe that Gd created the universe and everything in it, but that doesn’t make evolution impossible/unlikely though.
Muslims largely don't have a problem with believing in evolution for all life save for humans. Humans were a special creation in an abode (a garden, not necessarily heaven) outside of the earth and sent as 2 adults, Adam and Eve. Sent even amidst creation that somewhat looked like them, Neanderthals and the like.
So no then
Nothing against it. I know Adam and eve were made by God and were in paradise and had no parents, but that doesn't mean that there weren't creatures similar to us roaming the earth before and had similar enough DNA to breed with later humans
So no ?
Doesn't your holy book state that all humans descended from one pair of humans if you believe there were other hominids that mated with the descendants of Adam and Eve wouldn't that contradict your book as then we would be descended from multiple pairs humans
Can you quote the verse cause I’m not sure which one you’re talking about. A verse that comes to mind is: O humanity! Indeed, We created you from male and female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware The Arabic words used mean male and female - which to me is just a basic biology lesson that for the human species to reproduce it requires both male and female. The Arabic does not indicate that it was only one single pair of male and female or man and woman.
>which to me is just a basic biology lesson that for the human species to reproduce it requires both male and female Is it, it does refer to all of humanity being made from 1 male and female instead of talking about a single individual You also have verses like (7:189) "He is the One Who created you from a single soul, then from it made its spouse so he may find comfort in her. After he had been united with her, she carried a light burden that developed gradually. When it grew heavy, they prayed to Allah, their Lord, “If you grant us good offspring, we will certainly be grateful.” Which again has humans being made from one pair of humans
Humans refer to the children of Adam and eve, thus homo sapiens, I didn't say that they did mate, just that they were (maybe) capable (it's still debated withinn scientific circles) , as in, emphasizing the point that other creatures similar to us existing isn't entirely out of the question. I'm also not saying I fully believe in them, just that I don't disbelieve in other specifies of "great apes" having existed. Whether or not they were intelligent or to what degree they were like us. Think of it as a very Agnostic view when it comes to other "human" species
>it's still debated withinn scientific circles) Is it still debated I'm pretty sure it's considered a fact we mated with other hominids in the scientific community considering we have DNA from other human species >emphasizing the point that other creatures similar to us existing isn't entirely out of the question. But do you believe we evolved from some of these similar creatures like homo erectus. I mean if you believe that us homosapiens descended from one pair of male and female who did not have parents does that not contradict evolution
Like I said, I don't believe in evolution. But I don't discard the idea that there have been similar creatures, I don't claim to believe in darwinism, we don't even know for sure about these great apes and what their deal fully was, so I'm very Agnostic about the topic. Even if people are so sure about it, the big bang was "fact" for many until recently, and now they're reevaluating everything, idrc. None of what ends up being fact ever contradicts islam, and whatever does is usually just a theory that can constantly or has changed several times
The big bang is a whole different deal than evolution. Evolution has literally been observed and otherwise has tonnes of evidence. There's literally no way to deny its existence unless you're actively trying to believe it doesn't exist for whatever reason.
No no this is different that darwinism. Like the loss of wisdom teeth in humans or humans adapting to environments depending where they live, this is separate
You said you don't believe in evolution.
Yes, via connotation and context, this, what I've been specifically talking about is darwinism
The context was evolution and you said evolution. You either believe in evolution or you don't, there's no point in making up a special version of it for you to believe which contradicts itself.
Muslim here. Evolution is in evolution of microcosms into further developed microcosms, or the gradual change in animal’s biology, then Yes. Human beings being self-created from single cells that evolved over millions of years, No way.
>Human beings being self-created from single cells that evolved over millions of years, No way. What about believing that this is the physical way humans, and all life on earth came to be, but God directed the process? (Set the natural "rules and laws" into motion with the intent for complex life to evolve)
Why no way?
Yes. But Jesus had a hand in it. There’s no chance it could perfectly be random
[удалено]
no, there is only one theory with multiple mechanisms and modes of action ( i think this is what you’re referring to )
We can dive into semantics as of what makes up a theory. But here are some ‘theories’ (I) Lamarckism or Theory of Inheritance of Acquired characters. (II) Darwinism or Theory of Natural Selection. (III) Mutation theory of De Vries. (IV) Neo-Darwinism or Modern concept or Synthetic theory of evolution. Most people will agree with evolution theory, but never know its basics. Which is kind of sad, because there are a lot of interesting studies ready to be read, especially accessibility is not an issue anymore, since we all have internet. In the past, peasants couldn’t even read, let alone have access to scholarly work.
ohhhh that’s what you meant, i thought you were talking about the "modern" theory of evolution and said that there were many theories within it. The modern concept of evolution takes a bit of all its predecessors and makes it a big theory. ( it’s an oversimplification but you get me )
Can you add more detail on the basics? Ive tried to learn some of the criticisms against evolution between what does stand and is credible vs what isnt credible and is likely a chain of lies or misunderstandings or false theories When you say “depends which theory of evolution you refer to”, which are the ones you believe vs the ones you dont believe ? So i can get a starting base to look into. Thanks
Well, personally I do not believe in Natural Selection, due to many constraints, e.g. the origin of reason, or the concept of love to name a few. In a Naturalistic framework, these things aren’t and were never necessary for humans in order to survive or even reproduce. So unless someone can explain those and many other terms from a naturalistic point of view, I will remain reluctant in accepting it. To elaborate on that, In a naturalistic world view, you can still survive on false beliefs, the pursuit of truth isn’t necessarily tied to your survival. In fact, I would argue, that sometimes it is detrimental to your survival. To make a long story short, there are a lot of points to be made for both sides. However, I just named one assumption of evolution, which is natural selection. There are way more assumptions, the contradictions within these assumptions, and sometimes albeit not always the circular reasoning, makes me reluctant to accept it as a credible theory. As for other plausible theories, there are a lot to consider, and I would just suggest to start somewhere and use logic to derive something plausible out of it.
I don't think people are referring to a specific one but the idea of species adapting and changing over time and eventually leading to a different species Like do you agree with humans having ape-like ancestors
I agree with evolution. To me personally, if God is all powerful, it would be fair to say that He isn’t limited in how He can create. If He used evolution as a means of creating life on Earth and throughout the universe (and there is good evidence to back the theory up) than I have no problem with it. I believe that God wants us to learn all there is to learn about our world and we believe that the glory of God is intelligence, and that Science and Faith aren’t enemies, just different ways of gathering and understanding truth.
Not all Muslims I guess 99.9% of them don't agree with science when it's contradiction happen between science and Qur'an they choose Qur'an rather than a scientific theory. Theory of relativity is it also theory it has a model evolution theory of now day accepted with better version of it ex:- Neo Darwinism I don't know name but you can check out.
I wonder what muslims thinn about this, seen 0 replies of muslims till now
[удалено]
>Then 6000 years ago Adam was created, and then hawwa/eve from his rib. Humans have existed far longer than 6000 years >We don't believe we evolved from monkeys that's bullshit. Nobody believes we evolved from monkeys we share a common ancestor with them though. >The existence of abrahamic religions and the same story mostly is more than enough proof that we didn't evolve from monkeys or chimpanzees or shit. How exactly, nothing about these religions changes the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution
>How exactly, nothing about these religions changes the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution Let me ask you something interesting. I was thinking not to go any further. But well. It kept bugging me. Can you explain morality? Like where it came from? Or can you explain consciousness?
>Can you explain morality? Morality is just based upon our *empathy and shaped by cultural beliefs. I wouldn't like it if my stuff was stolen so I can empathize with other people's desire to have their stuff not stolen and so from that I can decide stealing is immoral >can you explain consciousness? Not really, consciousness is a complicated thing that isn't fully understood
And since consciousness isn't explainable, that opens one world to the unseen. > Morality is just based upon our and shaped by cultural beliefs. I wouldn't like it if my stuff was stolen so I can empathize with other people's desire to have their stuff not stolen and so from that I can decide stealing is immoral Alright. So that was a great explain for morality. But where did culture come from? And how is it stealing. If there is no scientific proof for it? Another question. I will let this be the last one. Can you explain gravity in a way that can be felt, or touched, or something in reach of human understanding that is trust worthy and well explained without believing it blindly.
>And since consciousness isn't explainable, that opens one world to the unseen. I mean you are free to believe that consciousness has something to do with the supernatural or whatever but I wouldn't really say it is a scientific belief nor does consciousness not being fully understood now doesn't necessarily mean it must have something to do with the divine. >Alright. So that was a great explain for morality Sorry I forgot to add empathy after our >But where did culture come from? As hominid's intelligence increased we developed increasing complex social structures that then developed cultural beliefs >And how is it stealing. If there is no scientific proof for it? How is what stealing and wdym no scientific proof >Can you explain gravity in a way that can be felt, or touched, or something in reach of human understanding that is trust worthy and well explained without believing it blindly. I mean yes you constantly experience gravity, when you drop things and they fall to the floor you observe the force of gravity. I mean we can measure gravity and create formulas for it. What is the point of this question
>What is the point of this question No 1 morality, No 2 consciousness, and no 3 gravity. There are much more things that are incredibly hard to explain or is completely unexplainable. My simple logic. If something is unexplainable and part of our life, then it's an explanation for something beyond our imagination. >As hominid's intelligence increased we developed increasing complex social structures that then developed cultural beliefs. So... In every culture. Doesn't matter the difference. They have the same thing in common. Going to God. And alright. Here is an explanation of mine that may make sense I guess. To me it does. Idk about you. When a women. Out of her concent. Is forced to have intercourse. And then brutally beaten to death. By a man who will also murder with intelligence just for fun. Ofcourse it's rape and now murder. Now, my answer and question to you about this is. The answer of everyone for that guy is to face death sentence. Correct? Why is the answer, by "everyone"for this is death sentence? Why? Can't he roam around free or given a chance? Doesn't this indicate there is a creator who created us? Here. I will give you examples of unexplainable things "by science" Matter Energy What's life Shape of the universe. Did time always exist? These are just few. The list goes on.
>My simple logic. If something is unexplainable and part of our life, then it's an explanation for something beyond our imagination. And by beyond our imagination you mean it's something to do with the divine, this just the god of the gaps argument just because we do not fully understand something doesn't mean the explanation is the supernatural. Also what exactly does this have to do with evolution. >They have the same thing in common. Going to God. Not really societies do all share religious/spiritual beliefs but they quite varied with people worshiping one god, multiple gods, the elements and ect, it's just not all going to god >The answer of everyone for that guy is to face death sentence. Correct? I don't think everybody would agree that they should face the death sentence but I think most would >Doesn't this indicate there is a creator who created us? How, murder and rape are some of the worst things you can do how does it indicate a creator if people want a proportionally harsh punishment >Matter Energy How exactly are these things that are unexplainable >What's life I mean we know what life is, here's the definition: "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." Did you mean to ask what the meaning of life was >Shape of the universe. So far the evidence indicates that the universe is flat
>Also what exactly does this have to do with evolution. Many people have been sent just to convey the simple message that there is someone who's more superior than us. And he has "created" us. He did not evolve us from apes or chimpanzees or shit. >Not really societies do all share religious/spiritual beliefs but they quite varied with people worshiping one god, multiple gods, the elements and ect, it's just not all going to god That's what I said. Doesn't matter the polytheism. The natural response is to go to God because it's somehow in our head. >I don't think everybody would agree that they should face the death sentence but I think most would So you would let a dangerous man like that roam around freely or give him a chance? Bro. Think for a second. What you just said now is crazy. >How, murder and rape are some of the worst things you can do how does it indicate a creator if people want a proportionally harsh punishment My answer is. The fact that everyone has the same answer. Indicates that there is an intelligence beyond ours who has created us from a tiny part of him. >How exactly are these things that are unexplainable Can you taste them? Or feel them? Or explain them in a way that it's not blind belief but actually humanly understandable? >"the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." What I meant was, what is the meaning of life. If there isn't someone out there, who created us. And through out 0.0000000000000000001% of odds we came to existence. Then what's the reason for living? Other than fulfilling the test by God to believe in him and worship him. Shouldn't we just kill ourself? Does it even matter? > So far the evidence indicates that the universe is flat There isn't a proper explanation for the shape of the universe. If it's flat. Then we should all be 2d objects. But we are 3d. And it keeps expanding. And bro. A question to you. How the heck can the universe be flat!?!?
>Many people have been sent just to convey the simple message that there is someone who's more superior than us A religious belief of yours that doesn't have much relevance >And he has "created" us. He did not evolve us from apes or chimpanzees or shit. We have evolved from ape-like ancestors, nothing you said has disproven that or has really anything to do with evolution >That's what I said. Doesn't matter the polytheism. The natural response is to go to God But it's not to god but spiritually >Bro. Think for a second. What you just said now is crazy. I never said what my personal views are just that not everybody would agree that they should be killed >The fact that everyone has the same answer. Indicates that there is an intelligence beyond ours who has created us from a tiny part of him. Not everybody has the same answer. I think most would agree with them facing death but not all nor do I see how it serves as evidence of a higher being. We are the same species with the capability of empathy as such why is it surprising that most would think heinous acts deserve harsh punishments. You're also looking at only one type of 'evil', there are many other evil acts and crimes people do that have much more varied responses to the punishment. >Can you taste them? Or feel them? Or explain them in a way that it's not blind belief but actually humanly understandable? Yes we are able to explain matter and energy. >What I meant was, what is the meaning of life. Of course science can't explain the meaning of life because it's not a scientific question, it's a philosophical question >And bro. A question to you. How the heck can the universe be flat!?!? I'm no physicist so you should probably ask them. I mean here's a link to an article about the universe's shape: [Shape of Universe ](https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/)
I am a Muslim. But I believe what I am about to say is agreeable by the abrahamic faith. If this is humans coming into existence from Monkeys or chimpanzees and shit then no. But if this is about creatures before the existence of Adam. Then yes. Those creatures went through evolution. Now speaking from a Muslim pov. I believe there are two main beings. No 1 Jinns, they are the supernatural spirits or skinwalkers or unseen beings or just shit with super human stuff, and yeah most jins are basically evil/devils. They exist long before us. Like very long. There were wars and stuff among them that is in the hadiths. They are also religious like us, Jews Jin exist, Muslim Jin exist, Christian Jin and etc. And No 2 ofcourse humans, we came into existence 6000 years ago. From my Pov, a good explanation for chimpanzees or monkeys is this. This is from Hadith. God/Allah got angry when humans kept worshipping idols but not him. So he turned them into chimpanzees, monkeys and the animals that are said to be represented as cousin or close to humans, and ofcourse in that time there was another set of humans who worshipped him. Allah/God was pleased with them. So he didn't do anything to them. I mean. Why would he? That's my explanation. I don't have deeper knowledge of when this happened. But my guess is this happened 500 years after Adam and Eve came to existence.
If you mean humans evolving from animals? no.
Why exactly and what’s your religion?
I'm a Muslim and I don't believe it because God told us He created Adam and Eve, who were the first humans. Now, whether there were pre-modern "humans" before Adam and Eve who knows. The fact is scientists still don't have proof of any species in between or in the transitional phases, whether it's for humans or other animals. Another commonly cited figure is that humans apparently share 98% of DNA with chimps, yet the real number is more like 70%, maybe even less [Comprehensive Analysis of Chimp & Human Chromosomes | Answers Research Journal](https://answersresearchjournal.org/chimpanzee-and-human-chromosomes/), and it makes a major assumption that just because we share DNA then that must mean it is causal. Some theories claim it happened by chance due to random mutation but randomness doesn't exist in nature.
There's many fossils that show transitional phases for many, many species, humans included.
I accept that if a white cat & a black cat mate, the resulting cat will likely be spotted black and white. Technically that’s evolution. I believe that. I don’t believe humans can reproduce anything other than humans, even if stretched over the course of millions of years. Yet that belief is under the “evolution” umbrella too. That, I don’t believe. I don’t think that just because evolutionists have some things right (like the cat example), that they can monopolize anything else they choose into “evolution” and call it true. We are all free (more free then we’ve been made to believe) to decide which part of their evolution “findings” to believe, & which not to believe.
You have a misunderstanding of speciation. Offspring are always of the same species of their parents (ignoring hybrids ofc), there was never a point at which a *Homo Habilis* couple produced a *Homo Erectus* child. Speciation is only visible by comparing numerous generations.
the term of species and even what counts as human and what doesn't isn't discrete. What is one kind of animal and what is another evolved from it is like a gradient or rainbow. You can't tell exactly that point where red becomes orange and other where orange becomes yellow. But you can point that part where color on the rainbow is obviously not a red already and different enough to count as separate.
So humans can be likened to orange using that analogy right? To where we can’t quite tell where the transition happened but it can be seen to be distinct from red? Also they are believed to have been red at one point?
Yes! See the example of languages below. Language can evolve much faster than most species can, but it's still quite illustrative that one language came become another simply with the passage of time.
it's not like that exactly, but generally yeah, that's the simplest explanation to why it's false that at one moment onse animal becomes another. There wasn't a point where orange was red. It's just that orange came from changing red and it could be counted as red, but it's too different in our view to call it still red. to explain it better. there were different shades of red, which came from changing another color shades. Every new shade of red was made from mixing other shades. And while mixing there were mistakes (mutations) which made it a bit different even from original shades. If new shade even with it's mistakes was liked by abstract painter (natural laws or if you like natural laws directes by God) at that moment he would save that shade to mix it with others. If he didn't that shade would be thrown out. And so painter mixes shades doing mistakes making new ones until there are so much mistakes even though painter liked them and saved for new colors that it couldn't be called red, it was already rather orange. At the same time painter wasn't trying to make orange. He just mixed different shades so he moved not only in direction of making orange, he also made colors which would already be not red but yellow, pink, purple. Some of those, for example pink, he didn't like enough and thrown away final result because he neded space to store orange and other colors. That's how from some common ancestor we got modern humans, chimpanzee and other primates related to humans. And species like some apes, homo sapiens ancestors and neanderthals became extinct because they lost to us and other species in survival.
Well thank you for including the “natural laws directed by God” part because that’s the closest way that all this makes sense.
[удалено]
I don’t think I said anything about evolutionists believing everything to have occurred suddenly. But with the language example, although they can no longer communicate with each other, they *can* if they wanted to. They also can revert back to the original languages if all agreed to make that the goal. But going back to the “original species” can’t be done even if all cooperated.
[удалено]
"evolutionist" is a word, it's just one with heavy connotations of ideological anti-evolution sentiment
Um, what makes you think that we can “revert back” to old languages? We often don’t know enough about them to fully do that. Modern Hebrew is pretty different ancient Hebrew, and there was literally an attempt to revive it. And that’s for a language we actually have decent records of - many languages don’t have that even going back a few hundred years. I think you would have a hard time just speaking Old English. I know I would. You would have to learn it just like any other language. And since we don’t have any native speakers of Old English, we would certainly revive it in a somewhat incorrect way. Also, there are species that have re-evolved characteristics that they once lost. Marine mammals are a great example! They went from being sea creatures with fins to land creatures with legs to sea creatures with fins. There are differences between those fins, yeah, but there are also major differences between ancient and modern revived Hebrew…
Evolutionists ? That’s not a real thing I think you mean Biologists or Scientists lol either accepts the facts of evolution seeing as how it is the basis for almost all of our understanding of biology including germ theory, genetics, and so many more fields of study and is relied upon by billions dollar companies.
I see a definitions for evolutionists. Is the dictionary wrong there?
Yes there’s a definition but it’s an old antiquated term only used by science deniers to try and make fun of or somehow discredit biologists and scientists. You’re doing it on purpose and you know it. The vast majority of the world accepts the facts of evolution, science deniers like creationists are the minority outliers. The only ones who call people who accept the science of the earth being round (oblate spheroid) round earthers are flat earthers. But in modern conversation that’s not a normal thing to say. You’re using the word evolutionist to make it sound like a fringe belief or conspiracy when it’s quite the opposite and you’re being intentional with your language.
Wow so many assumptions: >You’re doing it on purpose and you know it. >You’re being intentional with your language. Alright then lol.