of course, it is the evolution of matter-not Spirit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Episcopalian and accept evolution. I think we evolved to have these big brains that let us study our wonderful universe. There is so much more to learn.

I see no conflict between belief in God and science.

+1

+2, even including the being Episcopalian part.

I'm Mormon (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and I know I don't speak for all members, but personally I accept Evolution.
The Church leadership has no official policy on it. Therefore many members may have different views on Evolution.

I think Science and Religion seek to answer two fundamentally different questions, Science = How? Religion = Why? (and by Whom?) And I think when either of them try to stray into the territory of the other they are outside their own bounds. It is NOT the job of science to disprove God. Nor is it the place of good-religion to try to invalidate good-science.
I believe that God created the Earth and all things that are on it ... I do not presume to know HOW God did it, nor is it my place to limit God, or the tools that He had at His disposal to accomplish that creation. When ALL things are revealed, I fully expect that we will see that God performed the creation by natural and scientific laws (some of which we may not fully understand at this point). I don't think God's miracles are accomplished contrary to natural laws, but in accordance with higher laws.
I think the purpose of the Genesis story is to 1st teach us WHO is the Creator, and in whose image we are made, and 2nd to teach us WHY He created this world for us, that this life is a test to see if we will obey His commandments. The Genesis story is definitely NOT an instruction manual, or a technical document. We are His children ...
If I were an architect and my 2 year old daughter asked me how a skyscraper was built, I would not talk to her about "structural integrity" and such, I would probably sit down and use her wooden blocks to build a model of the building, a very simplified representation that I think would be appropriate to her limited understanding. ... how much further above our current intellectual understanding is God from us, further than we are from a 2 year old?

*These are my personal views and are not meant to speak for the LDS church as a whole, or even for any portion of it's members.

Also, scientists who are not 'certain' keep looking for scientific answers. They don't fall back on religious explanations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I accept that species have evolved over time, but not necessarily that humans and other primates share the ancestor. I took a rather in depth anthropology course and found it fascinating but there's still so much we don't know. We can't say with certainty when the first human, in our modern form, came to be or when that human diverged from other primates.

Can you accept that evolutionary biologists who study human origins probably can say with more certainty than someone who took one anthropology course? While it's true that no one can say for certain, I think the experts have a better handle on the general time frame for this and the biological relationships between humans and other species than 99.9% of us.

Of course and I generally respected my professor who was one of the experts in his field but did not claim 100% certainty that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. As we examined each piece of evidence, he explained how it informed various aspects of evolutionary theory. Research scientists can be much more humble in their claims than ideologs, probably because they've seen how "scientific fact" has evolved over time in their field.

There are many miracles of modern science that are based on theories that have not been proven with 100% certainty. And I think that suggesting that someone whose mind remains open to possibilities is an "ideologue" is hilarious, BTW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here and completely believe in evolution. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. God was behind whole process in some way that mere human brains cannot understand. Don't limit God.

This x 100000

Evolution or other science topics are not discussed in Catholic sunday school and People who attend catholic high school are taught about evolution and other sound scientific principles.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do strict Creationists reconcile their belief with scientific findings like the fact almost all humans have up to 4% Neanderthal genes in our DNA?

I'm not a creationist, but it seems easy to answer that God created man with those genes. He may have put all the evidence of evolution there at the moment of creation to give us something to challenge the brains He gave us. And when He created me, He made me a smart-ass atheist who capitalizes references to a non-existent Entity.

PS I'm really an agnostic because my fundamental belief is that nobody can prove anything about this stuff. Or should I say Stuff?

PS - atheists don't think this "stuff" can be proven either They rely on evidence and don't believe things -- like the supernatural -- for which they don't see evidence.

Anonymous wrote:Catholic here and completely believe in evolution. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. God was behind whole process in some way that mere human brains cannot understand. Don't limit God.

This x 100000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I accept that species have evolved over time, but not necessarily that humans and other primates share the ancestor. I took a rather in depth anthropology course and found it fascinating but there's still so much we don't know. We can't say with certainty when the first human, in our modern form, came to be or when that human diverged from other primates.

Can you accept that evolutionary biologists who study human origins probably can say with more certainty than someone who took one anthropology course? While it's true that no one can say for certain, I think the experts have a better handle on the general time frame for this and the biological relationships between humans and other species than 99.9% of us.

Of course and I generally respected my professor who was one of the experts in his field but did not claim 100% certainty that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. As we examined each piece of evidence, he explained how it informed various aspects of evolutionary theory. Research scientists can be much more humble in their claims than ideologs, probably because they've seen how "scientific fact" has evolved over time in their field.

Anonymous wrote:How do strict Creationists reconcile their belief with scientific findings like the fact almost all humans have up to 4% Neanderthal genes in our DNA?

I'm not a creationist, but it seems easy to answer that God created man with those genes. He may have put all the evidence of evolution there at the moment of creation to give us something to challenge the brains He gave us. And when He created me, He made me a smart-ass atheist who capitalizes references to a non-existent Entity.

PS I'm really an agnostic because my fundamental belief is that nobody can prove anything about this stuff. Or should I say Stuff?

How do strict Creationists reconcile their belief with scientific findings like the fact almost all humans have up to 4% Neanderthal genes in our DNA?

Anonymous wrote:I'm an Episcopalian and accept evolution. I think we evolved to have these big brains that let us study our wonderful universe. There is so much more to learn.

I see no conflict between belief in God and science.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am making an assumption that the OP is asking how I believe that life on earth came to be. If you are asking if I believe that certain animals and insects have evolved and adapted-sure to some degree. If you are asking if I believe that humans came from monkeys-no. If you are asking me if I believe the earth is billions of years old-no, and I won't apologize for it. However when the time comes for "the answer" I will give you the answer you want to hear and move on. It's not a big deal and my job is not to debate for a living.

Sounds like whatever "science" you got a PhD in neglected to educate you on what evolutionary biology actually says. So it's no wonder you reject it. Evolution does not say humans came from monkeys. Staggeringly ignorant statement from someone who has been awarded a PhD. Sad.

+1. I will automatically write off any moron who says "I don't believe humans came from monkeys" as nothing but an ignorant dipshit. If you're going to be opposed to something, at least make it an educated and informed decision. Anyone who says this, clearly knows nothing about evolution and adaptation. There is no line of thinking in human biological or anthropology that suggests humans ever evolved or came from monkeys.

What you fail to realize is that there is nothing to debate or write off. What would you be writing off based upon what I have said? Have I tried to convince you of anything, or did I say it is possible to regurgitate with precision, yet still be a person of faith? This is not a debate on evolution vs. creation and I would never be foolish enough to insist that a blind person can understand the difference between blue and green.

You also fail to realize that my post was a gross oversimplification based upon common thought. I also wrote "billions of years" which should have clued you in on that. You are looking for a debate that you are not going to get, so save the inflammatory remarks for someone who enjoys foolish conversations.

Anonymous wrote:I accept that species have evolved over time, but not necessarily that humans and other primates share the ancestor. I took a rather in depth anthropology course and found it fascinating but there's still so much we don't know. We can't say with certainty when the first human, in our modern form, came to be or when that human diverged from other primates.

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

"We can't say with certainty when the first human, in our modern form came to be" because that doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying we can't say with certainty when Indigo becomes Violet. We can say with some certainty when our first common matrilineal ancestor existed though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

One's individual soul is created by God but the human body has evolved. The Creator set evolution in motion.