Any ideas on why some people lend so much meaning to the Theory of Evolution?

[LuisDantas]

I have seen people use evolutionary evidence to point out how unlikely it is that living beings were consciously designed. But there are others who seem to actually believe that somehow the "belief in evolution" is a significant component in the very existence of atheism.

That does not make a lot of sense and betrays a poor understanding of atheism, as well as of Evolution.

Some go so far as to assume that Evolution is an actual ideology. One that not only somehow "demands atheism" or "denies God" but also one that it extends not only to the origin of life but also to the origin of existence itself.

Such a view, of course, is quite unconnected to reality, among other reasons because it generalizes atheism to an entirely fictional degree and also because it expects atheists to be actual worshippers of evolution as an idea.

In reality, Evolution is simply a biological mechanism, and one that has been not only well understood and documented, but also applied to widespread and lucrative purposes.

Logically, there is little sense in proselitizers of theism bothering to attempt to "refute" evolution. It is about as reasonable as discussing "belief" in sexual reproduction, thermodynamics, the water cycle, electromagnetism or gravity. Yet the mistake just won't die.

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

 

[Laika]

I have seen people use evolutionary evidence to point out how unlikely it is that living beings were consciously designed. But there are others who seem to actually believe that somehow the "belief in evolution" is a significant component in the very existence of atheism.

That does not make a lot of sense and betrays a poor understanding of atheism, as well as of Evolution.

Some go so far as to assume that Evolution is an actual ideology. One that not only somehow "demands atheism" or "denies God" but also one that it extends not only to the origin of life but also to the origin of existence itself.

Such a view, of course, is quite unconnected to reality, among other reasons because it generalizes atheism to an entirely fictional degree and also because it expects atheists to be actual worshippers of evolution as an idea.

In reality, Evolution is simply a biological mechanism, and one that has been not only well understood and documented, but also applied to widespread and lucrative purposes.

Logically, there is little sense in proselitizers of theism bothering to attempt to "refute" evolution. It is about as reasonable as discussing "belief" in sexual reproduction, thermodynamics, the water cycle, electromagnetism or gravity. Yet the mistake just won't die.

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

This is a crucial difference between varieties of atheism. Agnostic atheism, as a lack of belief in God, treats the concept of God in isolation. Gnostic Atheism does not. [edit: rejecting the existence of God means rejecting God as an explanation for natural and social phenomena.] However you define it or whatever terminology you use- the difference exists.

Like Fredrich Nietzsche's view of ethics, the "death of God" has cascading effects on an entire worldview. The belief in an abrahamic deity, particularly Christian, is of a creator. For thousands of years, all "creation" was explained in reference to the creator; so God created the world, the universe and everything in it. God WAS the source of knowledge of creation as the creator.

Evolution fundamentally challenged the Christian concept of creation recorded in Genesis, leading to a crisis of faith as science and religion were shown- in this instance- to be in conflict. This showed clearly that the bible could not be treated as a scientific text.

Moreover, when evolutionary principles are applied to society the concept of an entirely naturalistic society whether it is organised around cooperation or competition by "survival of the fittest" challenges the validity of Christian morality both as a "true" conception of man and his nature.

The application of evolution as a biological concept is challenged on the grounds that it does not fit within conventional scientific methodology as a form of scientism. It has also been challenged on its moral consequences in Nazism and- to a lesser extent- Communism to the concept of universal human rights (an ideas whose origins are rooted in Christian natural law).

Whilst the issue may not be of relevance to the sceptics who criticise the basis for religious belief, it is very relevant to the materialists in seeking to develop a wholly naturalistic understanding of the world (I.e. A consistent atheist worldview- with all its scientific and moral implications).

Evolution is an area which is very relevant to discussions regarding materialistic varieties of atheism (gnostic atheism) but not sceptical and more agnostic varieties of atheism. Evolution, as part of a materialist worldview represents a serious challenge to religious morality because it reduces human beings to soulless animals without intrinsic values or rights "endowed by their creator". That does not happen with the agnostic-sceptic viewpoint which continue to believe in an objective morality based on natural law and "human nature".

However, given the hostility and intellectual defeat of materialism in the past century this issue is already as "closed" as it will ever be because one side of the argument is virtually always missing from the discussion and that agnostic atheists have a virtual monopoly on defining atheism, it's beliefs and history.

I doubt we will reach agreement on this and I will be happy to agree to differ. It may be at least helpful to know why it is so important for others even if you do not accept that viewpoint. The existence of this issue however is "necessary" from both extreme theist and extreme atheist positions over the consequences of gods non-existence both scientifically and morally. However, it does not apply so much to much more liberal and moderate varieties of atheism and theism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Uh, evolution has no moral consequences. It is a biological idea.

 

[Laika]

Uh, evolution has no moral consequences. It is a biological idea.

If man is ONLY biology as part of evolution- man has no soul. If man has no soul that affects virtually all conceptions of morality previously derived from it.

 

[rusra02]

I have seen people use evolutionary evidence to point out how unlikely it is that living beings were consciously designed. But there are others who seem to actually believe that somehow the "belief in evolution" is a significant component in the very existence of atheism.

That does not make a lot of sense and betrays a poor understanding of atheism, as well as of Evolution.

Some go so far as to assume that Evolution is an actual ideology. One that not only somehow "demands atheism" or "denies God" but also one that it extends not only to the origin of life but also to the origin of existence itself.

Such a view, of course, is quite unconnected to reality, among other reasons because it generalizes atheism to an entirely fictional degree and also because it expects atheists to be actual worshippers of evolution as an idea.

In reality, Evolution is simply a biological mechanism, and one that has been not only well understood and documented, but also applied to widespread and lucrative purposes.

Logically, there is little sense in proselitizers of theism bothering to attempt to "refute" evolution. It is about as reasonable as discussing "belief" in sexual reproduction, thermodynamics, the water cycle, electromagnetism or gravity. Yet the mistake just won't die.

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

Many intelligent people, including biologists and other scientists, strongly disagree with you that there is " little sense...bothering to "refute evolution." Professor Michael Behe, for example, wrote regarding evolution; "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” I believe evolution supporters have tried mightily to quell any dissent from their theory, and have failed. In fact, it seems the voices of dissent grow louder.

 

[McBell]

Many intelligent people, including biologists and other scientists, strongly disagree with you that there is " little sense...bothering to "refute evolution." Professor Michael Behe, for example, wrote regarding evolution; "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” I believe evolution supporters have tried mightily to quell any dissent from their theory, and have failed. In fact, it seems the voices of dissent grow louder.

*yawn*
You really need a new song and dance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have seen people use evolutionary evidence to point out how unlikely it is that living beings were consciously designed. But there are others who seem to actually believe that somehow the "belief in evolution" is a significant component in the very existence of atheism.

I think this is mostly the result of activism in churches by paid ministers/imams/priests who won't support anything that brings change to their stable church arrangements and income. In churches without paid ministers the same activism can by created by missionary groups and speaker sponsorship arrangements.

Logically, there is little sense in proselitizers of theism bothering to attempt to "refute" evolution. It is about as reasonable as discussing "belief" in sexual reproduction, thermodynamics, the water cycle, electromagnetism or gravity. Yet the mistake just won't die.

Give it time. Its a very new concept, but there are two obstacles. 1. slander of science and scientists 2. illiteracy

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

Yes. Opposition to evolution thrives upon creating an artificial division between theists and science. Its an attack on theism as well as atheism, so theists need to do a better job of relating that. I recall feeling conflicted about learning about Science because I lived under the shadow of people telling me that it was an attack on my faith, when actually they were attacking my faith by involving me in a false argument. In my high school biology, chemistry and physics classes I tried to stick up for creationism. This was not good for my education or my faith either.

 

[LuisDantas]

If man is ONLY biology as part of evolution- man has no soul. If man has no soul that affects virtually all conceptions of morality previously derived from it.

Why would anyone see biology as evidence of the lack of a soul?

 

[LuisDantas]

Many intelligent people, including biologists and other scientists, strongly disagree with you that there is " little sense...bothering to "refute evolution." Professor Michael Behe, for example, wrote regarding evolution; "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” I believe evolution supporters have tried mightily to quell any dissent from their theory, and have failed. In fact, it seems the voices of dissent grow louder.

Uh, no. There is no truth whatsoever in what you say here.

 

[Laika]

Why would anyone see biology as evidence of the lack of a soul?

The short answer: materialism.

The long answer: the account of genisis says man was created in gods image, and consequently man has a special place in creation. When man is considered part of the animal kingdom- he is no longer "above" it and does not have a "special" place in the universe. The bit about the soul is that if you can reduce man to an animal, it implies you can reduce consciousness to a physical phenomena. Consciousness is the product of the brain and therefore people do not have an eternal soul which survives after death.

Evolution changes human beings into "mere" animals, with only physical properties, and leads to a reductionist conception of morality as a physical process or relationship between people-not a property of consciousness or the soul.

 

[jeager106]

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

" how to put the matter to rest "

Don't respond to this post?

 

[Father Heathen]

Uh, no. There is no truth whatsoever in what you say here.

They have the tendency to forget about the commandment that forbids bearing false witness.

 

[Father Heathen]

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

" how to put the matter to rest "

Don't respond to this post?

As long as people insist on wallowing in willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, the matter won't be put to rest.

 

[jeager106]

The "theory" of evolution makes more sense to me than "special creation".

Both require a leap of faith.
Isn't what one believes a matter of faith in absence of scientific evidence?

I have faith that the Cleveland Browns will win a Super Bowl.

Now THAT is a prime example of faith!

 

[Demonslayer]

The "theory" of evolution makes more sense to me than "special creation".

Both require a leap of faith.
Isn't what one believes a matter of faith in absence of scientific evidence?

The difference is there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and none for 'special creation.'

 

[Demonslayer]

I have faith that the Cleveland Browns will win a Super Bowl.

Now THAT is a prime example of faith!

I couldn't agree more with this part.

 

[jeager106]

The difference is there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and none for 'special creation.'

Well post some links please.

here:
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html


https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought/prove-evolution-is-false-even-without-the-bible

I could post LOTS of links to DIS-prove or DIS-credit the theory of evolution.

I'll leave that up to the reader.
There are NO facts that I know of to support special creation.

The subject remains a matter of belief and faith.

Can you or anyone else "prove" belief and or faith?
Consider than an intellectual challenge.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I have seen people use evolutionary evidence to point out how unlikely it is that living beings were consciously designed. But there are others who seem to actually believe that somehow the "belief in evolution" is a significant component in the very existence of atheism.

That does not make a lot of sense and betrays a poor understanding of atheism, as well as of Evolution.

Some go so far as to assume that Evolution is an actual ideology. One that not only somehow "demands atheism" or "denies God" but also one that it extends not only to the origin of life but also to the origin of existence itself.

Such a view, of course, is quite unconnected to reality, among other reasons because it generalizes atheism to an entirely fictional degree and also because it expects atheists to be actual worshippers of evolution as an idea.

In reality, Evolution is simply a biological mechanism, and one that has been not only well understood and documented, but also applied to widespread and lucrative purposes.

Logically, there is little sense in proselitizers of theism bothering to attempt to "refute" evolution. It is about as reasonable as discussing "belief" in sexual reproduction, thermodynamics, the water cycle, electromagnetism or gravity. Yet the mistake just won't die.

Any ideas on why, or better yet, on how to put the matter to rest so that more relevant subjects may be discussed?

This one is easy. Take someone that will explain everything tied together in one simplistic answer(god did it, God's will) and of course they will try to project that sort of simple minded thinking on others, because it's what and how they understand.

So they cast atheism/evolution/abiogenesis/ anything that contradicts their simple answer into one package also.

 

[jeager106]

This one is easy. Take someone that will explain everything tied together in one simplistic answer(god did it, God's will) and of course they will try to project that sort of simple minded thinking on others, because it's what and how they understand.

So they cast atheism/evolution/abiogenesis/ anything that contradicts their simple answer into one package also.

Why the audacity of that post!!!!

Everyone KNOWS ANCIENT ALIENS DID IT ALL!

I watch Ancient Aliens on t-v for it's entertainment value as it stimulates
the imagination. :>)
And to see the host with the big hair.
Now that guy is a personality one can have faith in.

 

[Demonslayer]

Well post some links please.

OK give me a few to find some good ones.

I could post LOTS of links to DIS-prove or DIS-credit the theory of evolution.

Would they all be from such reputable websites? Here are some other headlines from one of your links:

"Underground bases and cloning centers"
"Hitler escaped to Argentina and died old"
"Phillip K Dick claimed that time stopped in 50 AD and didn't progress since then"
"NASA's 1986 Challenger team is still alive - they haven't even bothered hiding"

I'm sorry my man, but no one is going to take an article refuting evolution seriously when it comes from a source that also claims Crista McAuliffe is walking around in plain sight and Hitler died doing the tango in Argentina.