walker@noscvax.UUCP (Janet M. Walker) (11/13/84)
I have seen a great deal of discussion on the relative merits of creationism vs. evolution. It seems to be that, in spite of what you think, you're really not as diametrically opposed as you might suppose, if each side will consider what realm it is actually dealing with. Science deals with definitions of the physical world, religion with those of the spiritual world. If you believe at all in a God, as I do, then you believe that He created this earth - which is defined as best as possible at any given moment by science. I also believe that He created religion (all of the major ones for sure, for you can see when you look at the pure essence of each that they really teach the same spiritual truths - but that's another question) to help man understand his higher nature and the spiritual realm (not just pie-in-the sky either, language is one example of our 'spiritual' ability which distinguishes us from other life). If He did create both, then He will certainly not be in disagreement with Himself. If you also believe that it is the soul which distinguishes man from other life, that the soul is eternal, and the body is only temporal, then there really is no problem. The body, which 'houses' the soul in the physical world, is not MAN. There is much scientific evidence that the body did indeed evolve, but that which makes us unique creatures of God, the soul, was given us. That fish or ape, or whatever form it was in,which was destined to become man may have appeared, outwardly, to resemble that animal, but was, because of its latent destiny, actually different from the other creatures. Therefore man has always been MAN, though the body passed through stages of evolution. The soul is MAN. P.S I believe that the soul evolves also, but consciously, as we are charged with our own education, both scientific and spiritual, when we become aware of our own existence (something no animal can really do). I also believe that mankind as a whole evolves spiritually, and that answers given us by science AND religion are progressive - as we grow in the capacity to understand them. This is, in my belief, why some religious 'answers' SEEM incomplete to scientists. Perhaps we have reached a higher stage of spiritual evolution. One which requires more answers than we formerly had the capacity to comprehend. This does NOT make former answers wrong. It's somewhat like going to 1st grade, then 2nd, etc. It does mean that we need to search to find them, for a if there IS a loving God He will surely provide them. We need to keep open (and loving) minds. It also means that we must recognize the basic harmony of science and religion. If there appear to be differences then they are probably due to our incomplete understanding of either science or religion, or both. Think about it! Janet M. Walker MILNET/ARPANET: walker@nosc Naval Ocean Systems Center UUCP: [ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax]! San Diego, California 92152 || (619) 225-2316 (AV) 933-2316 sdcsvax!noscvax!walker
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/15/84)
In article Janet Walker writes: >I have seen a great deal of discussion on the relative merits of >creationism vs. evolution. It seems to be that, in spite of what you >think, you're really not as diametrically opposed as you might suppose, if >each side will consider what realm it is actually dealing with. > >Science deals with definitions of the physical world, religion with those >of the spiritual world. The point is that we don't *KNOW* "the spiritual world" exists and we are trying to find evidence to support it. There is no need to look for evidence to refute it as no concrete evidence has been offered to support it. >... If you believe at all in a God, as I do, then you >believe that He created this earth - which is defined as best as possible >at any given moment by science. I also believe that He created religion >(all of the major ones for sure, for you can see when you look at the pure >essence of each that they really teach the same spiritual truths - but >that's another question) to help man understand his higher nature and the >spiritual realm (not just pie-in-the sky either, language is one example of >our 'spiritual' ability which distinguishes us from other life). If He did >create both, then He will certainly not be in disagreement with Himself. Isn't it possible that the desire we all have to find order in the world around us is simply that ... a strong desire to develop a grammar or model that expresses the underlying structure of the world around us. Certainly if there were an underlying struture to the world (as science has believed to have discovered) then there would be tremendous selective advantages in a brain that was uncomfortable with any but the elegant, simple, gramatical-type solutions. Beings with minds that needed a simple and elegant explaination for things would keep searching till they found one while their counterparts clung to instincts and ritual. If the world really is ordered in a simple and elegant way then it is obvious which strategy will pay off in the long run. The remarkable fact, to me, is that precisely the people with the most highly developed sense of "order", or as I put it above, "desire to find a simple explaination for the world around them", are the same ones to believe in religion. It's the Uncertainty Principle in another guise. Nature protects is secrets by ensuring that the tools needed to unlock them are the same ones that obscure them. >If you also believe that it is the soul which distinguishes man from other >life, that the soul is eternal, and the body is only temporal, then there >really is no problem. The body, which 'houses' the soul in the physical >world, is not MAN. There is much scientific evidence that the body did >indeed evolve, but that which makes us unique creatures of God, the soul, >was given us. That fish or ape, or whatever form it was in,which was >destined to become man may have appeared, outwardly, to resemble that >animal, but was, because of its latent destiny, actually different from the >other creatures. Therefore man has always been MAN, though the body passed >through stages of evolution. The soul is MAN. The paragraph above is proof of your desire to find a simple and logical explaination for mankind. You are confronting a large body of observations that indicate a relationship between all the biomass on the planet yet you *KNOW* we must be special therefore you resolve it by finding a way to accept both ideas simultainiously, you have updated your world model from one in which GOD makes things more or less as they are to one in which GOD (more ingeniously) creates a world which will evolve into the present one. This is testimony to YOUR superior powers of "model building". >P.S >I believe that the soul evolves also, ... that mankind as a whole >evolves spiritually, ... This is, in my belief, why some religious >'answers' SEEM incomplete to scientists. Perhaps we have reached >a higher stage of spiritual evolution. One which requires more >answers than we formerly had the capacity to comprehend. >This does NOT make former answers wrong. It's somewhat like going to >1st grade, then 2nd, etc. Sounds like you are apologizing, begging the reader to ignore any inconsistancy, to have faith... I wonder why? Will GOD punish me for not thinking about him, for assuming that the world simply IS and trying to comfort myself by looking for the internal structure? Do I need religion to do good things? To live my life *Right*? Gosh I hope not. Most everything (except things like the sabbath) that religion is preaching makes sense to me for good *selfish* reasons. Even the less fashionable "commandments", like the one about sex, are obviously good heuristics for everyday living. I think understanding them for the practical benefits is better than for spiritual ones. >... We need to keep open (and loving) minds. It also means that >we must recognize the basic harmony of science and religion. >If there appear to be differences then they are probably due >to our incomplete understanding of either science or religion, or both. Wouldn't an open mind would be one in which even the idea of religion is open to question? This letter is not intended to anger or offend anyone, Please -- No Flames. Scott Bryan
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (11/20/84)
The articles in this discussion belong in net.religion *only*, please.
--
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois