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

Many Baha'is seem to think that just embracing the concept of physical evolution resolves the problem of a Baha'i belief which contradicts modern scientific theory. It doesn't. 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. At some point I think it might be necessary to admit that on this one scientific point, Abdul Baha got it wrong. He himself said that when science and religion disagree, religion is wrong. Did this claim exclude him?

arthra

As I understand it the view expressed by Abdul-Baha was that evolution does occur within a species and He draws a parallel to the developement of the foetus in the womb to show that we develope from form to form..at some point we appear to have gill like structures and at some point a tail and so on.

We are always potentially human however..

Recently they found use of stones as tools by the hominids around Lucy's time which would be over three million years ago .. to me this would suggest the approach suggested by Abdul-Baha would have some validity.

See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100811/...earliest_tools


We keep going back further and further finding that hominids have been around hundreds of thousands a years.

But one thing that I have thought is that physically it would be difficult to tell or distinguish say between say a apelike hominid with the potential to be human and one that did not.. there might be little to really distinguish them anyway..so in a way the question is moot..as they say, a question with little practical importance perhaps.

Here is Abdul-Baha on evolution:

For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance, and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man; that is to say, an embryo of a man, and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 308)

Beyond this though is a perspective that may be overlooked in the traditional issue of the "debate" between say science and religion we so often hear about..

We Baha'is do not take the perspective that the Baha'i view say on evolution must be say accepted as "science".. that is, we are not like advocates say of "creationism" that insist on certain creationist materials should be in science class rooms and so on.

Recall that the Guardian made this remark and other similar statements:

. But as we are a religion and not qualified to pass on scientific matters

we cannot sponsor different treatments. We are certainly free to pass on what we have found beneficial to others.

(30 September 1950, on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)

So Baha'is are not suggesting that the Writings be used as say a "science text" or be authoritative for scientists.. What we are told is that we should study the sciences and encourage them and that there should be harmony between science and religion.. one supporting the other.

An indication of this might be in the area where it has been found that genetically human beings are more similar as a specie ..

Human to human total genetic variation is approximately 0.5%. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are single base-pair DNA differences accounting for 0.1% variation. Of this 0.1% difference, 85% is found within any given population, 7% is found between populations within a continent and only 8% is found on average between the various continental populations. Based on this observation, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has claimed that accurate racial classification of humans is impossible and can have no taxonomic utility.

Source:

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

and the principle of the Faith that mankind is one. Here is an indication that there is harmony of science and religion as well as ethics..

But can or should we always defer to science? Science by nautre is fluid.. changes over time as new studies come to the fore .. As Baha'is our Faith has social, ethic and moreal teachings that are not necessarily supported say by science..again the question arises where we are supporting a harmony between religion and science we allow scientists to make their findings and consider them but we also continue to defer for spiritual, ethical and moral issues to the Writings for guidance..

BruceDLimber

The uniqueness of humans is a spiritual point, not a physical one!

That point being that only humans have an eternal soul and go on to the Next Life whereas the rest of creation does not.

BTW, there's a whole book available on this topic, Evolution and the Baha'i Faith, by Eberhard von Kitzing.

Regards, :-)

Bruce

ewlabonte

That is exactly what I'm talking about. The question is not moot. The genetic similarity between humans and great apes and monkeys shows a direct relationship. Even where the dna doesn't code for any phenotypical features, there is a direct relationship. Science has direct evidence of a common ancestor. Simply positing evolution within the species does not explain all this evidence.

Access : Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees : Nature

Fathom :: The Source for Online Learning

How closely related are humans to apes and other animals? How do scientists measure that? Are humans related to plants at all? : Scientific American

The problem is that Abdul Baha made a scientific claim, and his word is considered infallible. Whether or not Baha'is are able to put there beliefs into text books is irrelevant. The truth is the truth. If humans are not directly related to other primates it should show up in the genetic evidence, but the opposite is true.

This presents an insuperable problem for me. If we must accept Abdul Baha's every statement to be the infallible truth, even scientific claims, then I cannot be a baha'i because in this case, his statements contradict the scientific evidence.

ewlabonte

But when did humans become humans? In "Some Answered Questions" Abdul Baha seems to say that humans have always existed. But if we had common ancestors some of those lines became humans and some led to animal species. Were the common ancestors humans or animals?

arthra

We're both animal and spiritual

Know that, although the human soul has existed on the earth for prolonged times and ages, yet it is phenomenal.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 151)


and I would suggest again to you that the question is still moot.. and has no practical application as it cannot be demonstrated scientifically... You may find some ape-like remains and still not be able to ascertain whether they are potentially "human".

I think you're trying to project the old science and religion argument and debate.. We Baha'is don't have to join that as say Christians do..

Abdul-Baha was not a scientist and made no experiments to prove anything along those lines..

He did explain that man is very ancient on this earth and that I think has been pretty well substantiated..His position is more a philosophic and spiritual perspective.

Again what we read in Some Answered Questions is:

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.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 181)

ewlabonte

You are simply wrong. And it pisses me off that you don't even seem to attempt to understand my diiemma. It's no problem for you, because evidently you don't understand how abundantly massive the scientific evidence is for common ancestry between humans and apes. But just because you find it easy to gloss over the facts doesn't mean that we all can do that.

arthra

Let me suggest you take a different slant in your approah..

You can always disagree with me and say I'm "wrong"..

What Abdul-baha is saying is like at his time a hypothesis that there was always a specie with a potential to be "human"..

Now consider the findings of science that Lucy's specie hew stones and used them as tools.. was Lucy "human"? recall we're talking about a three million year old. If she was "human" that would tend to confirm Abdul-Baha's statement that man is very ancient and that as a specie had that potential..

Scientists posit there was a "common" ancestor of humans and apes prior to Lucy say oh six million years ago.. Well in that case I don't think there would be a way to verify Abdul-Baha's position scientifically.. due to lack of evidence ..No one can say if a specie that looks like a fish has human potential while another does not.

Abdul-Baha's position is more philosophical then ..

Take another question..

Baha'u'llah stated that there was life on other planets.. When He revealed that there was no scientific evidence for that.. until they found a meteor believed to be from Mars that had what many believed to be evidence of primitive cellular life.. Nowadays most believe there is water on Mars.. if there's water there is probably most likely life on Mars.

See:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html


Now because both of the above propositions..

(1) a separate specie of human with the potential to be human existed

(2) life on other worlds

were made prior to any scientific proof you're saying you shouldn't be a Baha'i?

ewlabonte

There *is* scientific evidence. It's in the dna of living species of apes and humans. There are ways of comparing them to see if and when they derived from a common ancestor. And just saying that similar body types would necessarily have similar dna is just wrong. There are many different ways to code for the same protein and, to the extent that they are the same, they indicate the occurence of a common ancestor. When the dna of various living species of apes and humans are compared humans fit right in with the family of apes. That is why the great apes are part of the family hominidae now. This is overwhelming evidence that humans and apes had a common ancestor. A God who would create man independently and place the genetic similarities (and these are similarities that aren't required for phenotypical similarity) would have to be intentionally trying to fool humans into believing that humans and apes had a common ancestor. It's like the creationists saying that God put dinosaur bones in the ground to test man's faith.

Livindesert

Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha to me are spiritual guides pointing us to God. God already provided us scientific mentors like Einstein and Stephen Hawkings.

Heck If I remember in the Book of Certitude it says Copper will turn to Gold in 30 years time. This can only be a spiritual teaching not a physical one.

Now when it comes to social and ethical teachings I put these under the authority of the spiritual side not the physical side of things. So that is a nutshell of what I think

ewlabonte

I would like to take the same attitude if it weren't for the fact that Abdul Baha's writings are supposed to be taken as infallible. This is a teaching supported by the Universal House of Justice. To me it's all or nothing thing. Either the Baha'i faith *is* the eternal faith of God, and it's teachings really are infallible, or it isn't. If the faith said that Abdul Baha's writings are only infallible when he was interpreting his father, then I would have no problem with it. But that's not the case and this one example keeps on raising it's head.

Livindesert

I have never heard that Abdu'l Baha was infallible on scientific teachings that is news to me as he was only appointed as interpreter of Baha'u'llah's teachings from what I have read. :blink Every Baha'i I have talked to in person believes in evolution.

Besides it is not the Baha'i faith or nothing as far as I see it. Every faith and philosophy is a part of the one religion of God. The Baha'i faith is not even the be all and end all, just the most current revealed teaching.

Pollwr

I am not sure that this has any relevance to this discussion but the dots sort of join up and form more questions in my head. I have been a Bahá'í for many years but have only recently taken the opportunity to study a Rhui-book. I think it is called the life of the soul or something like that. Now I thought I was well-versed with the Bahá'í belief that our life begins at the moment of conception. That always seemed simple enough. What I read in the Rhui book caused me to look at it from another perspective:

It seems to suggest that we become human at that moment when a soul (from God's Heavenly Realm) is somehow joined with what was termed an embryo (When the sperm met egg). I do not have the Rhui book with me right now for a direct quote. I did notice that this bit, not a direct quotation from the writings used the term embryo and I believe scientists would not use that term so early after conception, but that was probably just a technicality. I sort of got the point. I had never thought before of the soul starting off before conception. I sort of thought it magically sort of began at that moment.

This raised a lot of questions for me, and I think they are relevant to this thread. I have a feeling that a lot of answers cannot be found at this time but maybe someone can shed some light on them.

At what point in evolution did souls, that made our anscestor's human, start getting assigned to new bodies - was it from the beginning, or at a signifigant point?

Is it written anywhere, definitely, that some of the primates that walk this earth and are scientifically classified as animals, are animals. Could some of them be humans at an earlier stage? If so, do they have souls?

Humans are unique, not because of our DNA, but because of the soul. That is the bit that is in the image of God (or at least capapble of manifesting His attributes to some degree). We are told we are unique on this earth. Does this mean we will always be so. Will another species at some point evolve to some form and then start being given a soul each?

Somewhere I think it is written that every sun has worlds and each world had life. Does that mean that earth carries the life that belongs to our solar system? Or that every planet in the solar system has life but we just have missed it? Or that every planet in our system has life at some stage of their development and we are the one currently inhabited. Some have had it and some will?

OOh, I have thought so much my brain hurts! Any ideas?

ewlabonte

Here's a letter from the Universal House of Justice explaining it:

UHJ letter: infallibility.abdulbaha.html

BruceDLimber

No, as I understand it what 'Abdul-Baha is saying is that there was no such split!

Humans were ALWAYS humans and thus had souls.

Animals have ALWAYS been animals and didn't.

That's why he said there will in fact be no "missing link" discovered: because there IS no "link!"

And for any further details I suggest you obtain and read the book.

Bruce

Livindesert

I found these parts of the letter particularly interesting...

"It is a human tendency, against which the Manifestation warns us, to measure His statements against the inaccurate standard of the acquired knowledge of mankind. We tend to take them and place them within one or other of the existing categories of human philosophy or science while, in reality, they transcend these and will, if properly understood, open new and vast horizons to our understanding."


"often erroneous background of His audience's traditional knowledge and current understanding to raise them to a wholly new level of awareness and behaviour."


The way I read the letter is that the scientific knowledge of the times is alluded to so the audience would be able to relate with a spiritual teaching. So science would be still left to science and religion to the spiritual(true) nature of man. I am sure others would disagree with me but that is how I look at it.

Livindesert

I think in the spiritual there is no link but in the physical there is as proved through DNA evidence. Our true nature is spiritual not physical.My view anyways

arthra

In exploring this area there are two points that I found related to the issues we've been exploring..having to do with man being ancient on the earth..as Abdul-Baha mentioned.



Remains of a hominid that is earlier than "Lucy" have been discovered..

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Fossil finds extend human story

This hominid is believed to be four and half million years old predating Lucy by ohh a million years or so.. What's signiifcant is that the date hypothetically for a common ancestor has had to be pushed back even further than before.. Previously the common ancestor was supposed to be around six million years..now it is seven and a half million years..or more:

And because many of Ardipithecus' traits do not appear in modern-day African apes, it suggests this common ancestor may have existed much further back in time than had previously been supposed - perhaps seven or nine million years ago.

Every time there's been a discovery of early hominid remains the date of the "common ancestor" has to be pushed back..

esabriye

hi

I have studied antropology in university and I am Bahai.

this "evolution vs creation" is not a critical debate in our faith like in christian world . any scientific proof , theory do not challange our beliefs.

my theory is ; God created many creatures seperately or with one ancestor . it is not important if it is made by with common ancestor. this common ancestor is also created by God. it is only detailed info by which method God created living things, from one ancestor or seperate creatures at the same time?

at the end all thing in universe has common raw material which is atom.

when plants, animals were created . GOD choosed humans as a vehicle, case , dress (whatever you call )to carry soul. because this human body was most appropriate physical material to carry this soul. ( for example this body could carry brain, mind better than others which supports soul development) so other canditates were eliminated.


people unfortunatelly really spend extra effort for this kind of debates which leads us to no where.

there are many things we can not know now and scienctist will discover in future .

I live in an apartment and I don't have an idea how it is built, which kind of engineer methods have been used to built it. it doesn't give me any restless feeling to live in it or I don't have any doubt if it is made by itself -randomly or made by a specialist . I only live in it and I have only necessary information such as if it is resistant to earthquakes, fires so on...

ewlabonte

And yet there is irrefutable evidence for the fact that humans share biological ancestry with apes. As I said before the evidence is in the dna of humans and living apes.

A possible solution might be found here:

Crossing the divide between science and religion: a view on evolution

But I would still say that the solution derived from a Shoghi Effendi quote involves a direct contradiction of what Abdul Baha says in "Some Answered Questions".

ewlabonte

How do you reconcile your point of view with this quote from "Some Answered Questions"?

"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."

ewlabonte

The "missing link" can be found in the dna of humans and living apes.

esabriye

I think Humans are humans when they got their souls.

as one of Bahais told above, it is science's subject to find how, by which methods biological beings are created by GOD.

I just understand why it is so important. it shouldn't be a major factor to decide one is a believer or atheist.

not only apes and humans have common ancestor but humans and onions, tomatos, rocks.. have same common ancestor which is atom, which is energy which is created and came from GOD

Livindesert

"Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch"

esabriye

yes you have summarized whole thing

Livindesert

Careful with that last part it sounds similar to what Christian creation fanaticism sounds like.(I know you are not a fanatic but some people might read the last part of your statement that way)

Science will always be gathering and distilling information which dose not take away from it's validity. To assume any spiritual teacher has the correct scientific teachings is also in error because you have to use science to see if what a spiritual teacher says about science is true or not. But spiritual teachers do not teach science just as I don't expect to learn about spirituallity from Stephen Hawkings. You must use both wings one of science and one of religion to acheive flight. If you rely only on one wing or hold one wing as superior then you will not fly.

ewlabonte

I agree with this. But Abdul Baha made direct reference to the biological evolutionary theories of his day and said they were false, at least in so far as they posited common human and animal descent. My problem isn't with the attitude of most modern Baha'is on this issue. It's that it directly contradicts a teaching of the UHJ that Abdul Baha's statements were infallible on all issues not excluding scientific. This might not be an issue for the vast majority of Baha'is but it is for me.

ewlabonte

Yes, that's great. But it doesn't solve the problem that evidently Abdul Baha made false statements in Some Answered Questlons.

arthra

Yeh.. I think it's important to distinguish how we view "creation" as opposed to maybe some Christian/Islamic views.. Creation as an on going process as opposed to say one creation in time and how evolution can also be part of that process..

Another aspect of thinking about creation is the Point or Nuqta ....

"I am the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things."

- The Bab

Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 12.

Consider the "Nuqta" or Primal Point as a "singularity":

The destiny of all matter that falls into a black hole is to get crushed to a point of zero volume and infinite density—a singularity. General relativity also implies that our expanding universe began from a singularity.

- Stephen Hawking's Universe: Strange Stuff Explained

BruceDLimber

Those who are interested in this topic would do well to review 'Abdu'l-Baha's Some Answered Questions, in particular Chapters 49-51 (I especially commend to you page 193!).

(Purely by coincidence we studied these last night in our community's weekly deepening!)

You can find this book online at (among other places):

Bahá'í Library Online

under the heading "Writings."

Peace,

Bruce

BruceDLimber

Not to date it can't!

EVERYTHING that's lived has DNA, so its mere existence doesnt prove a link.

And still to date, no link has been found.

Peace,

Bruce

Livindesert

From Animal to plantamal.


Here is a animal that has adopted DNA from plants and passsed the DNA on to it's siblings so they are born part plant and part animal. So kingdoms can be naturally be jumped and even crossed.

Livindesert

Here is an example of a Kingdom that is not mentioned by the writtings but exist apart from plants or animals.

Fungi are neither animals or plants


Fungi are neither animals or plants but are not mentioned in the writtings.

A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a member of a large group of eukaryotic organisms that includes microorganisms such as yeasts and molds, as well as the more familiar mushrooms. The Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/) are classified as a kingdom that is separate from plants, animals and bacteria. One major difference is that fungal cells have cell walls that contain chitin, unlike the cell walls of plants, which contain cellulose. These and other differences show that the fungi form a single group of related organisms, named the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that share a common ancestor (a monophyletic group). This fungal group is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, even though genetic studies have shown that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus

Livindesert

Anyways from what I have read Abdu'l Baha used the science of the time to relate spiritual concepts to his listeners. If we use Adbu'l Baha's words a science fact instead of allegorical we end up with US vs Science which is unBaha'i

arthra

`One observation I had is that no one around 1908 when "Some Answered Questions" was first published would have even guessed that the human specie would be traced back four million years.. and yes there were parallel lines of evolution.. so I think Abdul-Baha was not all that far off.

Livindesert

I am not saying Abdu'l Baha was incorrect I just want to make sure science as the wing to religion is not marginalized. I was brought up with having to choose between science and scriptures. I don't want to make that choice again.

ewlabonte

I'm not saying that the existence of dna is the missing link. The comparative similarity of dna is the missing link. Please try to follow what I'm saying, because your response indicates that you aren't even trying to understand.

Dna codes for amino acids in proteins by a code that was discovered in the 1950s by Watson and Crick. Three dna base pairs code for one amino acid. There are four different dna base pairs, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine and Adenine. It creates a 4 based code. There are 20 different amino acids and 64 different possible combinations of 3 base pairs. Therefore each amino acid has at least 3 possible codes that relate to it. A protein like hemoglobin contains several hundred amino acids chained together to make it. Change one of those amino acids and you change the behavior of the protein. But you can change individual base pairs without changing the amino acids. Sometimes this happens by accidental mutation and if the result is the same molecule, then no harm is done. If you compare hemoglobin molecules among different species you find that these mutations increase with the distance in relationship between the species. Gorillas share the exact same hemoglobin molecule as humans but the differences between individual base pairs in the gene that codes for hemoglobin varies between the two species much more than it does within the species. But the fact that the similarity exists at all is a direct indication that humans and gorillas had a common ancestor. To suggest otherwise is simply to be argumentative.

The evidence for common ancestry is so great that no evolutionary biologists deny it. This is a scientific fact and if you deny it you are placing yourself in the same category with the creationists and their cohorts the Intelligent Design people.

arthra

So ewla

I'm curious you've seen the replies on this thread..

Are you of the view that Abdul-Baha'is translated statements regarding the potential of the human specie recorded in Some Answered Questions are enough to shake your faith in Baha'u'llah?

"...let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed; supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species; no, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly: let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the foetus in the womb of the mother; although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species."

So far hominid species with potential to be "human" are incredibly ancient four millions of years ancient.. We may be only a few gene splices apart..

The human genome has been sequenced, as well as the chimpanzee genome. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24. Human chromosome 2 is a fusion between two chromosomes that remained separate in the other primates.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...onary_genetics

ewlabonte

I'm willing to believe in Baha'u'llah if that doesn't involve believing in the idea that Abdul Baha's writings were infallible even when they were concerned with science. However that isn't the position of the UHJ, which would end up making me a covenant breaker. I don't wish to go that route.

What really disturbs me is the length that Baha'is will go to distort reason in order to make it conform with their religious beliefs. In that sense it seems to confirm all the bad things that people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have been saying about religion.

BruceDLimber

I'm well aware of how DNA works, EW, including that triplets of its bases produce distinct amino acids sequences which then form proteins, so you needn't lecture me about this!

YOU are the one who implied a link between man and ape without offering any evidence beyond the existence of DNA, which as I pointed out is universal, anyway.

I also realize that there are clear statements about on which topics 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are aren't infallible.

Bruce