Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Guy Threepwood]

No, they merely haven't been convinced that there is any reason to think that a supernatural entity must be the cause. .

that leaves a natural cause, any luck finding evidence for that yet? Most of us are unconvinced, i.e. skeptical of this claim. Hard to blame us. we see no need to jump to a conclusion of some fluke

 

[leibowde84]

I'd call directed by intelligence ID not evolution, but getting into semantics- belief in fundamentalist evolution (chance only) is <20% in U.S.

So, you are OK with just changing the definition of the theory to fit your argument? Maybe that is why so many are disagreeing with you on this thread. There is no denial of supernatural existence in the theory of evolution. Even the Pope confirmed that evolution was most likely fact, but that it was divinely guided. So, maybe you can provide the meaning you are using for the term "evolution". I have provided mine below, which does not rule out God in any way, shape, or form. Most of the "evolutionists" I know are certainly theists. Many of them are even Jesuit Priests, and they definitely believe in God.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 

[leibowde84]

that leaves a natural cause, any luck finding evidence for that yet? Most of us are unconvinced, i.e. skeptical of this claim. Hard to blame us. we see no need to jump to a conclusion of some fluke

There is no claim. They aren't claiming that it is natural yet. They are merely explaining that they aren't quite ready to make the assumption that God had something to do with it. You are arguing with yourself on this one. And "fundamentalist evolution" is not what we are talking about here. You stated yourself that the subject was the theory of evolution, not one of its subcategories. If that is what you would actually like to discuss, that would be a completely different discussion.

 

[leibowde84]

that leaves a natural cause, any luck finding evidence for that yet? Most of us are unconvinced, i.e. skeptical of this claim. Hard to blame us. we see no need to jump to a conclusion of some fluke

Evolution does not make any claim about God or the initial cause of life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no claim. They aren't claiming that it is natural yet. They are merely explaining that they aren't quite ready to make the assumption that God had something to do with it. You are arguing with yourself on this one. And "fundamentalist evolution" is not what we are talking about here. You stated yourself that the subject was the theory of evolution, not one of its subcategories. If that is what you would actually like to discuss, that would be a completely different discussion.

And I'm not ready to assume any mysterious natural mechanism. I acknowledge faith in my belief - do atheists?

'For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution'. The Blind Watchmaker (1996)

If you think evolution needed God to guide it, we agree and I'd say you were a proponent of ID as opposed to evolution as it was originally presented, as most understand it, as it is taught today.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, you are OK with just changing the definition of the theory to fit your argument? Maybe that is why so many are disagreeing with you on this thread. There is no denial of supernatural existence in the theory of evolution. Even the Pope confirmed that evolution was most likely fact, but that it was divinely guided. So, maybe you can provide the meaning you are using for the term "evolution". I have provided mine below, which does not rule out God in any way, shape, or form. Most of the "evolutionists" I know are certainly theists. Many of them are even Jesuit Priests, and they definitely believe in God.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

you believe in evolution yes?

 

[leibowde84]

you believe in evolution yes?

Under its actual scientific definition, how it is taught in schools, and how it is commonly understood ... yes. But, you are making false claims about these things. Evolution is not synonymous with naturalism or materialism. It is merely a theory describing a natural process. Nothing else should be falsely read into it.

Darwins idea of evolution is not the same as the modern evolution theory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

what's the difference, atheists don't believe in a natural origin for life and the universe?

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god. Naturalism is that philosophical position or belief that all things are natural and therefore al things have natural causes. Materialism is a philosophical stance or belief that there is nothing beyond the physical. There is also pragmatic materialism which is the pragmatic stance that if there is something we can't observe it wouldn't make any sense to account for it since we wouldn't be able to observe it anyway. Anti-theisism is the stance that religious belief, institutes of religion or even belief in god is innately harmful and should be hindered.

All four are different. The only two that are even similar are naturalism and materialism.

 

[leibowde84]

you believe in evolution yes?

So, this whole time you have been arguing against a straw man? That somehow evolution is a materialist or naturalist theory that claims that God was not the initial cause of life?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is merely a theory describing a natural process. Nothing else should be falsely read into it.

Right, that's what most believe if they believe in evolution then yes?,- that it's a natural process. Most people don't believe in the 'natural' process- we think it requires a supernatural direction to work.

I'm sure there are some fence sitters, but it's a tough argument; that God designed a process like evolution without any particular plan for it's result.. and that the result of a single being capable of appreciating creation and giving thanks to God for it... was just a bizarre unintended fluke?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, this whole time you have been arguing against a straw man? That somehow evolution is a materialist or naturalist theory that claims that God was not the initial cause of life?

as above, most who believe in evolution believe it as taught- a natural process as you described it- driven by random lucky changes and natural selection of them. natural as opposed to supernatural- regardless of initial cause.

But is that what you believe- That God created evolution- but not it's results?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is also pragmatic materialism which is the pragmatic stance that if there is something we can't observe it wouldn't make any sense to account for it since we wouldn't be able to observe it anyway.

.

like multiverses? M theory? String theory? I guess that makes me a Pragmatic theist!

 

[leibowde84]

Right, that's what most believe if they believe in evolution then yes?,- that it's a natural process. Most people don't believe in the 'natural' process- we think it requires a supernatural direction to work.

I'm sure there are some fence sitters, but it's a tough argument; that God designed a process like evolution without any particular plan for it's result.. and that the result of a single being capable of appreciating creation and giving thanks to God for it... was just a bizarre unintended fluke?

"Supernatural direction" would in no way negate evolution being a natural process. Evolution DESCRIBES THE PROCESS. It doesn't create any limitations on the outside forces that might effect it. It doesn't speak to that at all. This is, yet again, another straw man. You are erroneously claiming that evolution forbids supernatural intervention when it doesn't even speak to it.

The question of whether there is an intelligent supernatural force that started or directed the process is a completely different discussion. That would speak to materialism or naturalism, which are in no way prerequisites of evolution theory. Thus, it is merely a straw man argument. You are arguing against Dawkin's own assumptions about evolution, not the theory itself.

 

[leibowde84]

as above, most who believe in evolution believe it as taught- a natural process as you described it- driven by random lucky changes and natural selection of them. natural as opposed to supernatural- regardless of initial cause.

But is that what you believe- That God created evolution- but not it's results?

You obviously are ignorant as to what a "natural process" is. The term does not preclude God in any way. Evolution is a "natural process" because it explains a process in nature. It doesn't even claim to know its cause, destination, or driving force (beyond natural selection I guess).

In other words, you are victim to the fallacy that a "natural process" is a materialistic or naturalist view.

 

[leibowde84]

as above, most who believe in evolution believe it as taught- a natural process as you described it- driven by random lucky changes and natural selection of them. natural as opposed to supernatural- regardless of initial cause.

But is that what you believe- That God created evolution- but not it's results?

What I believe isn't important to this discussion, as it is merely a subjective guess, but I think that God might have had something to do with it. Doesn't seem necessary to me though.

 

[leibowde84]

like multiverses? M theory? String theory? I guess that makes me a Pragmatic theist!

We might be able to observe these things in the future. No one knows whether we will. That is merely an assumption.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Supernatural direction" would in no way negate evolution being a natural process. Evolution DESCRIBES THE PROCESS. It doesn't create any limitations on the outside forces that might effect it. It doesn't speak to that at all. This is, yet again, another straw man. You are erroneously claiming that evolution forbids supernatural intervention when it doesn't even speak to it.

The question of whether there is an intelligent supernatural force that started or directed the process is a completely different discussion. That would speak to materialism or naturalism, which are in no way prerequisites of evolution theory. Thus, it is merely a straw man argument. You are arguing against Dawkin's own assumptions about evolution, not the theory itself.

Fine, so putting aside the semantic argument of the many definitions of evolution- I'm still curious on the actual substance of your belief;

do you believe humanity came to be through a natural process- i.e. random mutation and natural selection
, or that we were designed intelligently, through an intelligently guided build process?

 

[leibowde84]

Fine, so putting aside the semantic argument of the many definitions of evolution- I'm still curious on the actual substance of your belief;

do you believe humanity came to be through a natural process- i.e. random mutation and natural selection
, or that we were designed intelligently, through an intelligently guided build process?

I would say that God used "natural processes", like evolution, as tools for evolving life in a way that actually was substantial enough to stick. But, I am open to being wrong about this.

 

[leibowde84]

Fine, so putting aside the semantic argument of the many definitions of evolution- I'm still curious on the actual substance of your belief;

do you believe humanity came to be through a natural process- i.e. random mutation and natural selection
, or that we were designed intelligently, through an intelligently guided build process?

I'm sorry, but if you think that evolution is a denial of intelligent design, you are using an incorrect meaning, as that would not be logically possible. Materialism and naturalism, however, do this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I would say that God used "natural processes", like evolution, as tools for evolving life in a way that actually was substantial enough to stick. But, I am open to being wrong about this.

So do you think the specific results themselves were not ever directly intended? You don't think God was actively shooting for a sentient being capable of morality, knowing creation, loving it's creator? This was an unplanned accident?