Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

[logician]

I don't really care what anybody believes, or categorizes themselves as, as long as they don't try to categorize me into some "mystical" area of nonunderstanding.

 

[Storm]

So, logician, do you still maintain that ToE somehow disproves God? If so, please support.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about degrees here. Science and religion have never been so opposed as when Darwin started his work. Before that there was very little in the way of 'culture wars' as we know them. Evolution armed the atheist masses with a popular comeback answer that touched on the very nature of the human animal - whether or not it had anything to say about the existence of God went over most people's heads, as it still often does today.

Actually I believe a fellow named Copernicus caused quite the stir in his day.

 

[painted wolf]

Socrates also caused a bit of a stir...

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

Actually I believe a fellow named Copernicus caused quite the stir in his day.

Sure, but the effect was nothing like Darwins in terms of pitting the masses against each other ad-infinitum. And it really wasn't until 60 years later when Galileo picked up the idea that the western european christians got upset. Ultimately Copernicus was never going to worry christianity too much, especially when more and more people were able to learn to read and realised that there is nothing in scripture to back up the corrupt mediaeval church's pet views of astronomy.

 

[painted wolf]

prior to Darwin there was a major upset over the battle between catistrophism and uniformitarianism.
After all the very idea that the world was older than 6000 years and that mountains weren't made my Noah's flood was a big upset.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

prior to Darwin there was a major upset over the battle between catistrophism and uniformitarianism.
After all the very idea that the world was older than 6000 years and that mountains weren't made my Noah's flood was a big upset.

wa:do

I think you mean Catastrophism. Of course today gradualism accepts a mixture of both. In any case it pales next to what Darwin's work unleashed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but the effect was nothing like Darwins in terms of pitting the masses against each other ad-infinitum. And it really wasn't until 60 years later when Galileo picked up the idea that the western european christians got upset. Ultimately Copernicus was never going to worry christianity too much, especially when more and more people were able to learn to read and realised that there is nothing in scripture to back up the corrupt mediaeval church's pet views of astronomy.

I think that any difference in the effect of Darwin's ideas vs. Copernicus comes down to the spread of the technological acheivements begun by Johannes Gutenberg, not the ideas themselves.

 

[rocketman]

I think that any difference in the effect of Darwin's ideas vs. Copernicus comes down to the spread of the technological acheivements begun by Johannes Gutenberg, not the ideas themselves.

I disagree in the sense that the idea of heliocentrism is far more easily established in the mind of the common man than the far more complex subject of evolution; witness the vast numbers of people to this day who still don't understand TOE even when they are trying. What they do understand about TOE is that it (appears) to imply that God is not their origin.

 

[fantome profane]

Ultimately Copernicus was never going to worry christianity too much, especially when more and more people were able to learn to read and realised that there is nothing in scripture to back up the corrupt mediaeval church's pet views of astronomy.

You mean that they made a conscious decision to re-interpret the many passages in the bible that refer to the sun moving. They did this simply because they realized that it is just not true, and the bible was never intended to be a treaty on the mechanics of the solar system. And many Christians have no difficulty doing exactly the same thing in regards to the theory of evolution.

It is true that today there are more Christians who take the bible literally in terms of the origin of species than take it literally in terms of the movement of the sun. But this is not the fault of Darwin, it is not the fault of the theory of evolution, and it is not the fault of atheists.

It is the fault of very poor education in science, particularly in the United States. If education improved there is no doubt that more and more people would decide to re-interpret the bible in terms of origin of species just as people decided to re-interpret it in terms of the movement of the sun. They would realize that the literal descriptions in the bible are just not true, and the bible was never intended to be a biology textbook.


I agree with you that there are many atheists (but clearly not all) who do believe that the theory of evolution does prove that there is no “God”. But there are also many theists (again, not all) who suffer from exactly the same misunderstanding. Proper education might help to rectify this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think you mean Catastrophism.

That was useless ...

 

[painted wolf]

I think you mean Catastrophism. Of course today gradualism accepts a mixture of both. In any case it pales next to what Darwin's work unleashed.

I do have a misspelling issue, but byond that...

I think you haven't looked into the impact that gradualism had on the intellectual and religious community at large. Indeed it is still being hotly argued by creationists.

While some aspects of it may be incorporated into modern theory (its hard to ignore a volcano) it hardly has a predominant role. It certainly doesn't accept the Noah's flood concept. Nor the 6000 year old earth... concepts that when confronted by science were highly distressing to the population at large.

wa:do

ps... just wanted to add, that without gradualism's rise Darwin would not have been as likely to consider evolution to begin with. It requires an old (relitively) stable world... the world we in fact have.

 

[painted wolf]

sorry to double post but I just wanted to add this:

Hutton's theory reflects the calm inquiring rational
spirit of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment; Hutton
possessed the same temper of mind as David Hume,
the philosopher, or Adam Smith, the economist. His
theory was attacked immediately as being dangerous
to religion, and the force of this criticism was
sharpened by the political consequences of the French
Revolution. In Great Britain the French Revolution
was felt to endanger the whole fabric of social order,
of which the Christian religion was the essential foun-
dation. Hutton's theory left no place for the Mosaic
account of Creation and of the Flood. It assumed that
the earth and the physical order of nature were eternal
and unchanging. At the same time that Hutton's theory
was being attacked on religious and scientific grounds,
liberal political ideas had become unpopular in Britain,
and a repressively reactionary tone dominated politics.

from "the dictionary of the history of ideas": Dictionary of the History of Ideas

I should also add the idea of Extinction was a major scientific upheaval. The idea that God would let his creations just die was an anathma to the church. Extinction wasn't fully accepted until after Lewis and Clark's journey. Jefferson was hoping they would find living mammoths and giant sloths. He didn't like the theory of extinction.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree in the sense that the idea of heliocentrism is far more easily established in the mind of the common man than the far more complex subject of evolution; witness the vast numbers of people to this day who still don't understand TOE even when they are trying. What they do understand about TOE is that it (appears) to imply that God is not their origin.

I'm not so sure. I think you could find more "average" people who can intelligently discuss the evidence for the mechanisms of evolution in the fossil record than you can people who can tell you about how Earth-based astronomical observations indicate that celestial bodies don't travel in epicycles.

Heck, take the terms "natural selection" and "epicycle": which do you think would get more blank looks if you asked shoppers in a mall somewhere to define them?

Also, I think you have to remember that a big part of what makes heliocentrism so seemingly obvious to us are Newton's laws of motion, which didn't arise until a century after Copernicus.

 

[rocketman]

I do have a misspelling issue, but byond that...

ooopsy

 

[rocketman]

I'm not so sure. I think you could find more "average" people who can intelligently discuss the evidence for the mechanisms of evolution in the fossil record than you can people who can tell you about how Earth-based astronomical observations indicate that celestial bodies don't travel in epicycles.

As you wish. It's just that in my experience it's easier to say that this ball spins around that ball and that's why it looks like the sun is moving. If I compare that with trying to explain how it is that there are males and females of our species, crikey.....

Getting back on topic, have you accepted that Provine is an atheist who thinks evolution disproves God?

 

[Storm]

ooopsy

Why are you being mean about it?

 

[rocketman]

Why are you being mean about it?

Sorry, I wasn't. I just thought it was cute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As you wish. It's just that in my experience it's easier to say that this ball spins around that ball and that's why it looks like the sun is moving.

That's the hypothesis of heliocentrism, but that doesn't explain at all how we know that's right and geocentrism is wrong, does it?

Personally, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with an answer to why Ptolemy's model doesn't work that doesn't invoke Newton.

If I compare that with trying to explain how it is that there are males and females of our species, crikey.....

Are you talking about the development of sexual reproduction in the first place, or how humans developed from previous species?

The second one's pretty easy, if you put it in similar terms to your heliocentrism explanation: parents have kids that look a lot like them, but they're a little bit different. After enough generations, all those little differences can add up to a really big difference that's so big that you end up with a whole new species.

Getting back on topic, have you accepted that Provine is an atheist who thinks evolution disproves God?

I don't know. I had a quick look at that section of the page you linked to. It seems to be an off-the-cuff remark in the midst of a debate, and Provine seems to jump back and forth between his personal beliefs, his views on evolution, and what he considers his opponent's views on evolution to be. I think his "god" could have meant "any God", "an active God", "an intelligent designer", or could have just been a slip of the tongue. Without more info, I can't really say for sure. It does seem possible that your interpretation's correct, though.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't know. I had a quick look at that section of the page you linked to. It seems to be an off-the-cuff remark in the midst of a debate, and Provine seems to jump back and forth between his personal beliefs, his views on evolution, and what he considers his opponent's views on evolution to be. I think his "god" could have meant "any God", "an active God", "an intelligent designer", or could have just been a slip of the tongue. Without more info, I can't really say for sure. It does seem possible that your interpretation's correct, though.

I think that debate can be found on youtube. I watched him debate some one and he uttered those words. As I have said before, Provine, Dawkins etc... are not "spokespersons" for all atheist. As you have stated..."these are his (personal) beliefs"........