Jump to content

Is U2 Pro-Evolution?


Recommended Posts

Show Proof that there is no God, when there is proof of him all over, all around us, and it is just as easy as Christ said, "ask and you shall receive,seek and you shall find, knock and it s hall be open unto you. Scientiest are humans like the rest of us, there are some humans which are in higher realms, orawaken. There exist one man, who mostly loved and adored, and he has demonstrated that some humans are not exactly alone down here. That God fulfills hispurpose thru one who has his grace. I believe in evolution, but in evolution of the soul only, only the state of the soul here and beyond can prove whetherthere is a God or not. I know there is a God, true faith leads us to him, once we find him, we have but one purpose, to please him in all we do, the state ofour souls is the most important matter. All else is secondary. Evolution of the souls, ascention. We have a man who is a light, a guide. I will not say hisname, but he knows who he is, him, I always seek thru space and time. He is always a pleasure to love and a pleasure to seek.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes they are tottaly Pro-Evolution. Mainly Larry. Me too!!! Pro Evolution Soccer! I'm play it every single day.

 

But seriously, evolution is only a scientific "THEORY" which so far not been proven, however, has found evidence that it is just a theory. I do notbelieve that U2 is pro-evolution. I think they used this idea in Wild Honey of a poetic form. The Pop-Apes at the Pop Mart was a joke or a criticism that anenvolved man is the consumer man. If you are not a consumer you are at most a chimpanzee. In Stand Up Comedy, I understand that the part of the music "Godis love and love is evolution's very best day" has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

Tracy M wrote:

Kristaps wrote:

Does it really matter what they think about this question?

Um, yeah, it would matter for some of us who believe that much of U2's music espouses a Christian world-view, with which evolution theory would be wholly inconsistent.

 

I would agree with Kristaps that my U2-fandom need not depend on their agreement with everything I believe. I also want to point out as others have that manyChristians do not see evolution as being in any way incompatible with their worldview. There's a great new website devoted to this issue at a scholarlylevel, and I'd recommend you check it out.

 

http://biologos.org/

 

Most interesting is that many believers in history did not view Genesis as a literal accounting of the creation of the world, even before Darwin, includingleading theologians like Augustine. As he wrote in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis:

 

"Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding. … Thenarrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children... In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find inHoly Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should notrush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall withit. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wishours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

zootrabant wrote:

Yes they are tottaly Pro-Evolution. Mainly Larry. Me too!!! Pro Evolution Soccer! I'm play it every single day.

 

But seriously, evolution is only a scientific "THEORY" which so far not been proven, however, has found evidence that it is just a theory. "

 

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

 

"Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as theEarth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explainsthe point.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probabilityof the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt aboutit and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[3]

The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested orobserved so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact.Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.[17]

Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend onassumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.

 

Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. The "theory of evolution" is the framework that best explainsobserved changes of species over time and best predicts the new observations that continue to be made in evolutionary biology and related sciences.

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean aconjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is morerigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. Thatis, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or atleast does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observationscontradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, thefalsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based."

Link to post
Share on other sites

zootrabant wrote:

But seriously, evolution is only a scientific "THEORY" which so far not been proven, however, has found evidence that it is just a theory.

 

Sorry, but you're playing fast 'n' loose with definitions here. In everyday language, words like "hypothesis" and "theory" gettossed around, roughly meaning "an educated guess." As in something likely, but unproven; e.g., you come home and your roommate is on the floor,unconscious, surrounded by empty beer bottles, so a likely little "hypothesis" or "theory" in this situation would be: Somebody drank too much! But unless you can get a full confession from the roomie--or administer a breathalyzer test--you'veno proof (pun intended) that your roomie drank too much, just that he was observed passed out on the floor, surrounded by empty beer bottles.

 

But in science talk, a theory is not just guesswork, but a hypothesis that has not been falsified. (And apologiesto the super-science geeks out there; I know I'm guilty of oversimplification here.) In other words, a scientist works up a good hypothesis aboutsomething--like, say, Einstein and his Theory of Relativity--and suddenly, it's field day for scientists everywhere to vet and check and test and generallytry to beat the theoretical snot out of the thing. If the hypothesis stands up to all that thrashing, it becomes a "theory." So, in the scienceworld, a theory is actually pretty tough stuff--it's been put through the mill by some of the biggest brains on the planet.

 

In everyday lingo, people also sometimes use "theory" when they really mean "opinion." Opinions can, like scientific study, be influencedby observation, testing, study and experiences, but the terms really aren't interchangeable. Newton probably had plenty of personal opinions, but we learnabout his Theory of Gravity, not Newton's Opinion of Gravity.

 

-- eaplatt

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

"We refute the belief that man is just a higher stage of animal, that he has no spirit. I think when people start believing that, the real respect forhumanity is gone. You are just a cog in a wheel, another collection of molecules. That's half the reason for a lot of the pessimism in the world."-(Bono: In His Own Words)

 

"I'm frightened, but I'm not cynical or pessimistic about the future and a lot of that must come down to my beliefs. It is my belief in God thatenables me to get up in the morning and face the world. I believe that there is a logic and a reason for everything. If I didn't believe that and thoughtthat everything was simply down to chance, then I'd really be afraid. I wouldn't cross the road for fear of being run over."(Bono: In His OwnWords)

 

I can't remember where I read it, but I read a quote from Edge that he feels a lot of people believe in evolution on a superficial level, but not reallydeep down. Was from the early 80's, but I can't find the article. I'm too tired to go digging through atu2.com's archives.

 

I suppose if you have the chance to meet any of them, you can ask them for yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy M wrote:

As far as my stand on genetic engineering of the human body, well, it's really the same a my stand on abortion, and of course there are many who would disagree with me on that as well. For believers, these compelling societal questions have to be viewed in Biblical context, and that is that God is the giver and taker of life - so therefore, genetic mutation, cloning, abortion and assisted suicide are all contrary to God's laws. At the same time, I do not believe that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals (now that's fanatical!) If that were the case, then AIDS would be confined to that community - but it is not. There is a reason for it, but we may not fully know or understand that reason until Jesus returns. I do think that to some degree, this scourage is to be the catalyst to bring the churches together and get rid of the stupid divisions between them so that people learn tolerance and how to work together.

 

Hmmm, well, that does pose an interesting theological question--because I'm old enough to recall when it was indeed the common opinion amongstfundamentalist Christians that AIDS was "God's punishment" against homosexuals. I've lived in San Francisco since 1980, so have seen thehistory of the what we now know as HIV/AIDS unfold since the very beginning, when the local papers first reported on number of baffling "gay cancer"cases that kept turning up at local hospitals. The "God's wrath/punishment" opinion was treated as absolute dogma by most fundamentalists, whowere also (not coincidentally) crusading against evolution, gender equality, environmentalism, separation of church and state, and so on--the whole"culture wars" agenda.

 

Now, back in the day, some of us noted that lesbians had a very low risk of ever contracting HIV, so, by the logic of the fundamentalists, God must reallyreally like lesbians! wink.gif On a more serious note, others warned thatwhatever it was that caused AIDS (this back even before HIV was identified) could be spread by and to heterosexuals, too. The fundamentalists shrugged thisoff, claiming that anyone who got AIDS must have sinned, so they were just getting what was coming to them. By the way, Christian fundamentalists wielded alot of political clout, especially back in the Reagan era, when AIDS first emerged in the US, and they actively campaigned against education, treatment, andcare for anyone who was either HIV+ or at risk. In other words, a lot of people died because of thosefundamentalists.

 

So now it seems that some fundamentalists are backing off from what was once widely promoted as The Word of God. Nice to see some folks actually...evolve, ifjust a bit slower than the rest of us. But how can this be? It was the inerrant interpretation of scripture and God's laws/words that presumably guidedthe hate campaigns against HIV+ patients in the first two decades of the AIDS epidemic. Did God's word change only when the fundamentalists realized whatwas happening with AIDS in Africa? Is it no longer "God's punishment" when a majority of AIDS patients worldwide are in fact heterosexual? Does God's eternal word actually change--in other words, evolve--upon learning new facts, making new observations?

 

Or maybe they just realized that they lost that battle on the cultural field of war, and rather than admit that they were wrong, have moved on to otherbattles, e.g., opposition to same-sex marriage, or pushing "creation science" on public schools.

 

Back even before I moved to SF, and I met plenty of people who claimed the Bible endorsed slavery, racism, misogyny, killing gays and lesbians, hating otherreligions (especially Jews), trashing the environment, imperialism, censorship, the death penalty, war, and just about every other bit of social ugliness youcould imagine. All the unchanging, inerrant Word of God.

 

Actually, it was all just some very human (and thus very flawed) interpretations of scripture.

 

-- eaplatt

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Subscriber

RealmawakeRosa
wrote:

Show Proof that there is no God, when there is proof of him all over, all around us, and it is just as easy as Christ said, "ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it s hall be open unto you.

Belief is not something that has to be proven right or wrong.

 

Yet, if you are so keen to ask us the proof, please presnt your own proof of his existance After all, "there is proof of him all over".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it absolutely horrible that there are some people who are so arrogant as to presume that humans are the only life forms with "spirit." Howugly, how cruel, how blind, and how tragic for every other life form. To proscribe a universe that is spiritually dead and unintelligent with the exception ofhuman company--how awful, how terrible, how unethical, how devoid of magic and beauty--how barren.

 

And how overly complimentary to one's own species!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...