Evolution (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, July 27, 2009, 05:05 (5597 days ago) @ dhw

Matt objects to one point in my summary of the Theory of Evolution: "I would still qualify that evolution is only compatible with certain kinds of theism...you appear to make a false distinction between theism and creationism."
> 
> Thank you. I think this is a valid criticism, but I don't like your alternative "three camps of creation, design, and my extreme deism". How about: The theory is compatible with belief in a conscious designer, but is not compatible with literal interpretations of the Bible? 
> 
Strictly speaking, no. Because its not just the Bible, it's also the Quran, Talmud, literal and dogmatic traditions anywhere that assert some form of creationism. - I know you dislike the theistic connotations of a conscious designer, but they are inescapable. As I argue with my atheist friends, it is entirely possible that every idea we've ever come up with about God is completely false except that he exists. Still doesn't stop the being from being classified as a deity unless he/she/it is as material as we are. - 
> A very minor matter: in your post of 24 July at 00.09 you wrote: "...if religion is taken by its root words "relig aire". (To fashion together.)" Just to set the record straight, the derivation of the word 'religion' is ... rather appropriately ... uncertain, but there seems to be general agreement that it goes back to the Latin 'religare'. 'Ligare' = to bind, not to fashion, and a possible explanation is that the term entails binding humans to God (e.g. through an oath). I haven't heard your version before, and don't know where your "aire" comes from, but it's certainly more evocative (and sceptical) than the derivation I know! - I would have to dig to find where I found that derivation. It was not my own concoction. I think it was my human geography textbook... when trying to add Confucianism and Buddhism to the terms "religion" even though they are non-mystical and do not invoke deities. That said, "to bind" in english could be taken to mean "to fashion together" or "to build" so it's not a big stretch. Under the usual definition Buddhism/Confucianism wouldn't apply as religions.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"