no1nose

Before I can get to the maths and observer I need to show where Darwin got his ideas.

Many words have been written about the differences between evolution and Christianity. In many ways the ideas of evolution parallel that of Christianity. For example both Evolution and Christianity have transformation as a central theme. For Christianity it is the transformation of the inner person and for evolution it the change of the outer person. While the two focus on different things they are both still talking about changing what we are.

Also both Evolution and Christianity follow a "redeemer" scenario. In Christianity Jesus is the redeemer and those who follow him are "saved". In Evolution it is the one member of a species that has a mutation that is advantageous who leads the way to survival. Transformation and redemption in Christianity became "mutation" and "survival" in Evolution. Finally, in evolution this changed member of a species must out procreate the other members from the species to be changed. While Jesus did not procreate - his spiritual "genes" are in billions of people making him the most “imitated person to have ever lived.

So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. Darwin would have not developed his theory if he had not lived in a Christian society or had he not trained to be a clergyman. His interest may have been in the natural world but his training in medicine and then divinity. And his theory did not come out of a vacuum but adapted what he already knew.

ughaibu

Evolution was proposed by Greeks long before christianity. Re-stating your argument: So similar are underlying themes between Evolution and Christianity that it seems unlikely that they are a product of chance. Paul would have not developed his theory if he had not lived in a Greek influenced society.

Szkeptik

All I can see in the OP is that if you stretch and warp an idea long and hard enough you can make it look like anything else.

Shear

You don't need to even mention Darwin to disprove evolution. Science is based on reason and evidence, not on revelations from prophets.

Dead individuals are not redeemed simply because others live on, and, indeed, most species that have ever lived have become extinct regardless of beneficial mutations. Evolution is not about salvation.

I also doubt your claim about Jesus being the most imitated person to have ever lived. In my observations of Christians, I haven't seen any evidence of that.

The connection you have made is ludicrously weak and your argument that evolution could not have been proposed without a Christian framework is disproved by the ancient Greeks (as well as common sense).

no1nose

I believe that it is important to start with where Darwin got his ideas. Hang in there for a while and I will try to make my point. Experience tends to reinforce one’s prejudges. It takes some kind of revelation or inspired moment to get us thinking in new ways. Many discoveries happened out inspiration and not reason, for example Relativity which is counter intuitive. Without revelation we would still be waiting for the invention of the wheel.



And

What is the problem with recognizing the parallels between Christianity and Evolution? In the most general sense they both follow the “Redeemer Scenario” which is the most prevalent myth in the world. The idea of a redeemer is as old as mankind. And it can be found in many cultures. There were many people before Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah and there have been many since. Entertainment in our society is so saturated with this idea of a saviour that we take the whole thing for granted. The Western movie is famous for the lone hero who rides into town to save people from a gang of villains. But there are also many adventure, war, action or drama movies feature a hero who suffers and then rescues the innocent. Often in movies a hero appears to die only to have to somehow have escaped death and reappears to everyone’s joy. The fact saviour myths existed before the time of Christ doesn’t disprove the validity of Christianity. Far from it, if anything they show that in the heart of mankind there has always been the need for a saviour.

If one's bothers to actually study where Darwin got his idea's you will find that it was from his grandfather and the Victorian society around him. There is a a one to one correlation of themes between Christianity and Evolution. This is no accident; Darwin took from Christian thought and simply gave things a different name. For example redemption became survival and so on. The main differences are the Christianity is concerned with the redemption of the unfit and Evolution then focused on the survival of the fittest (that is until it became PC incorrect). The other main difference is that in Christianity God is in charge whereas in Evolution things happen by chance.

One can also show the connection between Evolution and Christianity by asking the question: “If life evolves by “natural selection” then who would natural selection select among the human race to carry us forward?” If everyone became like Jesus there would be no hunger because he was able to feed people. Neither would be there be sickness, war or death. The same can not be said for Buddha, Mohamed, or Moses or anyone else one can think of. So even from an evolutionary point of view Jesus is the one.

Good point but we need to recognize that at the root of all of this there is a common thread that goes back to the beginning of history. The idea that there is an older religion that what became Christianity is nonsense. The Redeemer story was common to almost all ancient cultures. What is important is who actually fulfills the story and not that it was common to almost everyone.

The story of this redeemer can be seen in the 12 constellations of the Zodiac. The Zodiac was common to almost all ancient cultures with few variations. The Zodiac in fact was the one common denominator in the ancient world. Recent excavations in Israel often find Zodiacs in the floors of synagogues (the best known is Beth Alpha, located at the base of Mount Gilboa - a full size copy of this can be found in the Jewish Museum in New York City - I have seen this for myself). The Zodiac at that time had a religious meaning which told the story of a savior who would be born of a virgin and die and rise from death.

This story was played out in the figures of the constellation and the names of the stars themselves. For example in the constellation of Virgo (portrayed was a woman holding a branch in one hand and a staff of grain in the other) the stars Al Zmimach, Al Azal and Subilon translate from Arabic and the image as “seed of woman” (ie without a human father) and “branch” this follows the prophecies found in Isa 4:2, Jer 23:5 and Zech 3:8;6:12. That fact that the constellations were common to almost all ancient cultures means that what became Christianity was the accurate fulfillment of this story of the salvation of mankind. This idea is reinforced in the Gospels by the appearance of the Magi at Jesus’ birth.

crispy

i hope you can see for yourself how easy it is to draw all the parallels you like. Why not say mutation is the redeemer?

Anyways, how does you drawing weak parallels disprove evolution?

Mike Elphick

Thank you for your posts, or should I say sermon? What you have written is the sort of nonsense you hear spouted from a pulpit. But here at IIDB one has the opportunity to answer back!

The Theory of Evolution is based upon observation and experiment and there is no connection between Christianity and evolution whatsoever. There is no redeeming feature about the struggle for existence and eventual death, whether this involves 'survival of the fittest' or not, and all animal and plant species go extinct - and so will we.

Whereas evolution teaches us humility and the interdependence of living things, the Abrahamic religions are all obsessed with man's position in the Universe. Christianity, as it is practised in the West (being based on man's dominion of the world), does not follow the teachings of Christ. According to the lost Gospel of Q, his message may never have been about the sort of redemption you probably believe in, but about something more like that found in Buddhism.

figuer

Senseless to compare a religion with a theory.

Shear

We understand that you are attempting to draw parallels between evolution and Christianity, please feel free to now provide your argument against evolution.

Reading Einstein's 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. in which he introduced the theory of relativity, should make it clear that his theory was indeed based on evidence and reason:

In addition, the theory of relativity is only relevant because it was confirmed by evidence.

fromdownunder

I think that you are missing a key point. Darwin did not get his ideas about evolution from nowhere. The idea of evolution precedes Darwin by a long period. The knowledge that species change over time and/or go extinct, was known long before Darwin. He studied his subject and gave an explanation for known observations which was better than the earlier explanations of the process.

He experimented. He observed. He studied. He waited for many years, waited to be certain of what he was saying (and he was wrong in several instances). He gave an explanation for observed events. And this explanation has stood the test of time.

Or would you also like to explain how Lamarck, who gave a (now falsified) explanation for the same events - that species change over time - prior to Darwin ?

Or Alfred Russel Wallace who, independant of Darwin came up with the same solution as Darwin did before Origin was even published, and before he was even aware that Darwin was going to publish?

Lamarch, Darwin, Wallace and other lesser knowns were all trying to explain observed events. That's it.

Norm