Creation vs. Evolution

[Zoom!Zoom!]

In another words read a book written by an atheist who totally ignores the problem.

 

[dylansan]

In another words read a book written by an atheist who totally ignores the problem.

That was quite a large leap. Next time you may want to look before doing so.

 

[Touring Mars]

In another words read a book written by an atheist who totally ignores the problem.

No.

If you want to learn about science, read a book written by scientists.

Not only is Kenneth Miller qualified to author such a book (he's a scientist), he also happens to be a Christian - not that that is especially relevant, even though you and many others seem convinced that a proper understanding of evolution is the sole preserve of atheists.

As for 'ignoring the problem', you couldn't be more wrong. Ken Miller has devoted much of his valuable time dealing directly with the issues of teaching evolution and creationism - he's even written a book on the subject. Other scientists have similarly devoted much time and effort in addressing the issue - far from ignoring it, many have done out of their way to deal with it. But, there does come a point where you have to delineate what should and what shouldn't be in a science textbook - if you want to learn about the creationist "controversy", read a book specifically written about it (like Ken Miller's "Only A Theory", or "God, The Devil and Darwin" by Niall Shanks), but do not expect to find the subject covered in a book called "Biology". If, on the other hand, you wish to learn something about evolution, read a biology textbook written by a biologist. Simple.

 

[PeterJB]

The only issue I have with Evolution is when in text books it concludes by saying something along the lines of 'This is therefore conclusive evidence that there is no God'. Seeing as how Evolution does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life. We shouldn't put the Christianity into the theory, we should take the Atheism out.

 

[TheCracker]

Never seen a text book on evolution that even mentions God. It's irrelevant. Why would it?

Can you share with us any examples of these text books?

 

[homeforsummer]

The only issue I have with Evolution is when in text books it concludes by saying something along the lines of 'This is therefore conclusive evidence that there is no God'.

I've never, ever read a text book on evolution that states such a thing.

Sounds more like religious paranoia to me.

 

[Famine]

The only issue I have with Evolution is when in text books it concludes by saying something along the lines of 'This is therefore conclusive evidence that there is no God'. Seeing as how Evolution does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life. We shouldn't put the Christianity into the theory, we should take the Atheism out.

Atheism is the absence of belief in any god. Nontheism is the belief in no god. What you're talking about is nontheism, not atheism.

Theism has no place in any discussion of evolution. There should be no need to invoke the existence of or the nonexistence of any gods. Atheism is apt. Neither nontheism nor any specific religion is apt.


Even if you could demonstrate an example of a scientific text book on evolution which says "This proves that there is no God", which is moronic.

 

[BobK]

The only issue I have with Evolution is when in text books it concludes by saying something along the lines of 'This is therefore conclusive evidence that there is no God'.

Ah, so you have no issue with the theory of evolution, then. Unless you can actually cite a textbook that actually, seriously, makes that claim.

Seeing as how Evolution does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life.

Bookkeeping does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life, either. So you consider bookkeeping to be equally invalid?

The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. Why must that be repeatedly pointed out to the theists in this thread?

 

[Luminis]

Some people seem unable to accept "we don't know" as an answer, so they make up all kinds of fantastic things. This is a big part of how religions came to be originally.

An old post, I know, but I found this to be quite interesting.

Did you guys know that, in the old norse mythology, religion is used to explain why cats sneak so well, women have no beards, fish don't breathe and so on? Because all of that (sounds of a car steps, women's beards, the breath of fish as well as some other stuff) was used to forge Gleipnir, a chain that was supposed to shackle down Fenrir.

Personally, I think creationism is pretty much the same thing. We don't have a definite answer for how the world came to be, so someone conjured up the next best thing. The more science advances, the less important it becomes, though.

I mean, really, a few hundred years ago, people believed that thunder was created by angry gods. Imagin how stupid such a claim would look now. Give science another few hundred years and think about how the claim "a god created the universe" might look by then.

 

[TankAss95]

Atheism is the absence of belief in any god. Nontheism is the belief in no god. What you're talking about is nontheism, not atheism.

I'm not trying to split hairs or anything here, but I think atheism (capital A?) has and is used in quite a malleable manner.

To explain, look at the word "Universe". Some sources describe the "Universe" as everything that exists, while other sources describe the "Universe" as all of matter/space/time. This malleability of terms can lead to confusion when theoretical physicists talk about different, or multiple universes.

Now it seems to be that when using the word "atheism" the person should clearly define what he/she affirms in the same way as one would describe what he/she means by "universe". Look at some definitions I found by a quick search on Google:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
Atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
Atheism: the theory or belief that God does not exist.

There is a crucial difference from saying "I do not believe that A exists" and "I believe that A does not exist". People who hold one of the two of these stances in attitude to the existence of a deity typically refer to themselves as being "atheists".

I used to think that atheism is the view that the existence of a deity does not exist or is highly improbable to exist. Please look at this article:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/definition-of-atheism

Because of this confusion I prefer it when people talk about their "worldview(s)" (naturalism, verificationism, etc.) to avoid "neutral positions" and invoke more efficient discussion.

Sorry if this is a little of topic. Criticism welcomed.

 

[PeterJB]

Atheism is the absence of belief in any god. Nontheism is the belief in no god. What you're talking about is nontheism, not atheism.

Theism has no place in any discussion of evolution. There should be no need to invoke the existence of or the nonexistence of any gods. Atheism is apt. Neither nontheism nor any specific religion is apt.


Even if you could demonstrate an example of a scientific text book on evolution which says "This proves that there is no God", which is moronic.

My quote was basically an example of stories I've heard, it isn't a word for word accurate quote from a specific text book. I was referring to both non-theism and atheism. Personally I was taught neither evolution nor creationism at school, but I've been told by other people or seeing things like that before.

Ah, so you have no issue with the theory of evolution, then. Unless you can actually cite a textbook that actually, seriously, makes that claim.

Bookkeeping does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life, either. So you consider bookkeeping to be equally invalid?

The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. Why must that be repeatedly pointed out to the theists in this thread?

Because people like Richard Dawkins seem to see Darwinism as justification for God's non-existence. It's always told that Darwin lost faith because of his revolutionary theory, but it had more to do with turbulence in his personal life (such as his daughter dying).

 

[BobK]

Bookkeeping does absolutely nothing to explain the origins of life, either. So you consider bookkeeping to be equally invalid?

The Theory of Evolution does not concern itself with the origins of life. Why must that be repeatedly pointed out to the theists in this thread?

Because people like Richard Dawkins seem to see Darwinism as justification for God's non-existence. It's always told that Darwin lost faith because of his revolutionary theory, but it had more to do with turbulence in his personal life (such as his daughter dying).

So let me see if I understand your response correctly.

You somehow consider bookkeeping invalid because of Richard Dawkins?

Or is Dawkins somehow responsible for the fact that we have to keep repeating to theists that the ToE has nothing to do with the actual origins of life? Is he perhaps constantly tapping you on the shoulder or otherwise distracting you while you're reading yet another post telling you that the ToE does not concern itself with the origins of life?

 

[PeterJB]

So let me see if I understand your response correctly.

You somehow consider bookkeeping invalid because of Richard Dawkins?

Or is Dawkins somehow responsible for the fact that we have to keep repeating to theists that the ToE has nothing to do with the actual origins of life? Is he perhaps constantly tapping you on the shoulder or otherwise distracting you while you're reading yet another post telling you that the ToE does not concern itself with the origins of life?

What does bookkeeping have to do with it?

Dawkins has said that Darwinism was what lead him away from religion, and it has lead a lot of people away. I could probably understand it if did explain the origins of life, but it doesn't. Dawkins often talks as if it does, or rather that it will eventually.

The internet not the only place where I discuss these topics, and I have heard people before say that evolution is justification for God not existing.

 

[Luminis]

What does bookkeeping have to do with it?

Dawkins has said that Darwinism was what lead him away from religion, and it has lead a lot of people away. I could probably understand it if did explain the origins of life, but it doesn't.

Why would it have to concern with the origin of live to do so? For a lot of people, religion is just what the church is telling them to believe in, not just the belive in god in and off itself.

Now, the ToE kinda contradicts what's written in the bible as in that the earth wasn't created in seven days and in that men weren't shaped after a certain creator. That contradiction would probably be enough to drive people away from religion - especially given how some religious folk react to stuff like that.

 

[Exorcet]

Dawkins has said that Darwinism was what lead him away from religion, and it has lead a lot of people away. I could probably understand it if did explain the origins of life, but it doesn't. Dawkins often talks as if it does, or rather that it will eventually.

Well, it does smash creation myth for the most part. I suppose you could have a few reactions upon realizing that fact

1. The Bible is true, but not [even close to] literal
2. The Bible was written by people with limited understanding of nature, and as a result human ignorance is mixed in with the divine messages
3. The Bible was written by people with limited understanding of nature, and their religion is probably made up

To me 3 seems like a very good choice when you consider things beyond evolution as well.

 

[PeterJB]

Why would it have to concern with the origin of live to do so? For a lot of people, religion is just what the church is telling them to believe in, not just the belive in god in and off itself.

Now, the ToE kinda contradicts what's written in the bible as in that the earth wasn't created in seven days and in that men weren't shaped after a certain creator. That contradiction would probably be enough to drive people away from religion - especially given how some religious folk react to stuff like that.

Thankfully most of us don't react that way. The fixation on the Genesis account of creation, from both Atheists and Fundamentalists does annoy me, because really it's Jesus' ministry which should be the central focus of Christianity, not how God created everything.

 

[Touring Mars]

While evolution theory doesn't and need not concern itself over the origin of life for it to remain meaningful in its own right and by its own merits, it (somewhat unfortunately) is highly relevant to the origin of life debate, not least because of what evolution implies, but also because of what the evidence that makes up the theory of evolution refutes i.e. the alternate version of events as described in the bible and in other religious/pre-scientific texts.

But, as I have always argued, this is not a flaw with science or with evolution theory, as much as it is a flaw in the texts that claimed to know the origin of species long before science attempted to answer the question properly. Obviously, most Christians have no problem with incorporating the scientific reality of evolution into their lives, and can do so without causing too much conflict with their more deeply-held religious beliefs. Dawkins happens to be both an accomplished and extremely learned scholar on the topic of evolutionary biology, but is also a militant atheist - but not all evolutionary biologists share his views on religion - and Dawkins has done well to keep the two things largely separate e.g. rather than going on an anti-religious rant in his books about evolution, he wrote 'The God Delusion' instead - but one can read his other books without fear of having one's religious views particularly challenged - unless one's religious views include a denial of the reality of evolution that is...

 

[Luminis]

Thankfully most of us don't react that way. The fixation on the Genesis account of creation, from both Atheists and Fundamentalists does annoy me, because really it's Jesus' ministry which should be the central focus of Christianity, not how God created everything.

I absolutely agree with that.

However, that also means that today's people are starting to weed out the parts of the bible that are - seemingly, I might add - not exactly contributing to the belivability of the content of said book. So, if today's people can freely select which parts of the bible are valid and should be a base for christianity, doesn't that somewhat invalidate the idea of basing it on that book, in the first place?

Because, in my opinion, it implies that parts of the book can be ignored/are false - but at the same time, people claim that the other parts are true and important. How could something that mere mortals are meddlign with that much still be the transcript of Jesus' deeds?

tl;dr: How can I believe in something when people are going about telling me "Yeah, scratch that, it's not important anymore now that it's been debunked. But the rest is true, dude!"

 

[TheCracker]

I absolutely agree with that.

However, that also means that today's people are starting to weed out the parts of the bible that are - seemingly, I might add - not exactly contributing to the belivability of the content of said book. So, if today's people can freely select which parts of the bible are valid and should be a base for christianity, doesn't that somewhat invalidate the idea of basing it on that book, in the first place?

Because, in my opinion, it implies that parts of the book can be ignored/are false - but at the same time, people claim that the other parts are true and important. How could something that mere mortals are meddlign with that much still be the transcript of Jesus' deeds?

tl;dr: How can I believe in something when people are going about telling me "Yeah, scratch that, it's not important anymore now that it's been debunked. But the rest is true, dude!"

QFT 👍

You either follow it all or dispute it all. You don't get to pick and choose which bits to believe, otherwise the teachings your religion is based on become a fallacy.

 

[PeterJB]

I absolutely agree with that.

However, that also means that today's people are starting to weed out the parts of the bible that are - seemingly, I might add - not exactly contributing to the belivability of the content of said book. So, if today's people can freely select which parts of the bible are valid and should be a base for christianity, doesn't that somewhat invalidate the idea of basing it on that book, in the first place?

Because, in my opinion, it implies that parts of the book can be ignored/are false - but at the same time, people claim that the other parts are true and important. How could something that mere mortals are meddlign with that much still be the transcript of Jesus' deeds?

tl;dr: How can I believe in something when people are going about telling me "Yeah, scratch that, it's not important anymore now that it's been debunked. But the rest is true, dude!"

Jesus' ministry is the most important part of the Bible. If I was to fixate on the scientific points in Old Testament, or the Jewish law in Leviticus, and completely ignored the Gospels, I could hardly be considered a Christian.

Correcting scientific mistakes in the Bible should really effect the meaning of it, as with many stories (Such as Noah's Ark, and the good Samaritan), it's the meaning of the events that matter rather than whether they were literally true. I for one do not believe that God flooded the entire planet, or that two of every single species were on what was a quite a small ship. At the time, the world to them would have been the middle east, and two of every creature would have been two of every creature known to them. I know also that some fundamentalists believe that there were 14 billion humans before the flood, which has very little basis.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

Thankfully most of us don't react that way. The fixation on the Genesis account of creation, from both Atheists and Fundamentalists does annoy me, because really it's Jesus' ministry which should be the central focus of Christianity, not how God created everything.

The focus tends to be on God's existence and creation of the universe because that is a greater point of debate than Jesus' ministry. The existence of Jesus and his teachings is not an argument against the theory of evolution, so Atheists would tend not to focus on this point.

 

[USARMYCOMBATVET]

The focus tends to be on God's existence and creation of the universe because that is a greater point of debate than Jesus' ministry. The existence of Jesus and his teachings is not an argument against the theory of evolution, so Atheists would tend not to focus on this point.

Unless, one believes that Jesus is the son of God and part of the Trinity(Father, Son and the Holy Spirit). In that case, they would argue their belief based on Jesus/God's existence and therefore relevant to the debate in their eyes.

 

[Luminis]

Jesus' ministry is the most important part of the Bible. If I was to fixate on the scientific points in Old Testament, or the Jewish law in Leviticus, and completely ignored the Gospels, I could hardly be considered a Christian.

Correcting scientific mistakes in the Bible should really effect the meaning of it, as with many stories (Such as Noah's Ark, and the good Samaritan), it's the meaning of the events that matter rather than whether they were literally true. I for one do not believe that God flooded the entire planet, or that two of every single species were on what was a quite a small ship. At the time, the world to them would have been the middle east, and two of every creature would have been two of every creature known to them. I know also that some fundamentalists believe that there were 14 billion humans before the flood, which has very little basis.

So, what you're saying is that a lot of what's written in the bible is nothing but metaphors, but someone's decided that Jesus isn't. And that's what you're basing your christianity on - the deliberate decision that Noah's ark was a metaphor, but Jesus's ministry wasn't.

And that is why I couldn't ever be part of a religion that bases itself on something it partially dismisses itself.

 

[Famine]

I'm not trying to split hairs or anything here, but I think atheism (capital A?) has and is used in quite a malleable manner.

Indeed, and children say that something that is good is "sick".

The origin of the word is quite specific. "A-" is the Greek prefix meaning "absence of". "Theos" means "Deity", but "theism" specifically is a philosophy which deals with the belief in deities. "A"theism is an absence of belief in deities, not an active belief in no deities - which is "nontheism".

My quote was basically an example of stories I've heard, it isn't a word for word accurate quote from a specific text book. I was referring to both non-theism and atheism. Personally I was taught neither evolution nor creationism at school, but I've been told by other people or seeing things like that before.

Evolutionary theory is covered in years 6, 8 and 9 in science in English schools. If you attended one, you were taught evolutionary theory.


Citing stories we've heard as examples of things is intensely unhelpful - imagine if someone said "I have no problem with Christians until they try and rape children"... Books covering evolutionary theory do not contain the phrase "this is proof that God does not exist" or anything like it. The person that told you this is a liar - and liars lie to promote an agenda.

Because people like Richard Dawkins seem to see Darwinism as justification for God's non-existence.

It's a justification for the allegorical, non-literal nature of the Old Testament and it's a justification for distrusting any group that promotes the Garden of Eden part of the Creation myth as factual. This includes the Catholic Church.

 

[Keef]

The origin of the word is quite specific. "A-" is the Greek prefix meaning "absence of". "Theos" means "Deity", but "theism" specifically is a philosophy which deals with the belief in deities. "A"theism is an absence of belief in deities, not an active belief in no deities - which is "nontheism".

Oh pssh, now you're just arguing semantics, not like it's what gives language meaning or anything!

 

[BobK]

What does bookkeeping have to do with it?

I was wondering that myself, actually.

Dawkins has said that Darwinism was what lead him away from religion, and it has lead a lot of people away. I could probably understand it if did explain the origins of life, but it doesn't. Dawkins often talks as if it does, or rather that it will eventually.

First of all, are we talking about the modern Theory of Evolution, or Darwinism? Secondly, there's a big difference between being led away from religion and textbooks stating flatly that the Theory of Evolution disproves the existence of God.

 

[DK]

Dawkins happens to be both an accomplished and extremely learned scholar on the topic of evolutionary biology, but is also a militant atheist

I wouldn't really classify Dawkins as a "militant atheist". AFAIK, he hasn't started an atheist army in a military sense. I wouldn't call Rick Santorum a "militant Catholic". Maybe "extreme/fundamentalist Catholic" would suit him better.

Of course, I might be comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[Touring Mars]

"militant atheist"

That was a direct quote from Dawkins himself (from here)

 

[DK]

That was a direct quote from Dawkins himself (from here)

I derp'd bad, didn't I?

 

[homeforsummer]

The trouble with militant atheism is that it involves too much work.

The whole point of atheism is not really giving a toss about the existence of God, so actively going about explaining it to everyone seems a bit like hard work to me...