Evolution is not atheistic

[Draka]

Yes, and many religions teach an alternate set of facts that don't align with the science. If your religion isn't one of these then that's great, but not all religions are like that.


I'm not saying that it's "atheistic" in nature. It's compatible with atheism, sure, but what I'm saying is that it's incompatible with some religious beliefs.

Just addressing what you addressed to me...

What certain religions may or may not teach or accept in regards to the ToE has no bearing on ToE. It still stands that it is what it is and makes no claim whatsoever concerning the subject of deity. As for if it is "incompatible" with some religious beliefs, that is on the religious beliefs, not evolution. So it easily still stands that evolution is not an atheistic stance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just addressing what you addressed to me...

What certain religions may or may not teach or accept in regards to the ToE has no bearing on ToE. It still stands that it is what it is and makes no claim whatsoever concerning the subject of deity.

That depends entirely on the deity in question. For many deities, it's just not true. For instance, ToE makes many claims about a creator-God who poofed all species into existence at the beginning of the world in their current form.

As for if it is "incompatible" with some religious beliefs, that is on the religious beliefs, not evolution. So it easily still stands that evolution is not an atheistic stance.

But you said something more: that evolution is not "against god". This is sometimes true, but sometimes not. Again, it depends on the god in question.

It's certainly not true that each and every theist can accept all of evolution without modifying their ideas about god(s).

 

[Draka]

That depends entirely on the deity in question. For many deities, it's just not true. For instance, ToE makes many claims about a creator-God who poofed all species into existence at the beginning of the world in their current form.


But you said something more: that evolution is not "against god". This is sometimes true, but sometimes not. Again, it depends on the god in question.

It's certainly not true that each and every theist can accept all of evolution without modifying their ideas about god(s).

Again, evolution makes no claim about any deity, including a "creator-god". It is just an explanation of facts at hand. The faults lie with particular religious teachings, not with evolution. And honestly, if someone's beliefs contradict valid science, like evolution, gravity, heliocentricity, light speed and so on...then they should re-examine their beliefs.

As is though, my point stands, especially since there are many theists who accept evolution, it is not atheistic in nature.

 

[gnostic]

Just want to try to clear this up as I appear to be seeing this again. Evolution is NOT an atheistic stance or "belief". Evolution is NOT "against god". One can be a theist and completely accept evolution. Evolution as a scientific theory makes no claim whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of any deity. It has nothing to do with atheism, just like gravity, solar energy, and the speed of light have nothing to do with atheism.

My name is Draka, I am a theist, and I accept evolution.

A common misunderstanding from theists and creationists to what is evolution and what is atheism.

Atheism is a personal stance in disbelief of the existence of god or opposite to theism. Atheism is also not a religion.

Evolution is science and is part of biology. Evolution is definitely not a religion, but it is also not related to atheism.

Charles Darwin was more like an agnostic than an atheist, like his friend and strongest supporter - T.H. Huxley. Darwin was never against religion or Christianity, Huxley on the other hand, believe in separation of science and religion. To Huxley, Christianity was a threat to scientific progress (and he wasn't wrong), so he used evolution to remove theology from all science classrooms (not just biology) in the UK.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Interesting. Theistic evolution?

No, obviously the natural world and the Biblical world do not coincide soooo...maybe when Jesus said He's not of this world He was from the one where everything in the Bible coincides.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Just want to try to clear this up as I appear to be seeing this again. Evolution is NOT an atheistic stance or "belief". Evolution is NOT "against god". One can be a theist and completely accept evolution. Evolution as a scientific theory makes no claim whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of any deity. It has nothing to do with atheism, just like gravity, solar energy, and the speed of light have nothing to do with atheism.

My name is Draka, I am a theist, and I accept evolution.

Donuts and coffee are now being served. For anyone in need of a sponsor, please just say so.

Facts are seldom biased.

 

[Draka]

No, obviously the natural world and the Biblical world do not coincide soooo...maybe when Jesus said He's not of this world He was from the one where everything in the Bible coincides.

Well, that's an interesting take I don't think I've ever heard. How does the timeflow in the bible work if it is talking about 2 different worlds?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, evolution makes no claim about any deity, including a "creator-god". It is just an explanation of facts at hand. The faults lie with particular religious teachings, not with evolution. And honestly, if someone's beliefs contradict valid science, like evolution, gravity, heliocentricity, light speed and so on...then they should re-examine their beliefs.

As is though, my point stands, especially since there are many theists who accept evolution, it is not atheistic in nature.

I think we're talking across each other, and I get the feeling that we actually agree on your main point.

I agree that there are theistic beliefs (e.g. yours, apparently) that can be reconciled with evolution.

However, what I disagree with is the other message I took from your original post: that theism in general has nothing to fear from evolution. Very few religions adhere to NOMA, and some of the ones that don't have made claims that are contradicted by evolution. Personally, I'm not prepared to brush this off with something like "well, they should reconsider their beliefs" as if proper religion wouldn't disagree and those problematic belief systems somehow don't count as "real" religion.

Frankly, when people talk about threats from evolution, they're talking about what you described so dismissively: that to integrate evolution into their belief system, they'd have to reconsider and modify their beliefs about God. That's the threat.

 

[fantome profane]

No, obviously the natural world and the Biblical world do not coincide soooo...maybe when Jesus said He's not of this world He was from the one where everything in the Bible coincides.

Have your cake and eat it too?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's a rather big difference between ...

There's a big difference between many things and the discussion implied by the title "evolution is not atheistic", but these things in no way undermine the fact that "evolution is not atheistic".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a big difference between many things and the discussion implied by the title "evolution is not atheistic", but these things in no way undermine the fact that "evolution is not atheistic".

Did you read the OP, or just the thread title?

 

[jarofthoughts]

My name is Draka, I am a theist, and I accept evolution.

Donuts and coffee are now being served. For anyone in need of a sponsor, please just say so.

My name (on this forum anyway) is Jarofthoughts, I am an atheist, and I accept evolution.

The fact that I accept evolution has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist.

 

[Mcshane22]

The answer I get from my creationist family members is that evolution is just a theory, so their litteral understanding of genisis holds as ground as that of a theory. The problem lays in their misunderstanding of what a theory is in relation to the scientific method. A theory is not just an educated guess (hypothesis). A theory is a hypothesis that can be used to predict outcomes in an experiment or a observation of natural processes. When Newton discovered the law of gravity he attempted to understand it as best as he could. And latter his theory be furthered improved by Einstein. Gravity didn't cease to be from that time Between Newton and Einstein. Evolution is a fact, as to how or why it occurs is the theory

 

[Draka]

Did you read the OP, or just the thread title?

You just seem to be mainly taking issue with my saying that evolution is not against theism. Which by all accounts, is true. Theism in general is merely having a belief in some form of deity concept. Evolution doesn't challenge that nor even directly address it. It is only on a case by case basis of religion that there are any issues found and even then, the issues are on the side of those particular religions, not on the side of merely a scientific theory. Evolution doesn't have issues with theism; particular religions with particular theistic beliefs have issues with evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Have your cake and eat it too?

I like cheesecake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just seem to be mainly taking issue with my saying that evolution is not against theism. Which by all accounts, is true. Theism in general is merely having a belief in some form of deity concept. Evolution doesn't challenge that nor even directly address it. It is only on a case by case basis of religion that there are any issues found and even then, the issues are on the side of those particular religions, not on the side of merely a scientific theory. Evolution doesn't have issues with theism; particular religions with particular theistic beliefs have issues with evolution.

Right... so when you say this:

Evolution is NOT "against god".

Whether or not it's true depends very much on the god in question.

Take all the trees together and you get a forest. Take all the "particular religions with particular theistic beliefs" together and you get theism as a whole. Parts of theism are compatible with evolution; parts are not. "Theism" is a term for a category of beliefs, not for a specific belief system itself.

 

[Draka]

Right... so when you say this:

Whether or not it's true depends very much on the god in question.

Take all the trees together and you get a forest. Take all the "particular religions with particular theistic beliefs" together and you get theism as a whole. Parts of theism are compatible with evolution; parts are not. "Theism" is a term for a category of beliefs, not for a specific belief system itself.

I didn't say "God", I said "god". Would you have preferred I said "deity"? Same thing. You're being awfully picky in this. And really, even if you want to get picky and talk about specific gods, evolution still isn't "against" any of them. No more than heliocentricity is "against" any, or biology, or paleontology, or gravity, or polyester, or Red Lobster for that matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say "God", I said "god". Would you have preferred I said "deity"? Same thing. You're being awfully picky in this.

I don't think I am.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who's saying "apples are red" and won't acknowledge that the existence of green apples has any bearing on the truth of her statement.

And really, even if you want to get picky and talk about specific gods, evolution still isn't "against" any of them. No more than heliocentricity is "against" any, or biology, or paleontology, or gravity, or polyester, or Red Lobster for that matter.

How do you figure? The creator-god who poofed humanity into existence fully formed is very much against a theory that says humanity arose by natural processes without any poofing.

 

[Draka]

I don't think I am.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who's saying "apples are red" and won't acknowledge that the existence of green apples has any bearing on the truth of her statement.


How do you figure? The creator-god who poofed humanity into existence fully formed is very much against a theory that says humanity arose by natural processes without any poofing.

What you just said. If said god existed then it may indeed have issue with such a theory. However, the theory in question cannot be against such a god, especially when the theory makes no claim about deity at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you just said. If said god existed then it may indeed have issue with such a theory. However, the theory in question cannot be against such a god, especially when the theory makes no claim about deity at all.

But that's not true: it makes a claim about that deity.