Problem 2: Evolution

[ProbingOmega]

The Urantia Book fully endorses Darwinian biological macro-evolution from “slime and ooze” to man.

“Man’s primordial ancestors were literally the slime and ooze of the ocean bed in the sluggish and warm-water bays and lagoons of the vast shore lines of the ancient inland seas …” 2. (The Evolutionary Panorama, 65:2.1 (731.5)).

James Watson and Francis Crick published their scientific paper presenting the structure of the DNA-helix in April 1953.  The Urantia Book was first published in 1955.  In the intervening decades since its discovery, the complexity and functional nature of DNA (genetics), bio-chemistry and bio-mechanics has thrown Darwinian macro-evolution into chaos and crisis.  The complexity and interdependence of life structure have caused atheists and theistic evolutionists to argue for Intelligent Design and some to even convert to Creationism.  While the biblical story of creation neither refutes nor precludes Darwinian macro-evolution, the sciences surrounding the mechanics and statistical probability of macro-evolution does preclude Darwinian macro-evolution.

Could someone please provide a link to the Urantia Foundations’ comments on the science of evolution provided in the UB versus modern science of the cell challenging Darwinian macro-evolution?

Thanks,

 

[Bradly]

Greetings and welcome.  I don’t know if these links will help your research but this first is an early work with related content:

http://www.urantia.org/science-in-urantia-book/science-in-urantia-book

And at TruthBook: http://truthbook.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3102&hilit=crick

and:  http://truthbook.com/urantia/topical-studies/evolution

and: http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper-65-the-overcontrol-of-evolution

and: http://truthbook.com/urantia/science-studies/science-content-of-the-urantia-book

 

I am curious as to the meaning of your titles in the 2 topics you have posted – “Problem-”  How do you define the term related to your inquiries?  Perhaps a study/review of the above links will provide some perspective on the very unique presentation of the harmonization of creationism and bio/evolution as presented in the Papers – as usual, the solution to humanity’s religious vs. scientific “apparent” paradox lies between the polarity of extremes and the reality that the terms are not mutually exclusive after all.

Bradly

 

 

[ProbingOmega]

Thanks for taking the time to provide the links, Bradly.  Much appreciated.  Merry Christmas.

 

[Mara]

ProbingOmega wrote:

The Urantia Book fully endorses . . . .

My dentist says we humans are growing fewer teeth.  Anyhow, science is essential.  Thank God for science!  The real quest in my opinion is bridging the gap between “science” and “religion”.  Our science is not accidental.  But what do we make of the discoveries of science?  How do we interpret those discoveries as they may or may not synchronize with our religious “beliefs”?  How does science fit in with one’s faith?  I intentionally make a distinction between belief and faith.  Faith is a personal, spiritual possession.  You know it when you have it.

12:9.5   Your religion is becoming real because it is emerging from the slavery of fear and the bondage of superstition. Your philosophy struggles for emancipation from dogma and tradition. Your science is engaged in the agelong contest between truth and error while it fights for deliverance from the bondage of abstraction, the slavery of mathematics, and the relative blindness of mechanistic materialism.

Beliefs change according to one’s knowledge and wisdom about how the world works.  And beliefs are maybe true, or, maybe not true.  And intellectually it takes some grinding of teeth to strain truth from error, and all of us do err from time to time.

100:7.16  The Master was a pattern of reverence. The prayer of even his youth began, “Our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be your name.” He was even respectful of the faulty worship of his fellows. But this did not deter him from making attacks on religious traditions or assaulting errors of human belief. He was reverential of true holiness, and yet he could justly appeal to his fellows, saying, “Who among you convicts me of sin?”

Cheers

[Anonymous]

ProbingOmega wrote:

Could someone please provide a link to the Urantia Foundations’ comments on the science of evolution provided in the UB versus modern science of the cell challenging Darwinian macro-evolution?    Thanks,

ProbingOmerg: I doubt that you will find what you might be looking for in the general Urantia Foundation’s comments regarding the evolution issue as indicated in the Urantia Book, although there are areas of study regarding the physics area, more specifically regarding ultimatons,  but even though they are related to “macro-evolution” and the ideas that Darwin initially presented it has been presented in the UB as “germ plasm”, which I have attempted to present my understanding of the UB’s use of this term, and met with hostile enthusiasm.

Anyway, based on your question above, you will find that the Urantia Book has used “germ plasm” after it was introduced by one “August Weismann” who authored a book translated from German to English entitled “The Germ-Plasm – A Theory of Heredity“, which was dedicated in memory of Charles Darwin.  Where I found it interesting that the authors of the Urantia Book would use this term which was introduced by August Weismann, prior to the inception of the UB, therefore having researched this link embedded in the UB, and reread much of the text where this term was used 11 times, and even one time presented as “so-called germ plasm”, as indicated in the following UB narration:

 (398.1) 36:2.14 There are over one million fundamental or cosmic chemical formulas which constitute the parent patterns and the numerous basic functional variations of life manifestations. Satellite number one of the life-planning sphere is the realm of the universe physicists and electrochemists who serve as technical assistants to the Life Carriers in the work of capturing, organizing, and manipulating the essential units of energy which are employed in building up the material vehicles of life transmission, the so-called germ plasm.

So, one must actually assume that having used this term in the UB, it is a fundamental factor in other presentations in the UB, so by not looking into what Weismann had to say about “germ plasm” would actually help in the understanding of what has been presented in the Urantia Book.  However, there are individuals who have grouped themselves together who frequent these forums who will discredit anyone’s attempt to have an open discussion on any subject that they deem different to their way of thinking and, attempt to derail any subject that doesn’t meet with their approval.  I suspect if this topic goes to fare into an area which these persons cannot understand, it might be derailed as well, as it would seem to be going with your problem 1.

[Bradly]

MidiChlorian wrote:

However, there are individuals who have grouped themselves together who frequent these forums who will discredit anyone’s attempt to have an open discussion on any subject that they deem different to their way of thinking and, attempt to derail any subject that doesn’t meet with their approval. I suspect if this topic goes to fare into an area which these persons cannot understand, it might be derailed as well, as it would seem to be going with your problem 1.

ProbingOmega is a new guest here and all sincere students are welcome….don’t mind Midi’s grumpiness PO….it is true his attitude and several of his positions have met with some resistance over the years.  At another forum he thought it would be appropriate to register as “Caligastia” and defend his namesake to measure the response for such a position and moniker – a sort of experiment it seems.  It didn’t go too well and his gloominess and temper got him ejected after several months.  He is an “original” thinker and offers a consistent voice that takes time to “appreciate”.  But he does cause one to think and study the text we share and often challenges the perspective of others….as you will discover!

I am pretty sure I am one of those he believes to have a closed mind and he is usually far more direct and specific in his claims about me – it seems I am now part of a group that seeks to “discredit” and be disagreeable.  I certainly don’t believe this and hope there is no truth in the accusation…but….there is much about me that needs further improvement and progress it is true.  I am described by some at another forum as a “text-fundamentalist”, which seems to be defined as one who believes that the Urantia Papers say what they say and don’t say what they don’t….hardly something I might disagree with and seems self evident to me…but there are those students who come to believe the UB is a metaphor rather than  a factual description of reality and that only a certain and keen mind can unlock the secrets, mysteries, and hidden truths buried within.  To be clear, a text-fundie does not believe it is vital or even important for any other student to “believe” the words written in the UB…only that the authors wrote what they wrote and did not write what they did not write.  Both offer adequate room for speculation and contemplation…but with some 2000 pages of what is written, there is a fair amount to discover and learn by that which is clearly written.

I hope you will feel free to join in and ask questions and begin topics and find a very sincere group of fellow students, none of whom act by another’s direction or any form of group-think or exclusion of any other sincere inquiry, opinion, or propositions for our mutual consideration.  It is always a blessing to meet another reader and another God believer who seeks to understand our source and destiny and the blessings of being another child of God in the family of creation!!  Peace be unto you…and again, welcome.

Bradly

[Bradly]

I am reminded that the purpose of the UB and that of the student body is the enhancement of the personal spiritual experience.  And that those inherent differences in each person’s perspective and experience is something to be appreciated by and considered by all other religionists…while reality and the facts regarding reality are unmoved and indifferent to our perspective and experience, those are transitory, incomplete, and to a large degree inaccurate by our limited view, time, experience, capacity, and wisdom…all of which is enlarged and expanded daily for the one who can humble themselves to this truth.  A closed mind is an unteachable mind and one whose reality is dictated by pride and prejudice we are told.  To disagree is but to recognize the individualized experience and perspective and maturity that each believer contributes to the totality of the experience of the all…and the Supreme.  Differences are a cause for both wonder and delight and the assurance of the value each of us might contribute to others.  Or so I think.

103:8.4 (1140.4) If you truly believe in God — by faith know him and love him — do not permit the reality of such an experience to be in any way lessened or detracted from by the doubting insinuations of science, the caviling of logic, the postulates of philosophy, or the clever suggestions of well-meaning souls who would create a religion without God.

103:8.5 (1140.5) The certainty of the God-knowing religionist should not be disturbed by the uncertainty of the doubting materialist; rather should the uncertainty of the unbeliever be mightily challenged by the profound faith and unshakable certainty of the experiential believer.

[Author]

Posts