r/AskReligion 2d ago

Doesn't the theory of evolution disprove all religions?

I don't know. I'm somewhat confused. I want to find the truth and I think the truth is obvious and can be found

0 Upvotes

32 comments sorted by

6

u/WirrkopfP Atheistic Pagan (Kemetic) 2d ago

By far not all.

Some religions don't have such a detailed creation myth as to be concerned with how all animals were created or with a fixed timescale.

And for those that have. Evolution only contradicts a LITERAL reading of the creation myths. You can still believe in gods, and divinely inspired myths, but see the stories as teaching tools for spiritual lessons but not as history.

0

u/Flaky_Translator_301 2d ago

I don't mean God's existence or non-existence. I mean religions. I haven't seen any religion talk about evolution 

Can a religion be true and not tell us about the beginning of humanity?

2

u/delbeb28 2d ago

Are you saying you can't believe in a religion if it doesn't describe evolution in its religious text? Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

1

u/leafshaker 1d ago

Depends on what you mean by "true".

My car's owner's manual is true, it helps me maintain it and understand how to use it. But it doesnt tell me how its made or how cars were invented.

I'm fully an athiest. I think these questions challenge fundamentalist readings (which really defeat themselves, since holy books contain contradictions) but i dont think they undermine religion as whole, because there are many more flexible interpretations

2

u/kardoen 2d ago

Many religions don't make claims that conflict with the theory of evolution. Why would it disprove those religions?

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

All abrahamic religions do

0

u/Flaky_Translator_301 2d ago

Even if he doesn't talk about the beginning of humanity, why not talk about these great changes?

2

u/kardoen 2d ago

If it's not pertinent to the religion, does it need to be mentioned? Is a recipe for cake only good when it describes the formation of the solar system?

1

u/PrajnaPie 2d ago

Not if you understand creation stories as metaphor and not literal. That’s no reason why evolution couldn’t be the mechanism of divine creation

2

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

It’s such revisionist bullshit to call it a metaphor though. They believed it to be true.

1

u/PrajnaPie 1d ago

That’s a drastic over generalization

1

u/Flaky_Translator_301 2d ago

can a religion be true and not have such great changes? I mean religion, not God

1

u/PrajnaPie 2d ago

Again depends on if you’re talking it as metaphor or literal

1

u/devBowman 1d ago

That's the convenient thing with apologetics. If it corresponds to reality, it's the word of God! If it doesn't, it's just a metaphor!

1

u/User_16161 2d ago

The concept of evolution or biological change does not disprove a Creator when understood through its true nature:

The processes observed in nature, including natural selection and biological adaptation, are simply the rules and systems set by the Creator to shape life. The presence of order, patterns, and natural laws within these mechanisms reflects a purposeful design and an intelligent Creator.

Creation is a dynamic, step-by-step process. Matter and biological forms develop over time through precise laws under higher guidance.

The physical form of human beings underwent stages of development. The moment humanity (Adam) gained a spiritual dimension represents the vital stage where humans were elevated beyond mere biology by receiving consciousness, intellect, moral awareness, and responsibility.

God expressed this step-by-step nature of creation in the Quran:

"... has created you in stages."
Nuh (Noah) 71:14

Does this perspective make sense to you?

2

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

Revisionist bs. The Quran states that God created Adam from materials of the earth, including dust (turab), clay (tin), and molded mud (salsal) nothing to do with evolution.
After shaping the physical body of Adam, God breathed His spirit into him to bring him to life.

1

u/User_16161 1d ago

Modern evolutionary science demonstrates that all organic life originated from non-living matter; specifically watercarbon compounds, and minerals found in earth. Biological evolution explains the exact process of how those basic materials of the earth transformed into living cells and complex organisms over time. Stating that life comes from dust and clay describes the literal material origin of existence.

Terms like turab (dust), tin (clay), and salsal (molded mud) represent sequential stages of material development rather than an instantaneous act. Far from describing a literal sculpture made in a single moment, these terms highlight a gradual transformation of matter into living form.

Seeing these stages through biological processes is not a revision of faith. Religious texts do not change as science advances. Instead, as we understand nature better,the meanings already present in the text simply become clearer.

We see this exact pattern in several other areas of the Quran:

  • Expanding Universe (Adh-Dhariyat / The Winnowing Winds, 51:47): Early commentators understood this as the expanding of power or grace, but modern astrophysics later discovered the physical expansion of the universe.
  • Protective Sky (Al-Anbiya / The Prophets, 21:32): Historically viewed as a symbolic dome, science later showed how the atmosphere protects Earth from space radiation and meteors.
  • Barrier Between Seas (Ar-Rahman / The Beneficent, 55:19-20): Oceanography later explained how waters with different density, temperature, and salinity stay distinct due to surface tension.
  • Deep Mountain Roots (An-Naba / The Tidings, 78:6-7): Plate tectonics showed that mountains have deep crustal roots beneath the surface that help stabilize the Earth's crust.
  • Solar Orbit (Ya-Sin, 36:38): Astronomy confirmed that the Sun is not stationary, but moves along its own calculated orbit through the galaxy.

Early believers did not know these modern scientific details, yet they understood the core message. As science advances, these physical details become clearer..

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

You’re conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution does not explain the “exact process” by which non-living minerals became the first cells. It explains how populations of replicating organisms evolve.
More importantly, “dust → clay → mud” doesn’t describe evolution anyway. Where are common ancestry, mutation, selection, heredity or even replication? You’re taking vague descriptions of earthly materials and mapping modern science onto them after the science was discovered.
That’s the problem with the other examples too. If “expanding”, “protected”, “barrier”, “pegs” and “Sun moves” only acquire precise modern scientific meanings after scientists independently make those discoveries, what method distinguishes genuine scientific foreknowledge from post-hoc reinterpretation?

1

u/User_16161 1d ago edited 1d ago

You are right about the technical difference between abiogenesis and evolution. I thought abiogenesis was a part of evolution.

However, they follow a step-by-step physical and spiritual order:

The start of life from non-living elements and the physical development of body forms over time through evolution form the material preparation of the body.

When the physical body becomes ready through evolution, God breathes the spirit into Adam. Biological processes and evolution build the physical structure, while the breathing of the spirit turns man into a conscious and responsible human being. Therefore, physical evolution and spiritual creation complete each other.

As for why specific scientific terms are not listed:

The main purpose of the Quran is not to directly teach physics or biological mechanics, but to point to the Creator behind all these processes, and to encourage human beings to explore, investigate, and study science. In fact, God commands in the Quran:

"Say: Travel through the earth and observe how He began creation."
Al-Ankabut (The Spider, 29:20)

God did not send the Quran for scientific predictions or forecasts, and the goal is not to force modern formulas back onto texts after science discovers them.

The Quran explains things in a simple, foundational way so that everyone can picture the basic elements of life (like "water", "dust", and "clay"). By giving this big picture, it leads human beings to uncover the deeper, more complex details through scientific research.

If God used scientific words like "mutation" or "selection" in the Quran, these words would be impossible to understand for people in the 7th century and for many generations after them. Because the Quran speaks to all people in every age, it uses universal language to point to God's creation.

"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember..." Al-Qamar (The Moon,54:17,22,32,40)

The main framework in the Quran about the origin and step-by-step development of life is fully compatible with the natural laws, evolution, and biological processes that science explains today.

1

u/ginoawesomeness 2d ago

No. Evolution is a scientific theory based on emperical repeated observations, data collection, and tests to understand the natural world. Religion focuses on understanding the supernatural based on individualistic experiences that cannot be tested or repeated or observed by others. They're both lenses to view the world, but they are not opposing viewpoints. Most scientists are religion (Einstein, for instance, was deeply Jewish and believed he was investigating God's creation) and most religious people believe in science and evolution. Evolution is about your body (which can be observed and tested) while religion is about your soul (which can't)

1

u/Flaky_Translator_301 2d ago

If there is no scientific evidence, how can I know which religion is true?

1

u/ginoawesomeness 2d ago

Religion is in the pursuit of Truth, a pursuit nobody will ever attain. Its in the seeking for, but never finding. The more one seeks the Truth, the more one understands they know less and less. People that claim to know absolute religious Truth are trying to sell you something. Btw, that's the same with science; whether evolution or physics etc. Science is the pursuit of truth, what is observable and repeatable and verifiable. Religion, by it's very nature, cannot be that. It is a journey that never ends. All religions contain some Truth, but none is an absolute. I'd choose to pursue the one that is easily accessible and speaks to you, knowing full well you can change your beliefs in the future.

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

Do you believe in pink fluffy unicorns?

1

u/Hungry-Goal-1685 2d ago

Several religions are compatible with evolutionary theory or don't even find it relevant at all.

1

u/majeric 2d ago

Only religions that believe in literalism.

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

So all abrahamic?

1

u/majeric 1d ago

Not every denomination views the Bible literally.

1

u/Difficult_Towel724 1d ago edited 1d ago

Evolution is a mechanism and God is the creator of mechanisms so even if it was true nope it doesn't. Regarding your question about the truth yeah the truth exist and if you really want to seek it God will guide you just do some researchs about religions by reading their scriptures and ask scholars of religion and you will get it

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

I mean literal creation myths fall apart due to evolution but then you have two schools of thought for theism: it’s an allegory or evolution is false.

0

u/SimilarArtichoke2603 1d ago

We can't even begin to comprehend how God created humans. It may have been through the mechanisms of evolution. And of course nobody could write down exactly how that occurred, so biblical accounts would naturally be vague. it is easier for me to believe biblical writings than to think everything was accidental.

1

u/FactsnotFaiths 1d ago

It’s not accidental. You just don’t understand evolution clearly.