Jan27

Mistakes in Evolution and Religion

First of all, since I am loyal to Jesus, I believe in the messengers that Jesus said would come. These include Muhammad and Baha’u'llah. It was Baha’u'llah who explained that there will be no conflict between true science and true religion. This makes me happy for several reasons–it will eliminate bad science and bad religion.
Bad religion includes some nut who has his followers drink poison when a comet flies overhead.
Bad science includes Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I am a high school science teacher, and I know about evolution. I know that it lacks scientific evidence, and I know there is scientific evidence against it. I refuse to teach evolution since it is wrong. There is politics and power mongering that corrupts science as well as religion. I think science comes from God as much as religion. When pressed, I would have to admit that parts of evolution are correct, but just because I can agree that the fittest of the species survive does not mean I can be fooled into the ludicrous possibility that one species can change into another. Likewise I can believe that the mother of Jesus was a virgin, but the rules of God’s creation mandate a need for sperm to have fertilized Mary’s egg. The bible tells us that this sperm came from the male line of King David-e.g. Joseph. (Would Joseph have married her were it not so?)
(See Romans 1:3)
The mistake in religion is to use the virgin birth as evidence that God is the father of Jesus which is blasphemous.

After the big war that is prophesied to come, there will be peace on earth. As prophecy is always fulfilled, as God never lies, this will come to pass despite the objections of any one. Though I do not look forward to the war, I look forward to the peace afterward and the knowledge that science and religion will not be in conflict. God gave me the gift of a brain, so can I not assume that I am to use it? I have faith in the Baha’i religion because it does not conflict with Jesus or Moses, or of Abraham, Isaac, King David, etc. In fact, there is only one religion that doesn’t disregard the promise that God gave to David in Psalm 89.
God doesn’t break His promises.

TAGS:
Bookmark this post!

Similar posts

    None Found

28 Responses to “Mistakes in Evolution and Religion”

  1. 1 Henry
    8:25 am on May 18, 2008

    I think you’ve mistanken something about the theory of evolution. It doesn’t teach that one species can change into another. Rather it teaches that all lifeforms have the same origin. This is quite easily proven via paleo-archaeological findings and comparative genetics.

  2. 2 Collin
    1:20 pm on May 18, 2008

    Henry,

    Ah! You have stumbled on a key point. I agree that evolution teaches “common ancestor” theory, but in a practical sense, how does a “common ancestor” of two species become each new species? Give up? Since “changing species” violates all known science, the words needed to be changed so the people could be duped.

    If dolphins, birds, and elephants all had a common ancestor, then that ancestor had to change species. This is ridiculous, but our public education system has done such a good job on indoctrinating the masses, that even kids in high school write editorials explaining their faith in evolution to counter editorials that suggest it is wrong. Who needs science anymore when no one is willing to do the experiments, and all are willing to believe a nonsensical theory based on fossils? Survival of the fittest can be shown scientifically, but evolution theory is more religion than science. I have no faith in evolution.

    Collin

  3. 3 Henry
    2:14 am on May 19, 2008

    The theory is not ridiculous, and I really think your study of it has been much too shallow. The changes occur over millions of years via favorable mutation of the genes.
    In the same way that humans breed animals and plants and is able to give them the characteristics they need, nature shapes animals according to their own needs.
    Darwin didn’t know everything, though. Modern scientists have had to realize that sexual selection occurs as well as natural selection. Sexual selection explains such disfavorable developments as the plumage of male peacocks and why homosexuality accurs among some species.
    Nobody is indoctrinating anyone and the theory is completely logical and provable. If you would just investigate the matter more thoroughly you would be able to realize that.

  4. 4 Rasmus
    1:57 pm on May 19, 2008

    Humans are Eukaryotes: our cells have nuclei (so we are related to algae).
    Humans are Animals: we have multiple cells and an internal digestive chamber (so we are related to sponges).
    Humans are Eumetazoans: we have bodies differentiated into separate tissues (so we are related to jellyfish).
    Humans are Bilateria: we have a front and a back end and an upside and a downside (so we are related to spiders).
    Humans are Deuterostomes: the first opening of our embryos become the anus (so we are related to sea urchins)
    Humans are Chordates: we have notochords, dorsal nerve chords, post anal tails and pharyngeal slits (so we are related to sea tulips).
    Humans are Craniates: we have skulls (so we are related to hagfish)
    Humans are Vertebrates: we have a spinal chord (so we are related to the now extinct thelodonts)
    Humans are Gnasthotomata: we have jaws (so we are related to sharks)
    Humans are Teleostomes: we have a single pair of respiratory openings (so we are related to tuna)
    Humans are Tetrapods: we have four legs (so we are related to frogs)
    Humans are Amniotes: our eggs are protected by several membranes (so we are related to crocodiles).
    Humans are Synapsids: we have glandular skin and a temporal fenestra behind each eye orbit (so we are related to the now extinct dimetrodon)
    Humans are Mammals: we have mammary glands, hair, three middle ear bones and a neocortex in the brain (so we are related to platipuses)
    Humans are Therians: we give birth to live young without using shelled eggs (so we are related to kangaroos)

    Do I need to go on?

  5. 5 Peace
    1:53 pm on May 21, 2008

    What you missed Rasmus is that Humans are the only animal with an Intellect. It is through the intellect alone that man can know of God, as God is intangible and abstract and this is what the intellect allows man to do apart from all those others in your list above, that is, because of the intellect man can think in the abstract and know of intangibles.

    Man is unique from all in the list above because of the intellect.

  6. 6 Collin
    3:16 am on May 22, 2008

    Henry,
    Again, let us agree that natural selection is provable, but try to see my point that natural selection is different than the theory of evolution. Suppose we have a theory that what goes up must come down. Each time we throw a rock up into the air, and observe that it comes back to earth, our theory has evidence to support it. Similarly, each time a mother has a child, the theory of non-evolution is supported. Each time a dog has puppies or a cat has kittens, the theory of non-evolution is supported. Each critter of each species throughout the whole earth produces offspring that are the same species as the parent.

    In the millions of years that rock-throwing cave-men (humans) have been throwing rocks, I venture to hypothesis that all rocks have returned to earth. You see, “millions of years” is the other lie that the indoctrinated believe. As if given enough time, gravity will at some time “shut off” and the rock will keep going up.

    As a high school science teacher, I venture to state that my study of evolution has been deep enough. My students do research on both creation and evolution, and they have a debate. What I have learned in the years of doing this is that both theories have flaws: scientific flaws and religious flaws. As a member of the human family endowed by God with intelligence, I abhor junk science and junk religion. In fact, God gave the message to the people through the last Manifestation, Baha’u’llah, that science and religion must agree. If science and religion don’t agree, then one or both of them is flawed.

    I agree that natural selection is logical and provable—evolution is not. Don’t confuse the two. Students often confuse ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. The causes and effects are completely different, but since they are both atmospheric problems, the careless think they are they same thing, and what’s more, they rebel at society for causing such problems, and they want justice done!

    Some people want me to “wise up” and believe in evolution. That won’t happen. Some people also go into a rage because I won’t believe in evolution, but then I have to smile because their rage proves my point—they really aren’t trying to use science to prove evolution because evolution to them is a religion that they have faith in. Because of their faith, evolution has become their religion.

    Collin

  7. 7 Collin
    3:22 am on May 22, 2008

    Rasmus,
    I see your point that lots of critters have similarities with other critters. For example, the bald eagle has better eyesight than me. This, however, doesn’t make me a great grandfather to the eagle.

    I can agree with you that all living things have DNA, but the difference between our logic is that you suggest cross-species relationships. All your rhetoric falls short when you are asked the question, “Where did DNA come from?” And don’t give me that experiment with the “primordial soup” where scientists managed to make simple amino acids. The difference between an amino acid and a DNA molecule is like the difference between a few bricks stuck together and the Great Wall of China.

    Any high school biology text will tell you that life comes from life. Hundreds of years ago, people observed that rotting meat “transformed” into maggots. That “science” was replaced when somebody observed flies laying eggs on the meat. Flies pass their DNA and “stuff of life” into their eggs that become larva, and presto: maggots!

    As a science teacher, I know the rules of science, and one rule is that you cannot evoke the supernatural. In other words, God is outside the purview of science. So, a modern scientist can scoff at the old fools that thought oats turned into mice and barnacles turned into swans because we now know that mice make mice and swans make swans. The suggestion that swans came from a lower life form through a processes of favorable mutations over millions of years is the best science can do without evoking the influence of God. Science knows that evolution theory falls short. Science knows there is a missing link between every species. Science knows that “favorable mutation” is an oxymoron. Mutations lead to sterility and death in most cases. Yeah, yeah, “millions of years” is the rebuttal. As if.

    Science tries to perfect the theory within its purview of “no supernatural influence.”
    Do you see the systemic problem that such a process creates within academia? Let me shout out to the masses of people who don’t want to feel stupid, “The emperor is wearing no cloths.” Evolution is a flawed! Although evolution theory is admittedly flawed, it’s the best science can offer. It would help if people would mistrust science as much as they mistrust government. We’ve been lied to. Science doesn’t know everything, and if science knows that DNA must be the design of God, science can’t report it.

    Collin

  8. 8 Rasmus
    5:02 am on May 23, 2008

    I’m not saying that you’re a great grandfather of the bald eagle. What I’m saying is that both our species must stem from a common tetrapod ancestor.
    I don’t quite follow you in your talk about DNA. DNA is not some supernatural, magical thing. It’s made of phosphate, sugar and hydrogen bonds. Whether it was created by some divinity or not, has no effect on it’s natural properties.
    Favorable mutation is not an oxymoron. Mutation simply means changes in the DNA. The existence of favorable mutation is easily proven. Just look at domesticated animals. Dogs are naturally more docile than wolves because that’s favorable to us. Dairy cattle produce more milk than regular cattle because that’s favorable to us.
    I wonder, if you don’t define natural selection as chosing the most favorable mutation, then how do you define it?

  9. 9 Rasmus
    1:41 pm on May 27, 2008

    Another thing that I’m curious to know is how you define species. Where does one species stop and another begin? For example, you mentioned bald eagles. According to science, this is one species of birds. If species, as you say, are not able to evolve into other species, then do you not consider the different species of birds to be related to eachother? Or does the word “species”, in your book, imply that which biologists refer to as “class”, that is, do you recognize that the different species of birds are interrelated but not that they are related to species belonging to other classes?

  10. 10 Collin
    7:16 am on May 31, 2008

    Rasmus,
    Of course I realize that you’re not saying that I’m a great grandfather of the eagle, but you are suggesting something equally ridiculous. There is not a common ancestor to both me and the eagle. Although you and those on the evolution bandwagon would pretend there is, the suggestion is still silly.

    If I anticipate your next argument correctly, then you will claim that the fossil record shows such an ancestor. It doesn’t. Even if extinct, any lower life form that one could hypothesize “could be” an ancestor was, in fact, just a species that produced offspring like itself. In other words, you need tons of faith and zero proof to make your point. Others will agree with evolution, but that is because they were taught evolution, and they do not question what they are taught. There is no way favorable mutations could have given me an intellect and given the eagle wings.

    How convenient for you that you don’t get my point about DNA. If you deny that DNA is too complicated to arrive on earth by natural processes, then perhaps you can also deny the existence of God. It may be the goal of evolutionists to deny the existence of God. My point is that since DNA exists, God must exist. Once we establish that God exists, we can use the scientific principle of Occam’s razor (The simplest explanation is the most accurate). The choice is either to believe what Moses wrote in Genesis about the earth bringing forth animals after their own kind, or invent a fantasy that new species come from old species.

    “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing upon the earth after his kind.” (Gen 1:25)

    You, see, you don’t need to believe the fantasy that a primordial amoeba evolved by mutation into a human. Amoebas produce more amoebas, and humans produce humans. That’s scientifically provable. Evolution is not.
    Collin

  11. 11 Collin
    8:03 am on May 31, 2008

    Rectangles are related to the square, in that both rectangles and squares have four right angles. However, over time, rectangles have evolved longer sides. Whereas the fossil record shows that all four sides of a square are equal, in rectangles, two opposite sides are now longer. (smile)

    My point is that the classification of animals can be as simple as classifying shapes. The “intellectual giants” that believe all things are possible “in millions of years” are muddled by their bias. (I like the tenant that “All things are possible with God.”)

    The similarities in animals does not prove one came from another. Perhaps God made sparrows with wings so they could catch mosquitoes. Just because mosquitoes and sparrows can both fly does not mean that sparrows evolved from mosquitoes. Evolution says so, but that’s faith-based religion, and not science.

    By definition, one species stops and another begins when the two animals cannot mate and produce viable offspring. Even this bit of science is at odds with evolution. One species cannot become another because mating doesn’t work. For example, you can’t mate an eagle and a horse to make a winged horse. The existence of the flying horse Pegasus is just a work of fiction—just like evolution.
    Collin

  12. 12 Collin
    8:29 am on May 31, 2008

    At this time, I’d like the readers of these comments to read first hand the message from God to man regarding evolution. In the text below, you will see why I have no argument with survival of the fittest that says “species adapt,” but why I have not agreed with evolution that says “one species becomes another.”

    “Third, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. 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 fetus 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. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.”

    “To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period — in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species — that is, man — and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore, this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress,[1] does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, “We will make man in Our image and likeness.”[2] He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener become finer, sweeter and acquire more freshness and delicacy.]
    [1 I.e., if we admit, for example, that man had formerly been a quadruped, or had had a tail.]
    [2 Cf. Gen. 1:26.]

    The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.”

    (Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 193)

  13. 13 Rasmus
    10:49 am on June 01, 2008

    1) Who are you to say that complex macromolecular structures like DNA and RNA can’t occur naturally? Do you have any solid proof that this is the case?
    2) Paleontological findings show a progression from simple organisms to complex organisms. They’re more than just a collection of extinct species.
    3) You say that one species stops and another begins when the two animals cannot mate and produce viable offspring. Well, lions and tigers can mate and produce viable offspring in spite of the genetic differences, and so can donkeys and horses. So I guess when you say “species” you actually mean “genus”, right?
    4) Why exactly should we take Abdul Baha as a scientific authority?

  14. 14 Peace
    12:44 pm on June 01, 2008

    Abdu’l-Baha is a scientific authority. His father was the Manifestation, Baha’u'llah. They lived life together, incarcerated in prison mostly, with lots of time to chat.

    One of the twelve Baha’i Principle is that “True science and true religion must be in accord.” God is a scientific creator! The sciences come from God. Sciences are one of God’s many bestowals upon mankind. God’s prophets, including Buddha and Baha’u'llah, are innately in tune with the reality of all sciences, because they receive the thought of God directly from God and reveal the thought of God to mankind. Thus we have revelations from God progressively.

    And thank God for this! For otherwise, all of we homo sapiens would be more homo erectus, grunting, clubbing, migrating and gathering (although I do see grunting and clubbing today in society and the clubs come from Battleships). For example, it was Adam who taught/revealed to mankind agriculture and cuneiform. And this is when we see the frontal lobe evolved also. A home for the intellect?

    Ah the intellect, which is unique to man in evolution, the tool for gaining enlightenment, the third eye, the window to the soul. And it is within the soul of each person that an understanding of God and a personal relationship with God happens.

    Thanks for paying us a visit Rasmus. Come back again.

    Peace

  15. 15 Rasmus
    2:38 am on June 02, 2008

    Thanks man. I like paying you guys a visit. It’s a great opportunity for me to challenge my own conception of reality, and perhaps to challenge other peoples conception of reality as well (at least I hope so).
    Anyway, your conception of Adam is also at odds with science. Archaeological findings tell us that both cuneiform and agriculture developed gradually, just like anything else in this world. They were not invented by a single individual.
    And I really don’t believe that the intellect is something perculiar to mankind. At least not if you define it as the ability to fathom abstract ideas. It’s been proven several times that all the great apes are able fathom abstract ideas, or least that there able to use abstract symbols.

  16. 16 Henry
    10:44 am on June 03, 2008

    The Baha’i Faith seems to be at odds with most of what modern science teaches us.

  17. 17 Peace
    1:26 am on June 04, 2008

    Rasmus, please site authoritative references to back your statements. This is a spiritual, intellectual space. Otherwise, everyone can safely assume that you are just typing what you think is true, or would like to be true, but is not substantiated with proof or evidence, thus these arguements of yours are mere suppositions and easily discounted. The Baha’i Faith is in complete harmony and accord with “true science,” which trumps “modern science,” which is corrupt when it comes to disputing with religion, just like modern versions of religions are corrupt when they try to dispute true science.

    And science today, is as shallow and corrupt as organized religion is. Science doesn’t know squat about Adam anyway. If you want to know about Adam you turn to the revelations of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, who all spoke of him in detail and with authority.

    If you have a problem with authority it is not my problem, it is rather just a shame that you let that hang up prevent you from investigating the truth. Your mind seems set. Your cup is full with no room for religious truths or the living waters beyond what you already “know.” So maybe you should take you baseless arguments elsewhere. This blog is for the edification and education of seekers who want nearness to God, not for wannabodhis who argue fruitlessly and ignorantly against religion in general.

    It was nice to have your visit, but if you are not seeking and just want to continue frivolously arguing, there are better places for you to spend your time. If you sincerely want to know about the Baha’i Faith, this blog is here to serve you. So, do you have any sincere questions? If not, then please find another soapbox to preach your disbelief from.

    Thanks,

    Peace

  18. 18 Rasmus
    3:25 pm on June 04, 2008

    Actually I don’t find these discussions very interesting anymore. I would like to leave you with the following:

    This whole thing started with me wanting you to know that what you say about buddhism is rediculous. The buddhist prophecies that you speak of are non-existing, and no buddhist is expecting Amitabha (whom only half of the buddhist world actually believe in) to reapear into this world.
    The earliest buddhist writings (as I have shown) also clearly shows that Shakyamuni was an agnostic rather than a theist.
    I don’t presume to know anything about Adam, I only know what the empirical data that the archaeologists have collected shows, and it does not show the sudden emergence of cuneiform and agriculture 6000 years ago. Anyway, who cares if Adam (if he even existed) invented cuneiform. Rockcarvings discovered about a year ago in China shows that the Chinese writing system actually predates cuneiform by 2000 years.
    Why don’t you actually try proving that science and all the religions of the world have been corrupted? Cuz we ain’t seen no proof yet…But I guess that saying that everybody else is corrupt is a convenient way for you to explain away the flaws in your own dotrine.

    There. I’ll stop preaching now. I’ve said what I wanted to say. Now I can go to sleep.

  19. 19 Hmmm
    11:02 am on September 24, 2008

    How can one say that he is related to animals, its just basic common sense failing over here.

  20. 20 Peter
    12:38 pm on January 24, 2009

    According to the Baha’i faith it is a religion that will eventually expire that’s why it has prophecies of another divine messenger, unlike the previous divine faiths. The Baha’i faith is a universal religion and the only one that truely is. It allows for the independent investigation of truth and holds no dicrimination towards sexs, race and religion. I must admit though some of the comments by colin and peace seem to be a personal oppinion. I think it makes no differnce if evoloution is the process to which humans came from or not.

  21. 21 Nikolai
    7:22 am on February 24, 2009

    Darwin’s theory is fake. He wasn’t even a scientist.

    Humans were most likely engineered by higher developed civilizations in our cosmos. (Let’s stop calling it extraterrestial, ok..) At least this theory is much more verifyable than Darwin’s.

    God = Cosmos. And me, you and him/her are all part of it. Nassim Haramein recently found out the Universal Scaling Law for Organized Matter, that can still seem like chaos at times, while in fact it’s all organized.

    So, also for the Bahai’s: God is not something you cannot understand. It is not far away and always judging good and bad. Nonsense. God is right into you Heart. period.

  22. 22 Ramin
    4:59 pm on May 31, 2009

    Collin you are absolutely right…
    there are so many examples of animals which have not changed for millions of years…crocodiles,sharks,squids,etc.
    every species is created perfectly and there are no imperfect species…a shark will always be a shark and will not change into another species! maybe that over time species will change, but not to another kind of species..man was always man!
    i think a giraffe always had a long neck, not because of trying to reach the trees for millions of years:)
    ridiculous to think that a fish tried to get out of the water for millions of years until it gets legs…hahaha
    and what was first..chicken or egg? i think god created both of them at same time…when the time was right!

  23. 23 Bob
    12:37 pm on June 22, 2009

    Ramin and Collin! Please read this dharani, and the darkness of your minds will be cured. Knowledge shall triumph over ignorance:

    NAMO BHAGAVATE TRAILOKYA PRATIVISISTAYA BUDDHAYA BHAGAVATE. TADYATHA, OM, VISUDDHAYA-VISUDDHAYA, ASAMA-SAMA SAMANTAVABHASA- SPHARANA GATI GAHANA SVABHAVA VISUDDHE, ABHINSINCATU MAM. SUGATA VARA VACANA AMRTA ABHISEKAI MAHA MANTRA-PADAI. AHARA-AHARA AYUH SAM-DHARANI. SODHAYA-SODHAYA, GAGANA VISUDDHE. USNISA VIJAYA VISUDDHE. SAHASRA-RASMI, SAMCODITE, SARVA TATHAGATA AVALOKANI, SAT-PARAMITA, PARIPURANI, SARVA TATHAGATA MATI DASA-BHUMI, PRATI-STHITE, SARVA TATHAGATA HRDAYA ADHISTHANADHISTHITA MAHA-MUDRE. VAJRA KAYA, SAM-HATANA VISUDDHE. SARVAVARANA APAYA DURGATI, PARI-VISUDDHE, PRATI-NIVARTAYA AYUH SUDDHE. SAMAYA ADHISTHITE. MANI-MANI MAHA MANI. TATHATA BHUTAKOTI PARISUDDHE. VISPHUTA BUDDHI SUDDHE. JAYA-JAYA, VIJAYA-VIJAYA, SMARA-SMARA. SARVA BUDDHA ADHISTHITA SUDDHE. VAJRI VAJRAGARBHE, VAJRAM BHAVATU MAMA SARIRAM. SARVA SATTVANAM CA KAYA PARI VISUDDHE. SARVA GATI PARISUDDHE. SARVA TATHAGATA SINCA ME SAMASVASAYANTU. SARVA TATHAGATA SAMASVASA ADHISTHITE, BUDDHYA-BUDDHYA, VIBUDDHYA-VIBUDDHYA, BODHAYA-BODHAYA, VIBODHAYA-VIBODHAYA. SAMANTA PARISUDDHE. SARVA TATHAGATA HRDAYA ADHISTHANADHISTHITA MAHA-MUDRE SVAHA.

  24. 24 Bread
    9:43 pm on June 30, 2009

    You know, the BUPC site actually has a sound clip that shows evolution as being proof that God exists. Evolution has been very much proven and the only two alternatives are a literal interpretation of the creation in Genesis, or that every species that ever existed is still around and that they’re just in hiding. The first one is irrational, and the second one is from a cartoon.

  25. 25 lower of bahaullah
    3:55 pm on March 24, 2010

    … it is clear that this terrestrial globe in its present form did not come into existence all at once; but … gradually passed through different phases until it became adorned with its present perfection. …

    … 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 … 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. …

    … man’s existence on this earth, from the beginning until it reaches this state, form, and condition, necessarily lasts a long time. … But from the beginning of man’s existence he is a distinct species. … admitting that the traces of organs which have disappeared actually exist [in the human body], this is not a proof of the impermanence and the non-originality of the species. At the most it proves that the form, and fashion, and the organs of man have progressed. Man was always a distinct species, a man, not an animal. — Some Answered Questions, pp. 211, 212, 213, 214.

    Of the story of Adam and Eve He says: –

    If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how must less of the Divinity — that Divinity who has organised this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength, and perfection. …

    Therefore this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvellous explanations. — Some Answered Questions, p. 140

    There is no contradiction between science and faith in the Bahai Cause.We can find the true evolution of man in Bahai writings.
    Peace to all

  26. 26 Empresas
    2:29 pm on May 13, 2011

    This website has some very helpful info on it! Cheers for helping me.

  27. 27 Afghan Hound
    10:13 am on May 25, 2011

    Ingenius, good post. I am interested in articles like this.

  28. 28 Emilie Ismail
    11:45 pm on June 22, 2012

    Fantastic goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely great. I really like what you have acquired here, really like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still take care of to keep it sensible. I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a wonderful website.

Leave a Reply