As we have "evolved", we have abandoned past practices and beliefs, like in nature, when a species evolves to something different. And as in nature, the goodness or badness of that evolution is likely the only thing debatable about evolution.

Would we not evolve faster if we used our God-given curiosity, intellect, deductive reasoning, logic and intuition to its fullest to explore, and learn and grow as perhaps was intended of us by the Creator???

Would that not require considerable humility and acceptance of responsibility? Would that not require us to be able to say "I am wrong"... "We are wrong"?
But ego does not let loose its grip that easily does it?

What if, TUB, complicated and complex as it is, is but a overly-simplified soon-to-be mythology somewhere down the road? What if elements within it are contextually incorrect? What if it is no more progressive than natives believeing in moon or volcano gods? After all, we don't know what we don't know. Maybe we need to evovle to even begin to understand TUB's truths?

Evolution does not exclude divine origin nor does faith-based belief systems necessarily remain juxtaposed to science. What must remain in either system is an open-mind and a willingness to say "Wow, I was wrong! and move on."

There is much that appeals to me about TUB but I have great difficulty seeing that a patriarchal deity, administering a pyramidal hierachical system of governance using martial terms of reference is an evolved or ascended model. It is in fact, very much like human-centric models of governance.
And we know what patriarchal martial-orientated language, empire, and do-as-I-say governance has wrought upon humanity. Look around.

Ironically, many aboriginal cultures who knew not of TUB or Judeo-Christian systems or hierarchical structures of governance, actually lived much more democratic and civil and humane lives overall, utilizing the consensus-committee method of collective self-governance. It wasn't perfect by any means of ocurse but of note is that those who came to their shores espousing the patriarchal god, dominion over others, hierarchical governance, spared no time nor resource in eliminating the aboriginal methods with impunity with bible in one hand and sword in the other.

Who was the more spiritually evolved entity in that scenario, the primitive natives or the "civilized" martial invaders??

In open-mindednes, one could also readily allow that if there is even one other world "out there" that there could be trillions of worlds, that if there is even one other dimension, there could be millions of dimensions, that if god exists, that she may have her own god or gods.
"Heresy !!! Blasphemer!" They shout in unison! "Burn the heretic!" LOL

But my point is that how we see ourselves affects/limits how we think, what we can or cannot readily accept, how we treat others, this planet, how and why we form any beliefs at all! The more that one allows for the divine to be, well... divine, the more humble we must become and therefore more openminded. But we put god in a box and assign him humancentric foibles and then exclaim that "No.... God made us in His image" even going so far as portraying Jesus as Caucasian instead of more middle eastern or African!!! Convenient to the powers that be isn't it?

How can we evolve if our minds, be they of matter or non-matter, plateau within dogmatic, scientific, theological parameters which are almost always constrained by ego?? How can one sail from port with one rope tied to the dock? How can we ascend to greater heights while grounded on a plateau of human-centrism?

More important than debating evolution, to me, is that we evolve spiritually and intellectually. If we are more than our physical bodies then our psyches are also more than scientific or theological.
And if over the millenia, we have arisen over lesser evolved thought/belief systems, we can and should readily expect and embrace that we, in our search for God need all the gifts God gave us for that pilgrimage. Should we not awaken every day in awe? Should we not embrace science as readily as faith?

Science has proven itself correct and incorrect throughout the ages, and we see that in the realm of faith-based systems. Ironically, we see "faithers" using scientific proof for their faith-based claims, but won't accept scientific proof that run against their faiths. Can you have it both ways?
I am believing more and more that language has divided the realm of knowledge into exclusive camps but that the words of either camp may be in fact symbolic of a uniting truth. Only our egos know for sure ;)

And now..... I shall await the Grand Inquisitor's arrival and I pray he is more highly evolved for then I can expect more compassionate punishment for my heretical claims ! LOL

PS - I will assert these things with some certainty, ....my own ignorance, fallibility, inability to write succinctly and my desire to evolve.