The Baha'i position on biological evolution. - Page 3

ahanu · 05-24-2011, 09:56 PM

Hi, JD.

Let me start with the good news. St. Augustine, like the Baha'i, agrees science and religion must be in agreement. He said:

"Even a non-Christian knows somehting about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable ecplipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian . . . talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Elsewhere Augustine said:

"If those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists, have said things which are indeed true and are well accommodated to our faith, they should not be feared; rather, what they have said should be taken from them as from unjust possessors and converted to our use."

Now for the negative side. The Catholic believes if all the Church Fathers are in agreement, then they should be accepted, because they received their teachings from the successors of the apostles and, in turn, the apostles themselves. As far as I know, none accept an evolutionary worldview, for they either believed the universe was created in six days, or in an instant. I could be wrong.

Quote:

Irenaeus, (140-202): "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded... in six days created things were completed..” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days" (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): "...but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days' formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world..." (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).

Hippolytus (160-235): "But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,' but of ‘one day,' in order that by saying ‘one,' he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week...On the first day God made what He made out of nothing." (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).

Hippolytus (160-235): "When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth'...Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, defies himself.” Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).

Theophilus (c. 185): "Of this six days' work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts...on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days' work above narrated" (Autolycus 2,12).

Theophilus (c. 185): “God...made the existent out of the non-existent.” (Autolycus 2,4).

Theophilus (c. 185): “On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.” Theophilus, 2.15.

Theophilus (c. 185): “...the world is created and is providentially governed by the God who made everything. And the whole period of time and the years can be demonstrated to those who wish to learn the truth...The total number of years from the creation of the world is 5,695.” Theophilus, 3.25, 28.

Theophilus (c. 185): “If some period has escaped our notice, says 50 and 100 or even 200 years, at any rate it is not myriads, or thousands or years as it was for Plato...and the rest of those who wrote falsehoods. It may be that we do not know the exact total of all the years simply because the additional months and days are not recorded in the sacred books.” Theophilus, 3.29.

Origen (c. 200): “the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that.” Origen, Against Celsus, 1.19.

Lactantius (250-317): "God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day...For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up...Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years...For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day." ..And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years... (Institutes 7,14).

Victorinus (c. 280): "God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing" (On the Creation of the World).

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): "‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic." (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

Methodius (c. 311): “For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church.” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "In six days God made the world...The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God's hands" (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).

Epiphanius (315-403): "Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name." (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).

Basil (329-379): “’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’ He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night.., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” (Hexameron 2, 8).

Basil (329-379): "Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night...If it therefore says ‘one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night" (Hexameron 2, 8). Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s interpretation of Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary (PG 18, 705-707).

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): "Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text's objective. With God's help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass." (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).

Ambrose (340-397): "But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent." (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).

Ambrose (340-397): "In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning." (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).

Ambrose (340-397): "But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded." (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).

Chrysostom (344-407): "Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,' he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts'...so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings" (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Victorinus (c. 355-361): "The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men's labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. "On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night... (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343)."

Augustine (354-430): “Some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been...And when they are asked, how…the reply that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and...thus there was at intervals a new beginning made…But they say what they think, not what they know. They are deceived…by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed.” Augustine, The City of God, 12.10

Did any of the Church Fathers disagree with those above?

JDZwiers19 · 05-24-2011, 11:14 PM

Most of the quotes you posted are not explicitly espousing a literal six day creation. Some of them may have believed it but I’m sure many saw it as the logical frame work as Augustine did and were referencing Genesis for theological purposes. Augustine himself was not adamant about the age of the earth but was using the limited time found in scripture as a reason to reject the idea of an eternal universe and eternal person such as was found in eastern philosophies of his time and today. It would appear he is warning of the very thing the Baha’i faith teaches.

St. Augustine himself was very clear that we should be willing to change our mind about biblical interpretation as we learned more about the natural world or if something contradicts reason,

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”
– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.”
– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

I am aware there were some literalists to be found among the fathers of the Church but the Church has made no official pronouncement on questions that lie within the scope of science. Catholic intellectuals not only have a history of following with the advances in science but clergy men were the founding fathers in fields such as genealogy, geology, radiology, big bang cosmology etc. It was Catholics that refined the scientific method into what we have to today and founded the college system that allowed the explosion in education and science that gave birth to the modern age. What Catholics believed at one point is irrelevant because the church has always been open to the progress of science and was and is often a champion in its advancement. If a catholic wants to believe that Adam and Eve literally existed or didn’t they are free to do so. It is irrelevant to their salvation. However history has proven that genuine Christianity is not at conflict with reason. I will be happy to debate that point with anyone (in a friendly manner of course

).

Also, you are mistaken, that Catholic doctrine is defined by tradition alone. Doctrine is defined by the Magisterium (The bishops in communion with the pope) either through an ecumenical council or papal decree spoken ex-cathedra and only on matters of faith and morals. These definitions have to be supported by scripture and found in the sacred tradition but until something is officially defined by the Magisterium a catholic is not obligated to believe it and is free to speculate. For example, Augustine likely believed in a form of predestination which was later officially denounced by the Council of Trent. Examples like this can be found throughout church history. The Church usually only clearly defined something in response to a crisis or heresy. The church is seen as an organic organism that can grow and evolve by elaborating and further defining eternal truths, with the guidance of the holy spirit, but can never change a doctrine. Very similar to how bahai’s view religion as a whole.

ahanu · 05-25-2011, 08:05 AM

I agree with you that the Catholic Church has made significant contributions to science; however, the early Church Fathers agreed the Earth is young.

JD said:

Quote:

I am aware there were some literalists to be found among the fathers of the Church but the Church has made no official pronouncement on questions that lie within the scope of science

Do you mean outside the scope of science? Ah, I see what you mean. Nevermind.

Quote:

Augustine himself was not adamant about the age of the earth but was using the limited time found in scripture as a reason to reject the idea of an eternal universe and eternal person such as was found in eastern philosophies of his time and today

Please provide quotes from Augustine. Augustine wrote: "The Scripture . . . has paramount authority, . . . to which we yield assent in all matters." And he wrote: "That God made the world, we can believe from no one more safely than from God Himself." Also, he said:

Quote:

Thus, they have their successions of morning and evening, partly hidden, partly plain. For they were made from nothing by thee, and not from thyself, and not from any matter that is not thine, or that was created beforehand. They were created from concreated matter--that is, matter that was created by thee at the same time that thou didst form its formlessness, without any interval of time. Yet, since the matter of heaven and earth is one thing and the form of heaven and earth is another thing, thou didst create matter out of absolutely nothing (de omnino nihilo), but the form of the world thou didst form from formless matter (de informi materia). But both were done at the same time, so that form followed matter with no delaying interval.

To top it all off Augustine said believers in an old Earth should be ridiculed:

Quote:

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth?

JD wrote:

Quote:

Some of them may have believed it but I’m sure many saw it as the logical frame work as Augustine did and were referencing Genesis for theological purposes

Some? You didn't provide any quotes to show otherwise. From the quotes above, it appears to be more than just a logical frame work.

JD wrote:

Quote:

Doctrine is defined by the Magisterium

Sometimes the Catholic Church clearly took the literal interpretation.

In 1860, during the Council of Cologne, the Church said man was formed "immediately." "Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore, we declare that…those...who…assert...man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith."

In 1880 Pope Leo XIII said: "We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." Pope Leo agrees with Augustine and the Church Fathers. Evolution is rejected.

JDZwiers19 · 05-31-2011, 01:20 PM

Ahanu,

You can quote mine all you like but you are just being argumentative and ignoring the facts. You want quotes? I gave you some from Augustine but I will clarify them for you.

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.”– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408]

Translation: The scripture was written to teach the faith and never was intended to comment on evolution or the age of the universe or really anything about the physical reality of our Universe. Augustine was willing to change his mind if new and better answers presented themselves. However he is not the pope and can’t speak for the Church. So what did the popes say?

You quoted Pope Leo XIII and suggested he was rejecting evolution. However if you wished to investigate the facts for yourself then you would have noticed that the quote you took was from a papal encyclical on the nature of marriage and had nothing to say about evolution. He was referencing scripture in order to show the divine origin and indissoluble nature of marriage. Here is the link ARCANUM

Here is another quote from the same encyclical:

"He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

Using your own method of interpretation one would have to conclude that Pope Leo thought they actually and physically fused together. Of course he didn’t believe that and no one assumes he does.

Now, it is possible that he did not believe in evolution but that subject was not addressed in this encyclical. And even if it was it was not an infallible document. There were no solemn definitions or anathematizations. The Church has never officially commented on evolution. The council of cologne was a regional council and also not infallible.

Catholics are obligated to believe only what is infallibly defined by the Church by either an ecumenical council or a infallible definition from the pope, like this statement from Vatican I :

"if anyone does not confess that the world and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema" Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5

A catholic must profess that God created all things from nothing but is free to choose to believe whether he did it instantly or slowly through evolution. The Church makes NO OFFICAL STATEMENT ON EVOLUTION.

However, here are some popes who did say something specifically about the theory of evolution”

"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).

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theor.”
“Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." Pope Benedict XVI

Bottom line, if you want to believe that people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago were commenting on a scientific theory that didn’t even exist yet then you are free to do so, but it seems a bit silly. I would be careful though because it seems to me, based on the evidence, that Baha’is are the ones that have been told they can’t hold evolution to be true. At least it would seem that way according to Abdul-baha. Thankfully I’m not the type to make rash decisions when it comes to interpreting the writings of men greater and wiser than myself.

cire perdue · 05-31-2011, 04:21 PM

I would say that Baha'is don't believe in evolution that all things come from a single source, a single cell. That is a rather exclusive view in this wondrous universe.

ahanu · 05-31-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

You can quote mine all you like but you are just being argumentative and ignoring the facts

Oh, I'm quoting your people because I want clarification from a Catholic. As for being argumentative, you will find this not to be the case.

Quote:

Augustine was willing to change his mind if new and better answers presented themselves. However he is not the pope and can’t speak for the Church. So what did the popes say?

Yes, I agree that, if Augustine was presented the evidence, he would of changed his mind.

Quote:

Bottom line, if you want to believe that people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago were commenting on a scientific theory that didn’t even exist yet then you are free to do so, but it seems a bit silly.

Well . . . Darwin was not the first to say things are evolving. I'll do this for now:

Quote:

that Baha’is are the ones that have been told they can’t hold evolution to be true. At least it would seem that way according to Abdul-baha. Thankfully I’m not the type to make rash decisions when it comes to interpreting the writings of men greater and wiser than myself.

Ouch. Such harsh judgements, for you're suggesting I make rash decisions about interpreting the writings of wise men. However, I feel a quote from Sir Ken Robinson is adequate at the moment:

"If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original."

Look, I'm not afraid to be wrong. If I would of never been straight-forward and showed you what I knew, then you would never know what I knew in regards to the Church Fathers and evolution. In short, I'm learning.

As for Abdu'l-Baha, he is saying human intelligence is an emergent property. Recall that Abdu'l-Baha said:

Quote:

the outcome of the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom, the outcome of the vegetable kingdom is the animal kingdom and the outcome of the animal kingdom the world of man.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 13)

Quote:

'Abdu'l-Bahá's denial of the animal origins of humankind involves an appeal to the existence of our intelligence and its powers. This intelligence, he explains, is associated with certain configurations of matter and molecules. Evolutionary processes are responsible for these particular configurations, much as adult forms emerge from embryonic origins. Given suitable material configurations, intelligence becomes manifest. An analogy might be sand on the beach. By themselves, the silicon atoms composing sand exhibit no special transistor-like or computer-like properties. However, if they are layered into crystalline structures with selected impurities, then an entirely different set of properties emerges. An entirely different set of natural laws - solid state physics and the notions of band structure - come into play. The technological result is transistors, and with them, computers, the Internet, and the information age we live in. Much as the properties of transistors are not those of silicon atoms - although silicon atoms figure prominently in their composition - the capabilities of humans are not limited to those of the animal world - although humans and animals have similar biological "substrates."

JDZwiers19 · 05-31-2011, 07:44 PM

ahanu,

Thank you for admitting defeat.

Seriously though, if you read my first post you will find that I am not of the same mind as the member who started the thread. I don’t think Abdul-baha was completely rejecting the idea of the evolution of species or even of humans. At this point in my journey the Guardian’s teaching on evolution is not an obstacle to my becoming a Baha’i.

I apologize if my response was a little harsh.

ewlabonte , in my opinion, was being a little to judgmental and narrow minded but I also noticed some inaccurate comparisons made against my own religion by other members of the forum. I made a comment of my observation and that is how our discussion started. When you started throwing quotes at me you seemed hell bent on proving that the Catholic Church rejected evolution and it was deja vu.

I have found that there are many, many misconceptions out there about my church and the Baha’I community is no exception. I also am here to learn but I’m sure I can share few things with who ever wants to listen. Also there is nothing wrong with good debate.

To lighten the mood around here, this is a quote from my hero G.K. Chesterton that I think all believers can agree on, evolution or not.

"It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."
— G.K. Chesterton

armin · 05-31-2011, 09:59 PM

This might be somewhat unrelated but I have it all sketched out in my head this way. I'm majoring in engineering so I love math and have studied quantum physics on my free time. I find it that most, if not all, people argue about creation/evolution, beginning and end of time and things of that sort from human perspective. God's infinite (I love infinity!) and time does not exist for god. So in a sense everything has happened in an instant for god.

Regarding god creating humans with the purpose of knowing him, keeping what I mentioned in mind, I believe everything happens in cycles. There has been cycles of big bangs, if you will, from the beginning of time and will go on forever. And zooming out even further, I believe besides there being other intelligent beings in this world, there are infinite number of worlds to begin with!

Just to relate it a bit, humans have been human from the beginning. Also I believe evolution says that all forms of life come from single celled life forms(many), not from A single celled life form.

BruceDLimber · 06-01-2011, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDZwiers19

[I]t seems to me, based on the evidence, that Baha’is are the ones that have been told they can’t hold evolution to be true. At least it would seem that way according to Abdul-baha.

If you actually think this, then you are either unaware of or ignoring the MANY Baha'is who have no problem whatever accepting and believeing in evolution as well as creation!

'Abdu'l-Baha's statement simply means that spiritually, the human soul has always existed! This in no way prevents or denies evolution, as you can read in detail if you check out von Kitzing's excellent treatise Evolution and the Baha'i Faith.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Imani · 06-01-2011, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

'Abdu'l-Baha's statement simply means that spiritually, the human soul has always existed! This in no way prevents or denies evolution, as you can read in detail if you check out von Kitzing's excellent treatise Evolution and the Baha'i Faith.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Yes, can't the human soul have existed since the beginning of creation? A soul is a spiritual entity and can have been brought into existence at any time.
The human soul could have existed long ago, waiting for humans to develop into spiritually ready creatures capable of embodying the soul.

arthra · 06-01-2011, 06:50 PM

I don't know that we spend a lot of time on the topic of pre-existence and such at this time..but there are some interesting passages such as:

In the Name of God, the Clement, the Merciful.

Praise be to God Who hath made being to come forth from nothingness; graven upon the tablet of man the secrets of preexistence; taught him from the mysteries of divine utterance that which he knew not; made him a Luminous Book unto those who believed and surrendered themselves; caused him to witness the creation of all things (Kullu Shay') in this black and ruinous age, and to speak forth from the apex of eternity with a wondrous voice in the Excellent Temple [1]: to the end that every man may testify, in himself, by himself, in the station of the Manifestation of his Lord, that verily there is no God save Him, and that every man may thereby win his way to the summit of realities, until none shall contemplate anything whatsoever but that he shall see God therein.

[1 The Manifestation.]

~ Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 1

Also in the book The Revelation of Baha'u'llah by Adib Taherzadeh:

'Abdu'l-Bahá speaks of it in these terms:

"Therefore, all creatures emanate from God -- that is to say, it is by
God that all things are realized, and by Him that all beings have
attained to existence. The first thing which emanated from God is that
universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the 'First
Mind,' and which the people of Baha call the 'First Will.' This
emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is
not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or
end -- beginning and end in relation to God are one. The preexistence of
God is the preexistence of essence, and also preexistence of time . . .

Though the 'First Mind' is without beginning, it does not become a
sharer in the preexistence of God, for the existence of the universal
reality in relation to the existence of God is nothingness, and it has
not the power to become an associate of God and like unto Him in
preexistence. This subject has been before explained."

~ Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 4, p. 44

Kaath · 06-24-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewlabonte

As I've mentioned in a previous post I am a wavering Baha'i. I come from a religious perspective of atheism with a strong personal trust in the scientific. Abdul Baha's writings on Darwinian evolution in "Some Answered Questions" hasve been among the things that have made me waver. This online discussion brought the question to the fore for me:
Baha’i And Evolution | WAIS

I've recently stumbled upon a few things that reconciled this for me. Abdu'l-Baha makes several statements about our evolution that seem to be in conflict: 1) We evolved through the animal kingdom; 2) Man was always man; 3) No missing link will be found.

I found several statements that rounded out my understanding of this: one is his speech at Stanford in which he seems to distinguish between physical evolution and spiritual evolution. I then read what Darwin proposed in his <b>Ascent of Man</b> in which he proposes that man evolved physically by natural selection, but spiritually evolved through the design and guidance of God and the divine instruction.

Abd'ul-Baha said:

Quote:

"Inasmuch as the fundamental principle of the teaching of Bahá’u’lláh is the oneness of the world of humanity, I will speak to you upon the intrinsic oneness of all phenomena. This is one of the abstruse subjects of divine philosophy.
"Fundamentally all existing things pass through the same degrees and phases of development, and any given phenomenon embodies all others. An ancient statement of the Arabian philosophers declares that all things are involved in all things. It is evident that each material organism is an aggregate expression of single and simple elements, and a given cellular element or atom has its coursings or journeyings through various and myriad stages of life. For example, we will say the cellular elements which have entered into the composition of a human organism were at one time a component part of the animal kingdom; at another time they entered into the composition of the vegetable, and prior to that they existed in the kingdom of the mineral. They have been subject to transference from one condition of life to another, passing through various forms and phases, exercising in each existence special functions. Their journeyings through material phenomena are continuous. Therefore, each phenomenon is the expression in degree of all other phenomena. The difference is one of successive transferences and the period of time involved in evolutionary process."

In another quote—which I need to track down again—Abdu'l-Baha says that the thing that makes us human—the rational soul—is attracted to the biological form when it has acquired the perfections necessary for it manifest the rational faculty.

In context with the above, his statement that man has always been man makes sense. In another quote he qualifies what he's saying by noting that even if man at some point looked like a fish (I think that's the animal he cites) he was always potentially man.

This is a subject we've been batting around in the Common Ground Group (a science and religion blog and forum that is down at the moment, sigh). We have the benefit of a member who is a Baha'i and a biologist and who is keeping us all up to date on the latest in evolutionary thought. I'm putting all of our correspondence into a document, that I hope will form the basis of a blog series at the site—once we get it back up.

Fadl · 07-23-2011, 07:53 AM

The real problem with this "problem" is that it is defined in very materialistic terms, and, then, found to be “in conflict” with various spiritual/religious accounts and/or truth statements about man. So, let me ask you a question, which, I feel must first be answered if we are to try and get to the bottom of this: What is the definition of a man?

From the religious/spiritual point of view, and according to scripture, Adam was the first man. Notice that Adam, according to scriptural accounts, was already in possession of speech, a rational mind, and already did a great many things of the modern man. Adam is also considered to have conversed with God and to have been a prophet. If we take Adam as an archetype, indeed, the very prototype of a man, then I propose that a definition of “man,” from the religious/spiritual camp, can be derived. Now, from the materialist/scientific camp, what is the archetype of "man" from which we can derive our (allegedly opposing) definition?" After all, we know that "modern man" (we) exists, and we also know that according to the fossil record we appear to have a preceding and successive chain of increasingly primitive ancestors to explain our physical existence. But which is the archetype "man" from this record which we can turn to and derive our definition of man?

Whether physical evidence of an archetype for man can be discovered, from which the definition of man can be derived, or not, it seems to me that we must first have a definition of man from the religion/spiritual side, and the definition of a man from the science/material side, before we can reasonably accept that a contradiction exists. After all, if there are not two opposing facts about the same thing, where is the contradiction?

So, let's get the terms and definitions clarified and established, then let's see what contradictions, if any, exist that need to be rectified.

aidan · 07-23-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadl

The real problem with this "problem" is that it is defined in very materialistic terms, and, then, found to be “in conflict” with various spiritual/religious accounts and/or truth statements about man. So, let me ask you a question, which, I feel must first be answered if we are to try and get to the bottom of this: What is the definition of a man?

From the religious/spiritual point of view, and according to scripture, Adam was the first man. Notice that Adam, according to scriptural accounts, was already in possession of speech, a rational mind, and already did a great many things of the modern man. Adam is also considered to have conversed with God and to have been a prophet. If we take Adam as an archetype, indeed, the very prototype of a man, then I propose that a definition of “man,” from the religious/spiritual camp, can be derived. Now, from the materialist/scientific camp, what is the archetype of "man" from which we can derive our (allegedly opposing) definition?" After all, we know that "modern man" (we) exists, and we also know that according to the fossil record we appear to have a preceding and successive chain of increasingly primitive ancestors to explain our physical existence. But which is the archetype "man" from this record which we can turn to and derive our definition of man?

Whether physical evidence of an archetype for man can be discovered, from which the definition of man can be derived, or not, it seems to me that we must first have a definition of man from the religion/spiritual side, and the definition of a man from the science/material side, before we can reasonably accept that a contradiction exists. After all, if there are not two opposing facts about the same thing, where is the contradiction?

So, let's get the terms and definitions clarified and established, then let's see what contradictions, if any, exist that need to be rectified.

Do I understand you right?Are you saying that you take Adam and Eve account as litteral fact?

Fadl · 07-24-2011, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aidan

Do I understand you right?Are you saying that you take Adam and Eve account as litteral fact?

No, you haven't understood me right.

The Bible is not, and does not portend itself to be, a biology book. Therefore, I suggest that, as a book of spiritual guidance, Adam is the archetypal man from a spiritual view point. I don't know what the archetypal man is from a scientific view point.

BruceDLimber · 07-25-2011, 06:30 AM

So how soon are you going to stop spamming us?

daniel · 07-26-2011, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

So how soon are you going to stop spamming us?

The spambot has been banned. Thanks for reporting it!

aidan · 07-27-2011, 05:05 AM

Agreed Fadl.Adam and Eve are the essence of humanity CAN SOMETHING PLEASE BE DONE ABOUT THESE F@&$ING ADS!!!!!!

cire perdue · 07-27-2011, 09:59 AM

" One of the world's most famous fossil creatures, widely considered the earliest known bird, is getting a rude present on the 150th birthday of its discovery: A new analysis suggests it isn't a bird at all.

Chinese scientists are proposing a change to the evolutionary family tree that boots Archaeopteryx off the "bird" branch and onto a closely related branch of birdlike dinosaurs."

I would hate to take a stand against The Master on any subject. I would have to say what is the real problem, what about all of the rest of the Faith? Anything that involves something that is millions of years in the past is up for grabs and the quote above shows it. If I am a wavering Baha'i let's see what is going on with me. I wonder what it is about me that I am avoiding and projecting onto the Faith. I think of the intellectuals who cannot give up their "integrity" and want to criticize the Faith more than they can accept spiritual solutions which are vague and may not be able to be concretely described in words. Sometimes ya just have to follow the spiritual principle whether it feels okay or not. It could just be pride you know......or narcissism.

daniel · 07-29-2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aidan

Agreed Fadl.Adam and Eve are the essence of humanity CAN SOMETHING PLEASE BE DONE ABOUT THESE F@&$ING ADS!!!!!!

I've been cleaning things up as they arise. I really do not like these spambots (sigh).

ewlabonte · 09-03-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire perdue

" One of the world's most famous fossil creatures, widely considered the earliest known bird, is getting a rude present on the 150th birthday of its discovery: A new analysis suggests it isn't a bird at all.

Chinese scientists are proposing a change to the evolutionary family tree that boots Archaeopteryx off the "bird" branch and onto a closely related branch of birdlike dinosaurs."

Relevance? Unless you are suggesting, like the creationists, that one type of animal cannot evolve into another, I don't see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire perdue

I would hate to take a stand against The Master on any subject. I would have to say what is the real problem, what about all of the rest of the Faith? Anything that involves something that is millions of years in the past is up for grabs and the quote above shows it. If I am a wavering Baha'i let's see what is going on with me. I wonder what it is about me that I am avoiding and projecting onto the Faith. I think of the intellectuals who cannot give up their "integrity" and want to criticize the Faith more than they can accept spiritual solutions which are vague and may not be able to be concretely described in words. Sometimes ya just have to follow the spiritual principle whether it feels okay or not. It could just be pride you know......or narcissism.

You would hate to take a stand against The Master. I would prefer not to take a stand against The Master. I tried as hard as I could to make The Master's words correspond with the scientific knowledge of today. What you are suggesting goes exactly against what the master said about science: If science and religion conflict, religion is wrong. Does that only apply to other faiths?

Your suggestion that my problem with this dilemma might be a matter of narcissism is both arrogant and insulting. I can only assume that you haven't read my posts with any attempt to understand where I'm coming from. I might say that it is this attitude that in large part is responsible for the fact that I am a *former* baha'i, as of June of this year.

I had thought that the Baha'i Faith was free of this reliance on dogma. But evidently, at least at the level of this forum, it is not. Certainly there is an emphasis on the personal exploration of the truth. But if that exploration comes up with something that conflicts with the "standard model" of the faith, then it's narcissism. I'm afraid that for me, truth is more important than faith.

cire perdue · 09-03-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewlabonte

Relevance? Unless you are suggesting, like the creationists, that one type of animal cannot evolve into another, I don't see it.

You would hate to take a stand against The Master. I would prefer not to take a stand against The Master. I tried as hard as I could to make The Master's words correspond with the scientific knowledge of today. What you are suggesting goes exactly against what the master said about science: If science and religion conflict, religion is wrong. Does that only apply to other faiths?

Your suggestion that my problem with this dilemma might be a matter of narcissism is both arrogant and insulting. I can only assume that you haven't read my posts with any attempt to understand where I'm coming from. I might say that it is this attitude that in large part is responsible for the fact that I am a *former* baha'i, as of June of this year.

I had thought that the Baha'i Faith was free of this reliance on dogma. But evidently, at least at the level of this forum, it is not. Certainly there is an emphasis on the personal exploration of the truth. But if that exploration comes up with something that conflicts with the "standard model" of the faith, then it's narcissism. I'm afraid that for me, truth is more important than faith.

WELL, you nailed me, and you are right. Narcissism was my new word that day. I am guilty of knowing people however who will not let go of their own understanding and let it stand in the way of being a Baha'i, and it still hurts that they have not found resolution. I am sorry that their are other people like myself who have made it hard for you to accept the Faith. However I cannot stress enough that when problems arise, I always find the answer is in me.

Science does not have all the answers. If it does not agree with the Faith, then it probably will in the future. There is so much more to the Faith than this issue however. I just spent 11 hours on the road out of about 24 hours and found I was repeating a pattern, that I was running away AGAIN. The whole point of being a Baha'i is to develop spiritually, NOT to get what we want. It is easy to run rather than face one's self. I certainly have no way of defining you. However if I let other people come between me and the Faith then I would be the problem, not them.

ewlabonte · 09-03-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire perdue

Science does not have all the answers.

I never said it did. But what it does have is an almost infallible methodology for coming to the truth. Religion is much more fallible in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cire perdue

If it does not agree with the Faith, then it probably will in the future. There is so much more to the Faith than this issue however. I just spent 11 hours on the road out of about 24 hours and found I was repeating a pattern, that I was running away AGAIN. The whole point of being a Baha'i is to develop spiritually, NOT to get what we want. It is easy to run rather than face one's self. I certainly have no way of defining you. However if I let other people come between me and the Faith then I would be the problem, not them.

I'm not letting people come between me and the faith. I certainly don't mean to place any responsibility for my leaving the faith on you personally, or any other person. But my relationship with religion has always been tenuous. It is so easy to accept a religious lie just to make things seem better. And I've always had a very strong relationship with science. Time and again it has proven it's ability to (eventually) cut through the prejudices that humans are heir to.

I have great respect for Abdul Baha, Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Jesus, Muhammed, et. al. but their wisdom does not make them divine. I was able to suspend my disbelief for 6 years because faith made me feel so more secure in the universe than the lack of it. But after a while I just couldn't do it anymore. I've come to the conclusion that Abdul Baha was promoting a version of Lamarckism which was all the rage among people at the time who were troubled about some of the natural conclusions that Darwinism led to. That's no sin. But it's not the act of an infallible interpreter of the faith. If the Universal House of Justice came out with a statement that Abdul Baha's writings about science were not infallible that would remove all my objections. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't need to be infallible about science. But they haven't and they probably can't. That, to me, is a problem.

ahanu · 09-03-2011, 12:29 PM

Quick review.

Ewlabonte wrote:

Even without bringing Darwin into the picture the idea that all individual species, including humans, have a common ancestor has been established scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt.

Abdu'l-Baha wrote:

There is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element. Thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized. But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time. Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared.

All living organisms have one common ancestor.

Abdu'l-Baha has nine major themes running through his comments on evolution:

1. Creation is perfect

2. Nature has no conscious intelligence

3. Life evolved gradually from a sole origin

4. Diversity is necessary

5. Man has progressed through stages

6. Man is a distinct species, not an animal

7. Man is a composition of elements that attracts the human spirit

8. Evolution is governed by law

9. Man is a necessary part of existence

Religion and Evolution Reconciled:

Which one do you dispute?

So where has Abdu'l-Baha been proven false? According to Ewlabonte, the answer is here:

"We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.

"This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error."

I would have to argue you're misreading Abdu'l-Baha here. As we have pointed out in above posts: Abdu'l-Baha says man appeared from the animal kingdom.

the outcome of the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom, the outcome of the vegetable kingdom is the animal kingdom and the outcome of the animal kingdom the world of man.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 13)

Other believers have elaborated on this:

'Abdu'l-Bahá's denial of the animal origins of humankind involves an appeal to the existence of our intelligence and its powers. This intelligence, he explains, is associated with certain configurations of matter and molecules. Evolutionary processes are responsible for these particular configurations, much as adult forms emerge from embryonic origins. Given suitable material configurations, intelligence becomes manifest. An analogy might be sand on the beach. By themselves, the silicon atoms composing sand exhibit no special transistor-like or computer-like properties. However, if they are layered into crystalline structures with selected impurities, then an entirely different set of properties emerges. An entirely different set of natural laws - solid state physics and the notions of band structure - come into play. The technological result is transistors, and with them, computers, the Internet, and the information age we live in. Much as the properties of transistors are not those of silicon atoms - although silicon atoms figure prominently in their composition - the capabilities of humans are not limited to those of the animal world - although humans and animals have similar biological "substrates."

And, no, we are not just making this up to force Abdu'l-Baha's words to mean something else. In the same passage from the quote Ewalbonte points out, Abdu'l-Baha appeals to number 7 and 8. Refer to the nine principles above.

I'm confused about where you see a contradiction. From my understanding you've misunderstood Abdu'l-Baha's statements.

armin · 09-03-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewlabonte

I never said it did. But what it does have is an almost infallible methodology for coming to the truth. Religion is much more fallible in that regard.

I'm not letting people come between me and the faith. I certainly don't mean to place any responsibility for my leaving the faith on you personally, or any other person. But my relationship with religion has always been tenuous. It is so easy to accept a religious lie just to make things seem better. And I've always had a very strong relationship with science. Time and again it has proven it's ability to (eventually) cut through the prejudices that humans are heir to.

I have great respect for Abdul Baha, Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Jesus, Muhammed, et. al. but their wisdom does not make them divine. I was able to suspend my disbelief for 6 years because faith made me feel so more secure in the universe than the lack of it. But after a while I just couldn't do it anymore. I've come to the conclusion that Abdul Baha was promoting a version of Lamarckism which was all the rage among people at the time who were troubled about some of the natural conclusions that Darwinism led to. That's no sin. But it's not the act of an infallible interpreter of the faith. If the Universal House of Justice came out with a statement that Abdul Baha's writings about science were not infallible that would remove all my objections. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't need to be infallible about science. But they haven't and they probably can't. That, to me, is a problem.

I don't know your status, whether you are/were a baha'i, I'm a relatively new member so I apologize if you mentioned this before and I missed it. Having had my own share of conversations about different topics with different people, I believe after the main points have been made clear there's no point in continuing the conversation. We see things differently, and I doubt there's a man that can convince you otherwise regarding your understanding of the matter and your opinion, just as much as I doubt there's a man that can convince me otherwise from the opinion I have formed in this regard.

With respect to most religion related topics, the biggest problem I see is interpreting things physically rather than spiritually. Abdu'l-baha like most/all other religious figures, in my opinion, made statements that were not meant to be taken in physical/earthly terms.

Again I don't know where you stand, but if you have no problem with the baha'i faith and it's values in general, and what Baha'u'llah has revealed, I'd suggest, if I can, that you stick with those texts and values. Pray, and investigate with an open mind and clear heart and I've no doubt you'll find the answer in time. On a side note, I don't find searching for holes in the philosophy of any religion the right approach. My point being if this is the only matter you have difficulty with then it's not that hard to think that there's a hole in your reasoning/understanding. I sincerely hope you don't take that personally. We all have things we struggle with, myself included.

Fadl · 09-04-2011, 12:07 AM

Ewlabante,

I'm not sure if you realize it, and perhaps you will disagree, but your dilemma is actually a materialistic one. I posted a response to you some time ago, but I don't know if you got it since it may have got lost in the spam during the spam bot assault at the time.

This "debate" over evolution and creation tends be a battle between certain Christian groups and evangelical atheists like Dawkins, so let's entertain the debate framed as it is, between Christians and atheists.

The Bible says that Adam was the first man. Since the Bible is a religious text, and the primary text of Christian belief, it is reasonable to take Adam and examine him to learn what, from the Christian view, the first man was like using Adam as our model of the archetypal man.

Next, we need to establish what, in the scientific view, is the archetypal man so that we can compare this to archetype of man in the Bible which is Adam. This is critical, you see, because if science tells us that man evolved from primates, I want to know what definition of man they have. If they have the same definition of the first man as Adam, and that this first man evolved from primates, then what does that mean? After all, if Adam was created by God, and, created from clay, or dirt, what is clay? Are we forced to accept that literally too? If the bible says clay, must it mean literally aluminum silicate, or might it not simply mean a simple, primitive substance? Perhaps it is true metaphorically that God created Adam from the "clay" or simple substance that was our primate ancestor. If so, I don't see a problem, do you?

For me, the real problem is that I am not so sure that biology and science are actually talking about the same thing when they say "man" and I don't know what the archetype man is in the scientific view, but I doubt very much it is Adam. In the scientific community many years have passed since "Lucy" stopped being our most ancient primate ancestor, and I have lost track of which fossil presently holds that distinction. If this represents the search for the first man, then it is quite clear to me that science and religion are not talking about the same thing at all. The first man of the Bible was already capable of walking upright, speech, tool making and agriculture, and had a relationship with God. The first man of the Bible is already a modern homo sapiens, not some more primitive being like Lucy.

spirit · 09-08-2011, 12:18 PM

Ewla,
Is this the quote in question that has caused you trouble?
"We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.
"This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error."

--Some Answered Questions

Ok lets try to figure it out together...

From what I hear you say the UHJ quoted Baha'u'lla as Saying Abdul Baha is the interpreter of his truths. Sorry I do not have that quote here, but it is on your link.
What is frustrating you is that you feel that his answer here from SAQ is saying man did not decend from animal. But Science at this moment in time has some facts that say man did decend from animal? And if Science is 100% correct then religion is superstition according to Abdul Baha?
You also feel that Bahais are making excuses by interpretting Abdul Baha's words. "

spirit · 09-08-2011, 12:33 PM

Ewla,
Is this the quote in question that has caused you trouble?
"We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal.
"This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error."

--Some Answered Questions

Ok lets try to figure it out together...

From what I hear you say the UHJ quoted Baha'u'lla as Saying Abdul Baha is the interpreter of his truths. Sorry I do not have that quote here, but it is on your link.
What is frustrating you is that you feel that his answer here from SAQ is saying man did not decend from animal. But Science at this moment in time has some facts that say man did decend from animal? And if Science is 100% correct then religion is superstition according to Abdul Baha?
You also feel that Bahais are making excuses by interpretting Abdul Baha's words. "
When in doubt, one of the things I do is to read a quote sentence by sentence to make sure I am reading what it says. If I go into it with a outcome in my mind I'm not going to be clear headed. I am not saying you haven't done this...I actually want to know the answer to your question as directly as we can investigate and answer it.
He says, "We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development, so this is the point he specifically want to make, no doubt about that! Another thing he says is, "its difficult to make its falseness understood" ok so this tells us there is much more than is being offered. And "it will become evident and clear"
Ok, and you say, science has proven, without a doubt, man decended from animal? Or there is similar dna? I am not a science major so I don't know anything about dna, forgive me.
I first want to know if I am following you correctly before I continue?

BruceDLimber · 09-09-2011, 04:35 AM

If you'd like a better view of this topic, I suggest you locate and read von Kitzing's Evolution and the Baha'i Faith.

Peace,

Bruce

arthra · 09-09-2011, 07:59 AM

I wanted to thank Ahanu above for posting and the site:

Religion and Evolution Reconciled:

Legoleg · 10-03-2011, 10:54 PM

There are really two sides to the coin: If a religious belief and science do not agree, we not only have to question our interpretation of the writings but also check our science for error. As of this point, we can clearly state that Evolution occurred. That's not the issue at hand. As for the specifics that Abdul-Baha gave in "Some Answered Questions", (which are quite straight forward), if we are to take Abdul-Baha's words as irrefutable (at least, to my understanding) we must be absolutely SURE that our science is flawless. As of now, the specifics of humanity's connection to apes is still theoretical. Not to say that it did not happen, but we can't use the current understanding of Evolution as a way to effectively refute Abdul-Baha's words: Until the human evolutionary track is further understood, using it as irrefutable evidence is inherently flawed.

tonyfish58 · 10-03-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra

I wanted to thank Ahanu above for posting and the site:

Religion and Evolution Reconciled:

Yes me too...Great reply - well researched

Regards Tony

kavaliro · 10-04-2011, 12:19 PM

Please re-read the letter from the The Universal House of Justice. In particular, notice that that the Universal House of Justice did not specifically make a claim that the sphere of the Infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha also covers scientific matters. They merely pointed to evidence which would support such a claim. In other words, it may have been implied in the letter, and supporting evidence was given, but the claim was not stated. Which makes a world of difference. Since the "Star of the West" is not a part of the Writings, the statement that the Universal House of Justice refers to shouldn't be looked at as an official statement by Abdu'l-Baha. (Later it could be Authenticated; you might even ask the Universal House of Justice if it has been--but until it has been officially determined to be an Authenticated part of the Writings, it isn't part of the Writings.)

There is an ocean of difference between "The Universal House of Justice stated (x) unequivocally," and "The Universal House of Justice implied (x) while providing research material and assistance." It is very important to always read things for what is not said.

The issue I personally think is most relevant to the discussion is this: when did humans become humans? It wasn't during the big bang or the formation of the Sun. It wasn't when plantlife appeared on the planet. Not all the animals were created simultaneously; even taking the Genesis account literally that claim could not be made. One thing that stands out in my mind from Genesis is how man became alive when God breathed His spirit into him. I take this to mean when God gave man a soul. This was the final touch in creating man, and we can't really say that humans existed until the human soul existed, even if there were some particular existing animal which existed at that time that God gave a soul and made man from. Humans have only been humans since God finished their creation by giving man a soul, that's how I see it. Did God give a soul to a creature that shared common ancestry with the ape? Possibly, but from man's creation, finalized by the addition of a soul, this has not occurred. That's my opinion. For me, it does not conflict religiously or scientifically from the evidence. I sympathize with you on your crisis of faith, and I only provide my viewpoint so that maybe it will help you steer through it. I will pray for you that God may help you see through this issue and give you strong faith rooted in scientific and religious harmony.

arthra · 10-04-2011, 03:05 PM

This is one of our longer running threads..

but kavaliro has an interesting point:

Humans have only been humans since God finished their creation by giving man a soul, that's how I see it. Did God give a soul to a creature that shared common ancestry with the ape? Possibly, but from man's creation, finalized by the addition of a soul, this has not occurred. That's my opinion. For me, it does not conflict religiously or scientifically from the evidence.

Here is what I've gathered:

There is the potentiality of man..

All beings, whether large or small, were created perfect and complete from the first, but their perfections appear in them by degrees. The organization of God is one; the evolution of existence is one; the divine system is one. Whether they be small or great beings, all are subject to one law and system. Each seed has in it from the first all the vegetable perfections. For example, in the seed all the vegetable perfections exist from the beginning, but not visibly; afterward little by little they appear. So it is first the shoot which appears from the seed, then the branches, leaves, blossoms and fruits; but from the beginning of its existence all these things are in the seed, potentially, though not apparently.

In the same way, the embryo possesses from the first all perfections, such as the spirit, the mind, the sight, the smell, the taste -- in one word, all the powers -- but they are not visible and become so only by degrees.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 199)

Abdul-Baha also I believe accepts the view that the stages of the embryo repeat the forms man has proceeded through.

Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at once appear in this form; neither did it then become the manifestation of the words "Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers."[1] Gradually it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it attained this form and beauty, this perfection, grace and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 182)

Never a time "when man was not":

Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the beginning which has no beginning, to the end which has no end, a Perfect Manifestation always exists. This Man of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 196)

"Man" is not restricted to this planet is another concept.

Therefore, it cannot be imagined that the worlds of existence, whether the stars or this earth, were once inhabited by the donkey, cow, mouse and cat, and that they were without man!

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 196)

Man's future on this planet:

The five continents of the world will form but one, the numerous nations will become one, the surface of the earth will become one land, and mankind will be a single community.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 62)

A return to Pangaeia!

How do all tehse perspective gel with say science.. in a way I think they transcend what scientists can tell us but on the other hand they are not necessarily in conflict either.

aidan · 10-04-2011, 04:32 PM

Brethren much thought and energy has gone into this forum.The Holy Spirit speaks to AbdulBaha and He speaks to each of us individually.It's ok to have diversity of opinion for there is unity in diversity.It is encumbant upon us to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to each of us

Eftekhar Be Khoda · 10-08-2011, 12:26 PM

Maybe this will make some sense -- think of the software you run on your computer and the computer itself.

At each stage of the "evolution" of computer hardware, computer software was developed that fit with that stage. So in the days of your atari computer, the idea of DOS let alone Windows was impossible. Games meant pac man, not even Zelda. Today, computers are advanced enough that you can do far far better. The computer can run windows and games that look almost photo real. Had those same programs existed in 1980, they would have never work. The computer had to evolve to the point that it could support such a program, let alone run several such programs at once.

So I think it's kinda similar with people -- until the "hardware" is good enough to support the soul, no soul.

I'm not sure if I'm making sense or rambling, but I hope that gives you a picture.

05-24-2011, 11:14 PM	#82
JDZwiers19 Junior Member Joined: May 2011 From: Canada Posts: 11	Most of the quotes you posted are not explicitly espousing a literal six day creation. Some of them may have believed it but I’m sure many saw it as the logical frame work as Augustine did and were referencing Genesis for theological purposes. Augustine himself was not adamant about the age of the earth but was using the limited time found in scripture as a reason to reject the idea of an eternal universe and eternal person such as was found in eastern philosophies of his time and today. It would appear he is warning of the very thing the Baha’i faith teaches. St. Augustine himself was very clear that we should be willing to change our mind about biblical interpretation as we learned more about the natural world or if something contradicts reason, “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” – De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408] “With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.” – De Genesi ad literam, 2:9 I am aware there were some literalists to be found among the fathers of the Church but the Church has made no official pronouncement on questions that lie within the scope of science. Catholic intellectuals not only have a history of following with the advances in science but clergy men were the founding fathers in fields such as genealogy, geology, radiology, big bang cosmology etc. It was Catholics that refined the scientific method into what we have to today and founded the college system that allowed the explosion in education and science that gave birth to the modern age. What Catholics believed at one point is irrelevant because the church has always been open to the progress of science and was and is often a champion in its advancement. If a catholic wants to believe that Adam and Eve literally existed or didn’t they are free to do so. It is irrelevant to their salvation. However history has proven that genuine Christianity is not at conflict with reason. I will be happy to debate that point with anyone (in a friendly manner of course). Also, you are mistaken, that Catholic doctrine is defined by tradition alone. Doctrine is defined by the Magisterium (The bishops in communion with the pope) either through an ecumenical council or papal decree spoken ex-cathedra and only on matters of faith and morals. These definitions have to be supported by scripture and found in the sacred tradition but until something is officially defined by the Magisterium a catholic is not obligated to believe it and is free to speculate. For example, Augustine likely believed in a form of predestination which was later officially denounced by the Council of Trent. Examples like this can be found throughout church history. The Church usually only clearly defined something in response to a crisis or heresy. The church is seen as an organic organism that can grow and evolve by elaborating and further defining eternal truths, with the guidance of the holy spirit, but can never change a doctrine. Very similar to how bahai’s view religion as a whole.

05-31-2011, 01:20 PM	#84
JDZwiers19 Junior Member Joined: May 2011 From: Canada Posts: 11	Ahanu, You can quote mine all you like but you are just being argumentative and ignoring the facts. You want quotes? I gave you some from Augustine but I will clarify them for you. “With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.”– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9 In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.”– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408] Translation: The scripture was written to teach the faith and never was intended to comment on evolution or the age of the universe or really anything about the physical reality of our Universe. Augustine was willing to change his mind if new and better answers presented themselves. However he is not the pope and can’t speak for the Church. So what did the popes say? You quoted Pope Leo XIII and suggested he was rejecting evolution. However if you wished to investigate the facts for yourself then you would have noticed that the quote you took was from a papal encyclical on the nature of marriage and had nothing to say about evolution. He was referencing scripture in order to show the divine origin and indissoluble nature of marriage. Here is the link ARCANUM Here is another quote from the same encyclical: "He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Using your own method of interpretation one would have to conclude that Pope Leo thought they actually and physically fused together. Of course he didn’t believe that and no one assumes he does. Now, it is possible that he did not believe in evolution but that subject was not addressed in this encyclical. And even if it was it was not an infallible document. There were no solemn definitions or anathematizations. The Church has never officially commented on evolution. The council of cologne was a regional council and also not infallible. Catholics are obligated to believe only what is infallibly defined by the Church by either an ecumenical council or a infallible definition from the pope, like this statement from Vatican I : "if anyone does not confess that the world and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema" Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5 A catholic must profess that God created all things from nothing but is free to choose to believe whether he did it instantly or slowly through evolution. The Church makes NO OFFICAL STATEMENT ON EVOLUTION. However, here are some popes who did say something specifically about the theory of evolution” "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). "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theor.” “Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man." October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution." Pope Benedict XVI Bottom line, if you want to believe that people who lived hundreds and thousands of years ago were commenting on a scientific theory that didn’t even exist yet then you are free to do so, but it seems a bit silly. I would be careful though because it seems to me, based on the evidence, that Baha’is are the ones that have been told they can’t hold evolution to be true. At least it would seem that way according to Abdul-baha. Thankfully I’m not the type to make rash decisions when it comes to interpreting the writings of men greater and wiser than myself. Last edited by JDZwiers19; 05-31-2011 at 01:22 PM.

05-31-2011, 04:21 PM	#85
cire perdue Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 From: Louisiana Posts: 1,601	Evolution I would say that Baha'is don't believe in evolution that all things come from a single source, a single cell. That is a rather exclusive view in this wondrous universe.

07-23-2011, 07:53 AM	#93
Fadl chief bottle washer Joined: Jun 2011 From: "Here am I, Here am I" Posts: 737	The real problem with this "problem" is that it is defined in very materialistic terms, and, then, found to be “in conflict” with various spiritual/religious accounts and/or truth statements about man. So, let me ask you a question, which, I feel must first be answered if we are to try and get to the bottom of this: What is the definition of a man? From the religious/spiritual point of view, and according to scripture, Adam was the first man. Notice that Adam, according to scriptural accounts, was already in possession of speech, a rational mind, and already did a great many things of the modern man. Adam is also considered to have conversed with God and to have been a prophet. If we take Adam as an archetype, indeed, the very prototype of a man, then I propose that a definition of “man,” from the religious/spiritual camp, can be derived. Now, from the materialist/scientific camp, what is the archetype of "man" from which we can derive our (allegedly opposing) definition?" After all, we know that "modern man" (we) exists, and we also know that according to the fossil record we appear to have a preceding and successive chain of increasingly primitive ancestors to explain our physical existence. But which is the archetype "man" from this record which we can turn to and derive our definition of man? Whether physical evidence of an archetype for man can be discovered, from which the definition of man can be derived, or not, it seems to me that we must first have a definition of man from the religion/spiritual side, and the definition of a man from the science/material side, before we can reasonably accept that a contradiction exists. After all, if there are not two opposing facts about the same thing, where is the contradiction? So, let's get the terms and definitions clarified and established, then let's see what contradictions, if any, exist that need to be rectified. Last edited by Fadl; 07-23-2011 at 08:57 AM.

07-27-2011, 09:59 AM	#99
cire perdue Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 From: Louisiana Posts: 1,601	What is the real problem? " One of the world's most famous fossil creatures, widely considered the earliest known bird, is getting a rude present on the 150th birthday of its discovery: A new analysis suggests it isn't a bird at all. Chinese scientists are proposing a change to the evolutionary family tree that boots Archaeopteryx off the "bird" branch and onto a closely related branch of birdlike dinosaurs." I would hate to take a stand against The Master on any subject. I would have to say what is the real problem, what about all of the rest of the Faith? Anything that involves something that is millions of years in the past is up for grabs and the quote above shows it. If I am a wavering Baha'i let's see what is going on with me. I wonder what it is about me that I am avoiding and projecting onto the Faith. I think of the intellectuals who cannot give up their "integrity" and want to criticize the Faith more than they can accept spiritual solutions which are vague and may not be able to be concretely described in words. Sometimes ya just have to follow the spiritual principle whether it feels okay or not. It could just be pride you know......or narcissism.

05-31-2011, 07:44 PM	#87
JDZwiers19 Junior Member Joined: May 2011 From: Canada Posts: 11	ahanu, Thank you for admitting defeat. Seriously though, if you read my first post you will find that I am not of the same mind as the member who started the thread. I don’t think Abdul-baha was completely rejecting the idea of the evolution of species or even of humans. At this point in my journey the Guardian’s teaching on evolution is not an obstacle to my becoming a Baha’i. I apologize if my response was a little harsh. ewlabonte , in my opinion, was being a little to judgmental and narrow minded but I also noticed some inaccurate comparisons made against my own religion by other members of the forum. I made a comment of my observation and that is how our discussion started. When you started throwing quotes at me you seemed hell bent on proving that the Catholic Church rejected evolution and it was deja vu. I have found that there are many, many misconceptions out there about my church and the Baha’I community is no exception. I also am here to learn but I’m sure I can share few things with who ever wants to listen. Also there is nothing wrong with good debate. To lighten the mood around here, this is a quote from my hero G.K. Chesterton that I think all believers can agree on, evolution or not. "It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." — G.K. Chesterton

05-31-2011, 09:59 PM	#88
armin Senior Member Joined: Mar 2011 From: san diego Posts: 141	This might be somewhat unrelated but I have it all sketched out in my head this way. I'm majoring in engineering so I love math and have studied quantum physics on my free time. I find it that most, if not all, people argue about creation/evolution, beginning and end of time and things of that sort from human perspective. God's infinite (I love infinity!) and time does not exist for god. So in a sense everything has happened in an instant for god. Regarding god creating humans with the purpose of knowing him, keeping what I mentioned in mind, I believe everything happens in cycles. There has been cycles of big bangs, if you will, from the beginning of time and will go on forever. And zooming out even further, I believe besides there being other intelligent beings in this world, there are infinite number of worlds to begin with! Just to relate it a bit, humans have been human from the beginning. Also I believe evolution says that all forms of life come from single celled life forms(many), not from A single celled life form.

06-01-2011, 06:50 PM	#91
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,055	I don't know that we spend a lot of time on the topic of pre-existence and such at this time..but there are some interesting passages such as: In the Name of God, the Clement, the Merciful. Praise be to God Who hath made being to come forth from nothingness; graven upon the tablet of man the secrets of preexistence; taught him from the mysteries of divine utterance that which he knew not; made him a Luminous Book unto those who believed and surrendered themselves; caused him to witness the creation of all things (Kullu Shay') in this black and ruinous age, and to speak forth from the apex of eternity with a wondrous voice in the Excellent Temple [1]: to the end that every man may testify, in himself, by himself, in the station of the Manifestation of his Lord, that verily there is no God save Him, and that every man may thereby win his way to the summit of realities, until none shall contemplate anything whatsoever but that he shall see God therein. [1 The Manifestation.] ~ Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys, p. 1 Also in the book The Revelation of Baha'u'llah by Adib Taherzadeh: 'Abdu'l-Bahá speaks of it in these terms: "Therefore, all creatures emanate from God -- that is to say, it is by God that all things are realized, and by Him that all beings have attained to existence. The first thing which emanated from God is that universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the 'First Mind,' and which the people of Baha call the 'First Will.' This emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or end -- beginning and end in relation to God are one. The preexistence of God is the preexistence of essence, and also preexistence of time . . . Though the 'First Mind' is without beginning, it does not become a sharer in the preexistence of God, for the existence of the universal reality in relation to the existence of God is nothingness, and it has not the power to become an associate of God and like unto Him in preexistence. This subject has been before explained." ~ Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 4, p. 44

07-25-2011, 06:30 AM	#96
BruceDLimber Senior Member Joined: Mar 2010 From: Rockville, MD, USA Posts: 822	So how soon are you going to stop spamming us?

07-27-2011, 05:05 AM	#98
aidan Senior Member Joined: Jul 2011 From: n ireland Posts: 413	Agreed Fadl.Adam and Eve are the essence of humanity CAN SOMETHING PLEASE BE DONE ABOUT THESE F@&$ING ADS!!!!!!

09-03-2011, 12:29 PM	#104
ahanu Senior Member Joined: Apr 2011 From: Pembroke, NC Posts: 319	Quick review. Ewlabonte wrote: Even without bringing Darwin into the picture the idea that all individual species, including humans, have a common ancestor has been established scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt. Abdu'l-Baha wrote: There is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one, and that one matter appeared in different aspects in each element. Thus various forms were produced, and these various aspects as they were produced became permanent, and each element was specialized. But this permanence was not definite, and did not attain realization and perfect existence until after a very long time. Then these elements became composed, and organized and combined in infinite forms; or rather from the composition and combination of these elements innumerable beings appeared. All living organisms have one common ancestor. Abdu'l-Baha has nine major themes running through his comments on evolution: 1. Creation is perfect 2. Nature has no conscious intelligence 3. Life evolved gradually from a sole origin 4. Diversity is necessary 5. Man has progressed through stages 6. Man is a distinct species, not an animal 7. Man is a composition of elements that attracts the human spirit 8. Evolution is governed by law 9. Man is a necessary part of existence Religion and Evolution Reconciled: Which one do you dispute? So where has Abdu'l-Baha been proven false? According to Ewlabonte, the answer is here: "We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal. "This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error." I would have to argue you're misreading Abdu'l-Baha here. As we have pointed out in above posts: Abdu'l-Baha says man appeared from the animal kingdom. the outcome of the mineral kingdom is the vegetable kingdom, the outcome of the vegetable kingdom is the animal kingdom and the outcome of the animal kingdom the world of man. (Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 13) Other believers have elaborated on this: 'Abdu'l-Bahá's denial of the animal origins of humankind involves an appeal to the existence of our intelligence and its powers. This intelligence, he explains, is associated with certain configurations of matter and molecules. Evolutionary processes are responsible for these particular configurations, much as adult forms emerge from embryonic origins. Given suitable material configurations, intelligence becomes manifest. An analogy might be sand on the beach. By themselves, the silicon atoms composing sand exhibit no special transistor-like or computer-like properties. However, if they are layered into crystalline structures with selected impurities, then an entirely different set of properties emerges. An entirely different set of natural laws - solid state physics and the notions of band structure - come into play. The technological result is transistors, and with them, computers, the Internet, and the information age we live in. Much as the properties of transistors are not those of silicon atoms - although silicon atoms figure prominently in their composition - the capabilities of humans are not limited to those of the animal world - although humans and animals have similar biological "substrates." And, no, we are not just making this up to force Abdu'l-Baha's words to mean something else. In the same passage from the quote Ewalbonte points out, Abdu'l-Baha appeals to number 7 and 8. Refer to the nine principles above. I'm confused about where you see a contradiction. From my understanding you've misunderstood Abdu'l-Baha's statements. Last edited by ahanu; 09-03-2011 at 12:31 PM.

09-04-2011, 12:07 AM	#106
Fadl chief bottle washer Joined: Jun 2011 From: "Here am I, Here am I" Posts: 737	Ewlabante, I'm not sure if you realize it, and perhaps you will disagree, but your dilemma is actually a materialistic one. I posted a response to you some time ago, but I don't know if you got it since it may have got lost in the spam during the spam bot assault at the time. This "debate" over evolution and creation tends be a battle between certain Christian groups and evangelical atheists like Dawkins, so let's entertain the debate framed as it is, between Christians and atheists. The Bible says that Adam was the first man. Since the Bible is a religious text, and the primary text of Christian belief, it is reasonable to take Adam and examine him to learn what, from the Christian view, the first man was like using Adam as our model of the archetypal man. Next, we need to establish what, in the scientific view, is the archetypal man so that we can compare this to archetype of man in the Bible which is Adam. This is critical, you see, because if science tells us that man evolved from primates, I want to know what definition of man they have. If they have the same definition of the first man as Adam, and that this first man evolved from primates, then what does that mean? After all, if Adam was created by God, and, created from clay, or dirt, what is clay? Are we forced to accept that literally too? If the bible says clay, must it mean literally aluminum silicate, or might it not simply mean a simple, primitive substance? Perhaps it is true metaphorically that God created Adam from the "clay" or simple substance that was our primate ancestor. If so, I don't see a problem, do you? For me, the real problem is that I am not so sure that biology and science are actually talking about the same thing when they say "man" and I don't know what the archetype man is in the scientific view, but I doubt very much it is Adam. In the scientific community many years have passed since "Lucy" stopped being our most ancient primate ancestor, and I have lost track of which fossil presently holds that distinction. If this represents the search for the first man, then it is quite clear to me that science and religion are not talking about the same thing at all. The first man of the Bible was already capable of walking upright, speech, tool making and agriculture, and had a relationship with God. The first man of the Bible is already a modern homo sapiens, not some more primitive being like Lucy.

09-08-2011, 12:18 PM	#107
spirit Member Joined: Aug 2011 From: Milwaukee Posts: 62	Ewla, Is this the quote in question that has caused you trouble? "We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal. "This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error." --Some Answered Questions Ok lets try to figure it out together... From what I hear you say the UHJ quoted Baha'u'lla as Saying Abdul Baha is the interpreter of his truths. Sorry I do not have that quote here, but it is on your link. What is frustrating you is that you feel that his answer here from SAQ is saying man did not decend from animal. But Science at this moment in time has some facts that say man did decend from animal? And if Science is 100% correct then religion is superstition according to Abdul Baha? You also feel that Bahais are making excuses by interpretting Abdul Baha's words. "

09-08-2011, 12:33 PM	#108
spirit Member Joined: Aug 2011 From: Milwaukee Posts: 62	Ewla, Is this the quote in question that has caused you trouble? "We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development—that is to say, to the point of inquiring whether man’s descent is from the animal. "This theory has found credence in the minds of some European philosophers, and it is now very difficult to make its falseness understood, but in the future it will become evident and clear, and the European philosophers will themselves realize its untruth. For, verily, it is an evident error." --Some Answered Questions Ok lets try to figure it out together... From what I hear you say the UHJ quoted Baha'u'lla as Saying Abdul Baha is the interpreter of his truths. Sorry I do not have that quote here, but it is on your link. What is frustrating you is that you feel that his answer here from SAQ is saying man did not decend from animal. But Science at this moment in time has some facts that say man did decend from animal? And if Science is 100% correct then religion is superstition according to Abdul Baha? You also feel that Bahais are making excuses by interpretting Abdul Baha's words. " When in doubt, one of the things I do is to read a quote sentence by sentence to make sure I am reading what it says. If I go into it with a outcome in my mind I'm not going to be clear headed. I am not saying you haven't done this...I actually want to know the answer to your question as directly as we can investigate and answer it. He says, "We have now come to the question of the modification of species and of organic development, so this is the point he specifically want to make, no doubt about that! Another thing he says is, "its difficult to make its falseness understood" ok so this tells us there is much more than is being offered. And "it will become evident and clear" Ok, and you say, science has proven, without a doubt, man decended from animal? Or there is similar dna? I am not a science major so I don't know anything about dna, forgive me. I first want to know if I am following you correctly before I continue?

09-09-2011, 04:35 AM	#109
BruceDLimber Senior Member Joined: Mar 2010 From: Rockville, MD, USA Posts: 822	If you'd like a better view of this topic, I suggest you locate and read von Kitzing's Evolution and the Baha'i Faith. Peace, Bruce

09-09-2011, 07:59 AM	#110
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,055	I wanted to thank Ahanu above for posting and the site: Religion and Evolution Reconciled:

10-03-2011, 10:54 PM	#111
Legoleg Servant of Baha'u'llah Joined: May 2009 From: North Carolina Posts: 3	There are really two sides to the coin: If a religious belief and science do not agree, we not only have to question our interpretation of the writings but also check our science for error. As of this point, we can clearly state that Evolution occurred. That's not the issue at hand. As for the specifics that Abdul-Baha gave in "Some Answered Questions", (which are quite straight forward), if we are to take Abdul-Baha's words as irrefutable (at least, to my understanding) we must be absolutely SURE that our science is flawless. As of now, the specifics of humanity's connection to apes is still theoretical. Not to say that it did not happen, but we can't use the current understanding of Evolution as a way to effectively refute Abdul-Baha's words: Until the human evolutionary track is further understood, using it as irrefutable evidence is inherently flawed.

10-04-2011, 12:19 PM	#113
kavaliro Member Joined: May 2010 From: Texas Posts: 39	Reading more into the letter than is actually stated. Please re-read the letter from the The Universal House of Justice. In particular, notice that that the Universal House of Justice did not specifically make a claim that the sphere of the Infallibility of Abdu'l-Baha also covers scientific matters. They merely pointed to evidence which would support such a claim. In other words, it may have been implied in the letter, and supporting evidence was given, but the claim was not stated. Which makes a world of difference. Since the "Star of the West" is not a part of the Writings, the statement that the Universal House of Justice refers to shouldn't be looked at as an official statement by Abdu'l-Baha. (Later it could be Authenticated; you might even ask the Universal House of Justice if it has been--but until it has been officially determined to be an Authenticated part of the Writings, it isn't part of the Writings.) There is an ocean of difference between "The Universal House of Justice stated (x) unequivocally," and "The Universal House of Justice implied (x) while providing research material and assistance." It is very important to always read things for what is not said. The issue I personally think is most relevant to the discussion is this: when did humans become humans? It wasn't during the big bang or the formation of the Sun. It wasn't when plantlife appeared on the planet. Not all the animals were created simultaneously; even taking the Genesis account literally that claim could not be made. One thing that stands out in my mind from Genesis is how man became alive when God breathed His spirit into him. I take this to mean when God gave man a soul. This was the final touch in creating man, and we can't really say that humans existed until the human soul existed, even if there were some particular existing animal which existed at that time that God gave a soul and made man from. Humans have only been humans since God finished their creation by giving man a soul, that's how I see it. Did God give a soul to a creature that shared common ancestry with the ape? Possibly, but from man's creation, finalized by the addition of a soul, this has not occurred. That's my opinion. For me, it does not conflict religiously or scientifically from the evidence. I sympathize with you on your crisis of faith, and I only provide my viewpoint so that maybe it will help you steer through it. I will pray for you that God may help you see through this issue and give you strong faith rooted in scientific and religious harmony.

10-04-2011, 03:05 PM	#114
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,055	This is one of our longer running threads.. but kavaliro has an interesting point: Humans have only been humans since God finished their creation by giving man a soul, that's how I see it. Did God give a soul to a creature that shared common ancestry with the ape? Possibly, but from man's creation, finalized by the addition of a soul, this has not occurred. That's my opinion. For me, it does not conflict religiously or scientifically from the evidence. Here is what I've gathered: There is the potentiality of man.. All beings, whether large or small, were created perfect and complete from the first, but their perfections appear in them by degrees. The organization of God is one; the evolution of existence is one; the divine system is one. Whether they be small or great beings, all are subject to one law and system. Each seed has in it from the first all the vegetable perfections. For example, in the seed all the vegetable perfections exist from the beginning, but not visibly; afterward little by little they appear. So it is first the shoot which appears from the seed, then the branches, leaves, blossoms and fruits; but from the beginning of its existence all these things are in the seed, potentially, though not apparently. In the same way, the embryo possesses from the first all perfections, such as the spirit, the mind, the sight, the smell, the taste -- in one word, all the powers -- but they are not visible and become so only by degrees. (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 199) Abdul-Baha also I believe accepts the view that the stages of the embryo repeat the forms man has proceeded through. Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at once appear in this form; neither did it then become the manifestation of the words "Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers."[1] Gradually it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it attained this form and beauty, this perfection, grace and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law. (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 182) Never a time "when man was not": Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the beginning which has no beginning, to the end which has no end, a Perfect Manifestation always exists. This Man of Whom we speak is not every man; we mean the Perfect Man. (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 196) "Man" is not restricted to this planet is another concept. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that the worlds of existence, whether the stars or this earth, were once inhabited by the donkey, cow, mouse and cat, and that they were without man! (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 196) Man's future on this planet: The five continents of the world will form but one, the numerous nations will become one, the surface of the earth will become one land, and mankind will be a single community. (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 62) A return to Pangaeia! How do all tehse perspective gel with say science.. in a way I think they transcend what scientists can tell us but on the other hand they are not necessarily in conflict either.

10-04-2011, 04:32 PM	#115
aidan Senior Member Joined: Jul 2011 From: n ireland Posts: 413	Brethren much thought and energy has gone into this forum.The Holy Spirit speaks to AbdulBaha and He speaks to each of us individually.It's ok to have diversity of opinion for there is unity in diversity.It is encumbant upon us to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to each of us

10-08-2011, 12:26 PM	#116
Eftekhar Be Khoda Member Joined: Feb 2009 From: St. Louis Posts: 37	Maybe this will make some sense -- think of the software you run on your computer and the computer itself. At each stage of the "evolution" of computer hardware, computer software was developed that fit with that stage. So in the days of your atari computer, the idea of DOS let alone Windows was impossible. Games meant pac man, not even Zelda. Today, computers are advanced enough that you can do far far better. The computer can run windows and games that look almost photo real. Had those same programs existed in 1980, they would have never work. The computer had to evolve to the point that it could support such a program, let alone run several such programs at once. So I think it's kinda similar with people -- until the "hardware" is good enough to support the soul, no soul. I'm not sure if I'm making sense or rambling, but I hope that gives you a picture.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode