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

[fantome profane]

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject. This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue. Thus we are left with either no god, or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

I agree with this entire argument, but it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that an interfering god is impossible. I agree that I.D. is a absurd non-explanation. I agree that the theory of evolution, as well as other scientific theories, have not shown that it is necessary to have an interfering deity. And I agree that there is no evidence for an interfering deity.

I find myself in a strange position here, arguing for an idea that I believe is wrong. But I think it is important do distinguish between saying and interfering god is not necessary, and saying an interfering god is not possible. And it is important to distinguish between there being no evidence for an interfering deity and saying there is evidence that there is no interfering deity. I am quite comfortable in saying that there is no such thing an a interfering creator, I think that is a reasonable position. But it is not a position that has been proven by the theory of evolution or by science in general.


If you are wondering why this matters to me it is because I don’t want people who do believe in a interfering deity to be told that they cannot believe in the theory of evolution. That is just not true. People like Dawkins might want to convince people of this in the hopes that he can bring them to atheism. People like Kent Hovind want to convince people of the same thing in hopes that the can convert people to their brand of fundamentalist Christianity. Me, I would rather bring people to science, regardless of their religion.

 

[Storm]

Frubals on your head, fp!

 

[reeferreaper]

If you believe that god guides the design of life, you are quite uneducated. There are so many flaws, just in the human body, that if you are correct about god's involvement in this process, he is not very smart.

 

[Storm]

If you believe that god guides the design of life, you are quite uneducated. There are so many flaws, just in the human body, that if you are correct about god's involvement in this process, he is not very smart.

Uncalled for and unsupported. Ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason.

And, ftr: no, I don't believe it. However, I can comprehend it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I don't think even that can be done. Care to try, just as a thought experiment?

Well, there's the "inordinate fondness for beetles" approach (tip of the hat to J.B.S. Haldane or whoever actually came up with the line). Most life is much less complex than us, and seems to have a tendency to stay so.

Gould presented what I consider to be a good argument to this effect in Full House (I think it was Full House - might have been Dinosaur in a Haystack): think of the distribution of complexity for life in general, either by number of species or number of organisms, and imagine it on a graph with complexity (however you measure it - there are a few ways to do it) along the X axis and relative frequency on the Y. What you would see is a strongly right-skewed distribution: the graph would be very high in the least complex points of the graph, and then peter out to a very thin tail at the most complex points. Out at our level of complexity, the tail would be tiny. In terms of statistical measures, the mode would be bacteria, the median might be at the level of complexity of eukaryotic but still unicellular organisms, and the mean would be out at some higher level of complexity, but means are strongly affected by the tails (i.e. us and other mammals), so they aren't a good measure of the overall population when it has a very skewed distribution. Effectively, the vast majority of life is so low in complexity that it just barely exceeds the level of complexity needed for it to be life at all.

However, if evolution were being guided to higher complexity, we would see something different; we would see the signs of a "push" toward higher complexity in the distribution: the median and mode would both be higher, and the distribution would be less strongly right-skewed.

IOW, if there were a general tendency toward complex life, the distribution of life's complexity wouldn't be pushed up as hard as it can against that "left wall" represented by the minimum complexity needed for life. Therefore, it seems that there is no general tendency toward complex life, and therefore the question of whether such a tendency is the work of God or not is moot.

 

[Storm]

Well, there's the "inordinate fondness for beetles" approach (tip of the hat to J.B.S. Haldane or whoever actually came up with the line). Most life is much less complex than us, and seems to have a tendency to stay so.

Gould presented what I consider to be a good argument to this effect in Full House (I think it was Full House - might have been Dinosaur in a Haystack): think of the distribution of complexity for life in general, either by number of species or number of organisms, and imagine it on a graph with complexity (however you measure it - there are a few ways to do it) along the X axis and relative frequency on the Y. What you would see is a strongly right-skewed distribution: the graph would be very high in the least complex points of the graph, and then peter out to a very thin tail at the most complex points. Out at our level of complexity, the tail would be tiny. In terms of statistical measures, the mode would be bacteria, the median might be at the level of complexity of eukaryotic but still unicellular organisms, and the mean would be out at some higher level of complexity, but means are strongly affected by the tails (i.e. us and other mammals), so they aren't a good measure of the overall population when it has a very skewed distribution. Effectively, the vast majority of life is so low in complexity that it just barely exceeds the level of complexity needed for it to be life at all.

However, if evolution were being guided to higher complexity, we would see something different; we would see the signs of a "push" toward higher complexity in the distribution: the median and mode would both be higher, and the distribution would be less strongly right-skewed.

IOW, if there were a general tendency toward complex life, the distribution of life's complexity wouldn't be pushed up as hard as it can against that "left wall" represented by the minimum complexity needed for life. Therefore, it seems that there is no general tendency toward complex life, and therefore the question of whether such a tendency is the work of God or not is moot.

That's not bad. Kudos. :yes:

However, if humanity was the point of God's exercise in evolution, there needn't be a general tendency toward complex life. Just what is necessary to produce us.

Of course, that introduces yet another assumption into the equation, but I think it's an assumption consistent with theistic evolution. And if the theistic evolution is further defined as Christian, it's supported by the scriptural teachings that we were made in God's image and given dominion/stewardship over the earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not bad. Kudos. :yes:

Thanks!

However, if humanity was the point of God's exercise in evolution, there needn't be a general tendency toward complex life. Just what is necessary to produce us.

I suppose, though I think that a plausible alternate mechanism (e.g. natural selection, inheritability and random mutation) that could produce us is evidence that God might not have done what was necessary directly.

Also, it does seem that the mechanisms of evolution affect us and our ancestors just as strongly as all other life.

Of course, that introduces yet another assumption into the equation, but I think it's an assumption consistent with theistic evolution. And if the theistic evolution is further defined as Christian, it's supported by the scriptural teachings that we were made in God's image and given dominion/stewardship over the earth.

I'm not sure about that. I'm in danger of getting into unscientific "gut feeling" territory here, but imagine you came across someone standing in a field quite a ways downwind from a house, tossing paint in the air; some splatters of paint land on the house occasionally, but there's a huge blob of paint on the ground downwind of him. Which do you think would be more reasonable: to say that he's painting the field, or to say that he's painting the house?

 

[Storm]

Thanks!

You're most welcome, dear.

I suppose, though I think that a plausible alternate mechanism (e.g. natural selection, inheritability and random mutation) that could produce us is evidence that God might not have done what was necessary directly.

Well, I agree, but as you probably know, I'm arguing a hypothetical myself. I don't believe in theistic evolution, either.

Also, it does seem that the mechanisms of evolution affect us and our ancestors just as strongly as all other life.

Well, of course. I don't see how that goes against theistic evolution.

I'm not sure about that. I'm in danger of getting into unscientific "gut feeling" territory here, but imagine you came across someone standing in a field quite a ways downwind from a house, tossing paint in the air; some splatters of paint land on the house occasionally, but there's a huge blob of paint on the ground downwind of him. Which do you think would be more reasonable: to say that he's painting the field, or to say that he's painting the house?

I don't understand the analogy. Well, I get what you're trying to say, but not how it relates to what I said. What part of my statement are you "not sure" about? Does "not sure" mean that you don't personally believe it, that you think my reasoning is flawed, or that you don't understand what I was getting at?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, of course. I don't see how that goes against theistic evolution.

It means that the explanations that are sufficient for the rest of the tree of life are sufficient for our branch as well. It means that there's no special phenomenon for which we need to invoke God.

If someone argues that a die is loaded, but it rolls numbers the same way a fair die rolls, then the evidence indicates that the die was not loaded.

I don't understand the analogy. Well, I get what you're trying to say, but not how it relates to what I said. What part of my statement are you "not sure" about? Does "not sure" mean that you don't personally believe it, that you think my reasoning is flawed, or that you don't understand what I was getting at?

Just that actions can give a hint of the intent behind them, especially if the actions are being attributed to an all-powerful God who can make whatever He wants to happen, happen. I see the idea that all life was created just to produce us as analogous to painting a house by the method I described.

I think when I wrote my last post, I had the idea in the back of my mind that it sure seems like the branch of the tree of life that resulted in us doesn't seem to have been treated any differently from any other branch. I don't think there's any evidence that God has treated us any differently than other life, so I think that when we hypothesize about actions God could have taken to create us, we're necessarily talking about actions performed on all life.

I suppose this is a separate (and probably highly debatable, now that I think about it) point that I should have been more explicit about.

 

[Storm]

It means that the explanations that are sufficient for the rest of the tree of life are sufficient for our branch as well. It means that there's no special phenomenon for which we need to invoke God.

Oh, ITA. God doesn't NEED to be invoked. Theistic evolution is a byproduct of a worldview for which God is a premise, not a conclusion.

It's my opinion that none of the arguments regarding God's existence, for or against, are compelling.

Now, I do believe that theistic evolution is internally logical. If you disagree with that, we have something to argue.

If someone argues that a die is loaded, but it rolls numbers the same way a fair die rolls, then the evidence indicates that the die was not loaded.

The thing is, we have no baseline to which we can compare evolution. We have the history we have, and it doesn't answer the question.

Just that actions can give a hint of the intent behind them, especially if the actions are being attributed to an all-powerful God who can make whatever He wants to happen, happen. I see the idea that all life was created just to produce us as analogous to painting a house by the method I described.

OK, I get it.

Going back to playing devil's advocate, I would argue that it was indeed necessary to Create all of life. Not necessarily to get us, but to sustain us. Yes, an omnimax God could have just poofed us into existence, but without an ecosystem to support us, we wouldn't have lasted very long.

Besides, the poof theory is just boring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now, I do believe that theistic evolution is internally logical. If you disagree with that, we have something to argue.

I think theistic evolution in general is internally consistent, sure. I also think it violates Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor is no guarantee of correctness.

The thing is, we have no baseline to which we can compare evolution. We have the history we have, and it doesn't answer the question.

I was thinking of the scenario you posed where the development of our particular evolutionary line was "tweaked" by God at select times along the way to ensure we were the result. In that case, we can look at our line and compare it to all others and to life in general, so in that way, we would have a baseline.

OK, I get it.

Going back to playing devil's advocate, I would argue that it was indeed necessary to Create all of life. Not necessarily to get us, but to sustain us. Yes, an omnimax God could have just poofed us into existence, but without an ecosystem to support us, we wouldn't have lasted very long.

Besides, the poof theory is just boring.

Yeah, I suppose, though I would also think that an omnimax deity would be capable of sustaining us in an infinite number of different ways, and presumably would have chosen this particular way of doing it for some specific reason.

 

[Storm]

I think theistic evolution in general is internally consistent, sure. I also think it violates Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor is no guarantee of correctness.

Agreed.

I was thinking of the scenario you posed where the development of our particular evolutionary line was "tweaked" by God at select times along the way to ensure we were the result. In that case, we can look at our line and compare it to all others and to life in general, so in that way, we would have a baseline.

Well, I did specify that the argument was from a Christian perspective, which would naturally reference scripture. Those scriptures teach that we were made in God's image and given dominion over the world.

I didn't mean to argue that it was a necessary part of theistic evolution.

Yeah, I suppose, though I would also think that an omnimax deity would be capable of sustaining us in an infinite number of different ways, and presumably would have chosen this particular way of doing it for some specific reason.

My point is, whether or not said deity does exist, this is the system we got.

I also feel compelled to point out that theistic evolution does not necessarily assume that God is omnimax.

 

[rocketman]

Are there any other areas of thought where, at the time, God was accepted as the best answer to the questions at hand?

Yes, but these generally traced themselves back to God. Lamarck and others recognized the variation in life over time, but didn't translate this into the idea of speciation through natural selection. The main mechanism suggested to account for the history of life was the hand of God in one form or another.

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.

I don't agree that creationism is a modern phenomenon.

I know what you are saying but I was refering to the anti-evolutionist creationists who are quite a differnt type from creationists before Darwin, attempting as they do to venture into the scientific domain as they do. This is a hostile face-off, not the amicable difference of opinion that was widespread before Darwin.

Which atheists think that evolution disproves God?

I showed earlier that Provine does for example.

If something is disproven but not in a scientific way, then it's not actually disproven.

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

 

[Yerda]

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

Perhaps they are responding to theists who believe that humans are evidence of a creator God.

 

[Apex]

Perhaps they are responding to theists who believe that humans are evidence of a creator God.

So they are responding to ignorance with ignorance?

 

[Yerda]

So they are responding to ignorance with ignorance?

Possibly.

 

[darkendless]

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

Yes, but one thing for sure is if evolution is flawless and accepted by the scientific community then we can prove that human, also most animals then, were not created which is a serious blow to creationism in general.
I know this might sound blunt and ignorant, but honestly, at 12 years old i thought the theory that God just created everything was a load of garbage when i was 11 or 12 years old. Back then in my mind it was so weird that so many people could be so easily persuaded.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps they are responding to theists who believe that humans are evidence of a creator God.

So they are responding to ignorance with ignorance?

Precisely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that evolution had something to say about the traditional understanding of the Christian God and humanity's relation to Him in 19th Century Western culture. This doesn't mean that evolution contradicts some other understanding of Christianity, or of God, but I think it did speak to the main set of beliefs about God that most people at the time cared about.

I know what you are saying but I was refering to the anti-evolutionist creationists who are quite a differnt type from creationists before Darwin, attempting as they do to venture into the scientific domain as they do. This is a hostile face-off, not the amicable difference of opinion that was widespread before Darwin.

"Anti-evolutionism" would not be possible without knowing what evolution is, and there have been many instances through history of science and religion being at odds (though I should point out that they don't need to be). Maybe you've heard of Galileo.

I showed earlier that Provine does for example.

Did you?

I think I found where you got the quote from: an article from the Discovery Institute. I don't trust the Discovery Institute to look outside and tell me the weather, let alone report quotes accurately that directly pertain to an issue on which they have a very clear agenda (i.e. proclaiming the "persecution" of ID proponents in academia) when they have a known history of playing fast-and-loose with the facts.

The quote might be accurate; it might not. It might be accurate, but taken out of context. I don't have enough information to decide.

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

If an atheist argues that evolution is proof that God does not exist, then that atheist is wrong. I'm not sure if I've ever met an atheist who argues this, though. I've met plenty of theists who claim that many of these people exist, but that's not the same thing.

 

[Nessa]

Yes, but one thing for sure is if evolution is flawless and accepted by the scientific community then we can prove that human, also most animals then, were not created which is a serious blow to creationism in general.
I know this might sound blunt and ignorant, but honestly, at 12 years old i thought the theory that God just created everything was a load of garbage when i was 11 or 12 years old. Back then in my mind it was so weird that so many people could be so easily persuaded.

Biological Evolution is an accepted fact. But the existence of Biological Evolution does not prove Darwin's Theory of Evolution although it is supported by many other observations and facts.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Though I tend to agree that evolution supports abiogenesis significantly more than it does creation.