Religion teaches that we're all going to die and go to heaven, it teaches that there is a supreme man that created human and we're going to give an account of what we did on earth to him. Christians believes that the world would come to an end. (I don't know what the Muslim believes as per the rapture thing).


But recent discoveries are contradicting this believe, human race is gradually undergoing evolution, which means another version of humanoid is succeeding the homo sapiens. I think what happened during the dinosaur era is currently happening to the human race too. Remember that over twenty one (21) species of humanoid co-existed with Homo Sapiens, and it is an established fact that the difference between Neanders and Homo Sapiens is less than 0.004%. (maybe there is another version of human already!) All facts and events are pointing towards the reasoning that our great grand children might be something different from us! We've got people with various "disorder":
1. Blue-eyed kid in China.
2. Schizophrenia.
3. People that don't forget whatever they see.
3. Geeks
4. Master crammers.
5. E.t.c.
If you check the stat for the increase in the rate of Autism over the century, it's alarming! And it is proven that autistic brains are hyper-sensitive, hyper-perspective, hyper-plastic e.t.c. Which gives them a modern version of brain.


If you join the dots, then you would observe that, human being is gradually undergoing evolution, which is contrary to the general religious believe.


My question (concern) is this: Does any of the religion in practise have a prepared argument or explanation on religion and evolution?

The species before Homo Sapiens will they be judged too? What of the ones that would succeed us?

If you don't believe in evolution, what do you have to say about discoveries of all this creatures that existed before the religious book records? The earth is over 14 billion years or so, but the religious book record is not to as dated as the earth.

Am a bit confused over here, is there any reasonable explanation to all this?

My brother, nothing like human evolution, its just mere taking up challenges.

Was this world like this 10 years ago? Nope.

Change is constant, and that what we are all experiencing.

Nigeria alone is full of challenges, if u don't upgrade, sorry is gonna be ur name eventually.

"Disorders" have been happening from the beginning of the world. Many are still gonna happen. Many discoveries are gonna be made. It will take human beings to fulfill all.

Over the years, we have changed so many things scientifically and technologically!

Nothing like HUMAN EVOLUTION...I am not from one monkey, maybe you are, but I'm not!

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others. People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.  

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief. Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6). Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.  

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago. Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283). It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.  

Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days. Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account. That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment. On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form. But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.  

Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use. 

 Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism). In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37). The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).  

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

ayobase: My brother, nothing like human evolution, its just mere taking up challenges.

Was this world like this 10 years ago? Nope.

Change is constant, and that what we are all experiencing.

Nigeria alone is full of challenges, if u don't upgrade, sorry is gonna be ur name eventually.

"Disorders" have been happening from the beginning of the world. Many are still gonna happen. Many discoveries are gonna be made. It will take human beings to fulfill all.

Over the years, we have changed so many things scientifically and technologically!

Nothing like HUMAN EVOLUTION...I am not from one monkey, maybe you are, but I'm not!

^^^
Changes? What brought about those changes? Where are the things that used to exist before those changes? What happened to them? Don't you think that the same changes is happening to us? Do you agree that we co'existed with other humanoid in the early ages? What happened to them? Will they be judges too? Do you agree that the earth is older than the records in the spiritual books?

Sorry if the question seems aggressive, but they need to be answered by someone, anybody with vast knowledge of religion.

italo: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Thanks for sharing this. Although it did not give a precise (reasonable) explanation to Human evolution.
BTW: History has it that, early catholic was against the development of science with the fear of contradiction to the religious teaching of procreation.

Thanks for reading. Yes, it doesnt give a precise explanation for human evolution...even science is speculative on Human Evolution. It shows that if indeed, evolution is accurate, it is compatible with Catholic teaching. The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific or entirely literal story.

Can you tell me what "history" you have been reading that tells you that all Catholics feared science?

adeaugustus:
Thanks for sharing this. Although it did not give a precise (reasonable) explanation to Human evolution.
BTW: History has it that, early catholic was against the development of science with the fear of contradiction to the religious teaching of procreation.

adeaugustus:
^^^
Changes? What brought about those changes? Where are the things that used to exist before those changes? What happened to them? Don't you think that the same changes is happening to us? Do you agree that we co'existed with other humanoid in the early ages? What happened to them? Will they be judges too? Do you agree that the earth is older than the records in the spiritual books?

Sorry if the question seems aggressive, but they need to be answered by someone, anybody with vast knowledge of religion.

What's all this talk about rvolution. Just one question for you. Is scientific evolution a morphological or psychological change?

Op, there's no evolution in their story books, therefore, they don't believe in it. All this despite the undeniable evidence.

Talking donkeys? That's fine, they existed. It's in the storybook.

Then there's those who claim not to believe in the story books but claim evolution is false, again despite the evidence. Why? We're just too special, therefore this stupendously large universe was built...just for us. We are the centre of the universe.

In the end bros, you won't get past the hubris. They simply want to feel special, 'your grandfather was a monkey, not mine', etc.

You are some sort of agnostic, ne?

[quote author=adeaugustus]

My question (concern) is this: Does any of the religion in practise have a prepared argument or explanation on religion and evolution?

Only science propounded the theory of evolution. Any religion laying claim to or trying to align itself with the theory of evolution as propounded by Charles Darwin is a fraud.

italo: Thanks for reading. Yes, it doesnt give a precise explanation for human evolution...even science is speculative on Human Evolution. It shows that if indeed, evolution is accurate, it is compatible with Catholic teaching. The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific or entirely literal story.

Can you tell me what "history" you have been reading that tells you that all Catholics feared science?

Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science. If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries

italo: Thanks for reading. Yes, it doesnt give a precise explanation for human evolution...even science is speculative on Human Evolution. It shows that if indeed, evolution is accurate, it is compatible with Catholic teaching. The story of Adam and Eve is not a scientific or entirely literal story.

Can you tell me what "history" you have been reading that tells you that all Catholics feared science?

Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science. If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries.
Humanism
The Renaissance was not only a time of
great art and architectural achievement, by
people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, but it
was also a time for questioning the
established way of thinking. The established
way of thinking at the time was greatly
influenced by the Catholic Church and as a
result the questioning attitude of people like
the humanists came into conflict with
accepted Church teachings. Humanism
entails two important characteristics, both
of which greatly influenced reform of the
Church and scientific advancement:
1. A questioning attitude
2. The idea that heaven was important
but that time on earth should be
enjoyed and used to accomplish great
things - value of the human existence
for its own sake
These two ways of thinking greatly
influenced scientific advancement, new
forms of art, and religious controversy.
www.icsd.k12.ny.us/legacy/highschool/socstud/global2_review/renaissance.htm

Reyginus: What's all this talk about rvolution. Just one question for you. Is scientific evolution a morphological or psychological change?

Both.
Psychological in the sense that the species that existed before us never believed in any supernatural power, psychological again, because the "cave man" were not as wise as the current humanoid, they never had to worry about climate change, child abuse, birth control and some other stuff we worry about this days. Right?

Morphological in the sense that, there have been discovery of 20 humanoid that co-existed with us before the went into extinction, the anatomy of this humanoid is different from ours, although the different is not huge, but the morphology does not align.

Reyginus: What's all this talk about rvolution. Just one question for you. Is scientific evolution a morphological or psychological change?

?
What?

adeaugustus:
Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science.

Can you give me examples? Mention names and real instances that we can verify...and not just blind accusations.

If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries.

You said they are more of fiction. How then can we reference it in an argument like this?

The sooner you realize that Dan Brown is just out to sell his books and make money, the better for you.

Humanism
The Renaissance was not only a time of
great art and architectural achievement, by
people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, but it
was also a time for questioning the
established way of thinking. The established
way of thinking at the time was greatly
influenced by the Catholic Church and as a
result the questioning attitude of people like
the humanists came into conflict with
accepted Church teachings. Humanism
entails two important characteristics, both
of which greatly influenced reform of the
Church and scientific advancement:
1. A questioning attitude
2. The idea that heaven was important
but that time on earth should be
enjoyed and used to accomplish great
things - value of the human existence
for its own sake
These two ways of thinking greatly
influenced scientific advancement, new
forms of art, and religious controversy.
www.icsd.k12.ny.us/legacy/highschool/socstud/global2_review/renaissance.htm

My friend, the Catholic Church has always had many enemies because it is God's Church. Satan loves to use people to smear it and distort the facts to criticize the Church. That is why Pope Francis would greet Muslims on Eid-el- Fitr and some haters would say he is trying to establish an evil one world order. That is why a minute percentage of priests would defile kids and people will portray it to look like all Priests are pedophiles. I'm sure in 500years time, haters will peddle these lies and exaggerations and people like you will believe.

In my next post I will show you what wikipefia has to say about the Catholic Church and Science...with real verifiable people and events, not just wilf allegations and insinuations.

adeaugustus:
Before the renaissance period, catholic was all over science. The Vatican did their best to bury the field. They believe that the subject should not be studied from the materialism perspective but rather idealism. I am replying you from a mobile device, hence I wouldn't be able to give links, but if you're a bit familiar with Ancient science and Philosophy, you would observe that catholic nearly buried science.

Can you give me examples? Mention names and real instances that we can verify...and not just blind accusations.

adeaugustus:
If you are into reading, you might want to read Dan Brown's book; Angels and Demon and the Da Vinci Code, while they're more of fiction, it actually points out what happened during the early centuries.

You said they are more of fiction. How then can we reference it in an argument like this?

The sooner you realize that Dan Brown is just out to sell his books and make money, the better for you.

adeaugustus:
Humanism
The Renaissance was not only a time of
great art and architectural achievement, by
people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo, but it
was also a time for questioning the
established way of thinking. The established
way of thinking at the time was greatly
influenced by the Catholic Church and as a
result the questioning attitude of people like
the humanists came into conflict with
accepted Church teachings. Humanism
entails two important characteristics, both
of which greatly influenced reform of the
Church and scientific advancement:
1. A questioning attitude
2. The idea that heaven was important
but that time on earth should be
enjoyed and used to accomplish great
things - value of the human existence
for its own sake
These two ways of thinking greatly
influenced scientific advancement, new
forms of art, and religious controversy.
www.icsd.k12.ny.us/legacy/highschool/socstud/global2_review/renaissance.htm

My friend, the Catholic Church has always had many enemies because it is God's Church. Satan loves to use people to smear it and distort the facts to criticize the Church. That is why Pope Francis would greet Muslims on Eid-el- Fitr and some haters would say he is trying to establish an evil one world order. That is why a minute percentage of priests would defile kids and people will portray it to look like all Priests are pedophiles. I'm sure in 500years time, haters will peddle these lies and exaggerations and people like you will believe.

In my next post I will show you what wikipedia has to say about the Catholic Church and Science...with real verifiable people and events, not just wild allegations and insinuations.

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. The church has often been a patron of science, and founded schools, universities and hospitals. Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields. Conversely, the conflict thesis and other critiques posit that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between the Church and science. Pope John Paul II wrote that "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth."

Where in earlier times, science and theology were considered very much intertwined, in modern times, the processes of the empirical sciences and the theological claims of religions are more commonly viewed as belonging to different (and sometimes conflicting) spheres.

From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world. Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes). During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas who helped establish scientific method. During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarkism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822-84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model. The Jesuits have been particularly active, particularly in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.

The conflict thesis proposes an intellectual conflict between the Church and science. The original historical usage of the term asserted that the Church has been in perpetual opposition to science. Later uses of the term denote the Church's epistemological opposition to science. The thesis interprets the relationship between the Church and science as inevitably leading to public hostility, when religion aggressively challenges new scientific ideas — as in the Galileo Affair. An alternative criticism is that the Church opposed particular scientific discoveries that it felt challenged its authority and power - particularly through the Reformation and on through the Enlightenment. This thesis shifts the emphasis away from the perception of the fundamental incompatibility of religion per se and science-in-general to a critique of the structural reasons for the resistance of the Church as a political organisation.

The Church contends that natural reason, being a God-given capacity, is not opposed to the Church's teachings and the church therefore holds that its role throughout history has led to progress of science and intuitive reasoning.[clarification needed][1] This view is contested by some secular historians, who speak of an historically varied relationship, which has shifted from active and even singular support; to bitter clashes (with accusations of heresy).

To read more, visit: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

turnstoner:
Only science propounded the theory of evolution. Any religion laying claim to or trying to align itself with the theory of evolution as propounded by Charles Darwin is a fraud.

Poor you. Always exposing your ignorance and enforcing it with arrogance for the world to see.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a Catholic, prefigured evolution before Darwin ever dreamt of it.

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories as a supplement to his concept of an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. Lamarck did not originate the idea of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.


When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection in On the Origin of Species, he continued to give credence to what he called "use and disuse inheritance", but rejected other aspects of Lamarck's theories. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has continued (2009) as studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism

I advice you again: shut up until you know what you are talking about!

adeaugustus:
Both.
Psychological in the sense that the species that existed before us never believed in any supernatural power, psychological again, because the "cave man" were not as wise as the current humanoid, they never had to worry about climate change, child abuse, birth control and some other stuff we worry about this days. Right?

Maybe because they didnt have a soul...hence, were not human.

adeaugustus:
Both.
Psychological in the sense that the species that existed before us never believed in any supernatural power, psychological again, because the "cave man" were not as wise as the current humanoid, they never had to worry about climate change, child abuse, birth control and some other stuff we worry about this days. Right?

Morphological in the sense that, there have been discovery of 20 humanoid that co-existed with us before the went into extinction, the anatomy of this humanoid is different from ours, although the different is not huge, but the morphology does not align.

My friend this is not what I expected. You seem to be describing psychology as a level of knowledge without which a human is said to be less evolved.
My friend, the inability of the homofabers to reason outside the box is not necessarily a proof of psychological evolution.
You'd agree with me that there are still among us those who don't worry about climate change, child abuse etc.
Does this not then imply that your idea of evolution segregates.
Our probability is one. And your theory fails.

adeaugustus: Both. Psychological in the sense that the species that existed before us never believed in any supernatural power, psychological again, because the "cave man" were not as wise as the current humanoid, they never had to worry about climate change, child abuse, birth control and some other stuff we worry about this days. Right? Morphological in the sense that, there have been discovery of 20 humanoid that co-existed with us before the went into extinction, the anatomy of this humanoid is different from ours, although the different is not huge, but the morphology does not align.

adeaugustus: ^^^ Changes? What brought about those changes? Where are the things that used to exist before those changes? What happened to them? Don't you think that the same changes is happening to us? Do you agree that we co'existed with other humanoid in the early ages? What happened to them? Will they be judges too? Do you agree that the earth is older than the records in the spiritual books? Sorry if the question seems aggressive, but they need to be answered by someone, anybody with vast knowledge of religion.

You talked about morphology without considering the initial distinction you made on evolving humans. And I keep wondering, these evolving humans you solidly hold as a proof of evolution, in what way have they evolved morphologically.

plaetton:

?
What?

Yes. You got it right.

italo:
Maybe because they didnt have a soul...hence, were not human.

Worst still, he should explain to us the evolution of the mind.

Very Funny the way you guys turned a sensitive topic into a catholic vs evolution. You probably don't understand religion, you're arguing based on doctrine rather than religion. Thanks

Welldone @italo. I like the way u have given ur answers even though I dont believe in all of them I do appreciate a good argument. It shows that u are not like most religious people like @turnstoner who dont even know what evolution is about (they think it is about monkeys spontaneously turning into humans) but have dedicated every breath they can muster to oppose it.
Being a deist, I do believe in evolution and being a scientist, the evidence is clear for the open-minded to see. I believe evolution is the tool the Creative Source uses in making ever-improving living beings. A wise designer would rather make a design that is capable of adapting to new situation and generating properties that best matches the situation: Adaptive Control.
For the continued sustainance of the world, the beings in it have to be as diverse as possible in order for the to be more chance of some of them surviving.

adeaugustus: Very Funny the way you guys turned a sensitive topic into a catholic vs evolution. You probably don't understand religion, you're arguing based on doctrine rather than religion. Thanks

Sorry, are you the same person that typed the OP or did someone hack into your account?

Is Catholicism not a religion?

adeaugustus: Religion teaches that we're all going to die and go to heaven, it teaches that there is a supreme man that created human and we're going to give an account of what we did on earth to him. Christians believes that the world would come to an end. (I don't know what the Muslim believes as per the rapture thing).


But recent discoveries are contradicting this believe, human race is gradually undergoing evolution, which means another version of humanoid is succeeding the homo sapiens. I think what happened during the dinosaur era is currently happening to the human race too. Remember that over twenty one (21) species of humanoid co-existed with Homo Sapiens, and it is an established fact that the difference between Neanders and Homo Sapiens is less than 0.004%. (maybe there is another version of human already!) All facts and events are pointing towards the reasoning that our great grand children might be something different from us! We've got people with various "disorder":
1. Blue-eyed kid in China.
2. Schizophrenia.
3. People that don't forget whatever they see.
3. Geeks
4. Master crammers.
5. E.t.c.
If you check the stat for the increase in the rate of Autism over the century, it's alarming! And it is proven that autistic brains are hyper-sensitive, hyper-perspective, hyper-plastic e.t.c. Which gives them a modern version of brain.


If you join the dots, then you would observe that, human being is gradually undergoing evolution, which is contrary to the general religious believe.


My question (concern) is this: Does any of the religion in practise have a prepared argument or explanation on religion and evolution?

The species before Homo Sapiens will they be judged too? What of the ones that would succeed us?

If you don't believe in evolution, what do you have to say about discoveries of all this creatures that existed before the religious book records? The earth is over 14 billion years or so, but the religious book record is not to as dated as the earth.

Am a bit confused over here, is there any reasonable explanation to all this?

You started your OP with "religion TEACHES," then you accuse us of talking doctrine not religion.

You obviously dont know that doctrine means teaching.

You need either a dictionary or humility to accept wrong or both.

PhenomenonVFX: Welldone @italo. I like the way u have given ur answers even though I dont believe in all of them I do appreciate a good argument. It shows that u are not like most religious people like @turnstoner who dont even know what evolution is about (they think it is about monkeys spontaneously turning into humans) but have dedicated every breath they can muster to oppose it.
Being a deist, I do believe in evolution and being a scientist, the evidence is clear for the open-minded to see. I believe evolution is the tool the Creative Source uses in making ever-improving living beings. A wise designer would rather make a design that is capable of adapting to new situation and generating properties that best matches the situation: Adaptive Control.
For the continued sustainance of the world, the beings in it have to be as diverse as possible in order for the to be more chance of some of them surviving.

Thanks. I have learnt that many people will hold on to their belief or unbelief (especially publicly) even though they are clearly proved wrong. I dont try to force anyone to believe what I believe. I am not against people of other creeds. I am only against the hypocrisy of turning a blind eye to obvious truth and/or clinging to clear lies and untruths and unverified or unverifiable information simply to make a case for our belief. So all I say is: lets present our facts and arguments fairly and honestly...and any person of truth and integrity will be able to find truth.

adeaugustus:
^^^
Changes? What brought about those changes? Where are the things that used to exist before those changes? What happened to them? Don't you think that the same changes is happening to us? Do you agree that we co'existed with other humanoid in the early ages? What happened to them? Will they be judges too? Do you agree that the earth is older than the records in the spiritual books?

Sorry if the question seems aggressive, but they need to be answered by someone, anybody with vast knowledge of religion.

That some peculiar things happened at one point in time doesn't call for evolution cry.

There is no way we can trash this out if we don't have a common belief.

Do you believe in God?

The things that used to exist before the "supposed" changes are still fully existing....humans are from monkeys. Are monkeys not still existing?

Humanoids?
Hmmmm, u simply believe in some "aroko"

The Bible wasn't specific about the date or year the earth was created. It reads ".......in the beginning....." Who knows the beginning, the Scientist?