Evolutionary science and atheism

[Abdul Latif]

I've gone away for two months, searching everything I could on atheism and evolution.

And let me tell you i'm having real problems getting around Cosmic, Organic and Macro-Evolution. The claim that immaculate design in the universe being nothing more than a result of random mutation and natural selection evolving from some organic soup really does require as much faith as any religion I know.

Micro-Evolution? No problem. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Earth older than 6000 years old? No problem as a Muslim. Blind religious faith without evidence? Dangerous phenomenon that's plain stupid, I agree.

Evolution does have evidence, but it has been exaggerated to a most irrational body. It, and the atheism with which it is normally associated are, in my opinion, utterly unreasonable.

If science is represented by evolution (speculative chance), and religion by associating the watch with a watchmaker, then I know where I sit. The designer ought to get credit for his design, and the creator ought to be worshipped for his creation.

"Verily in the heavens and the earth are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves, and the animals scattered through the lands, are signs for those of assured faith. And in the alternation of night and day, and that fact that Allah sends down sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are signs for those who are wise" (45:3-5).

"Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with his creation" (49:13)

I understand I might be profoundly affected by the environment I grew up in, but I really can't get around life coming from an organic soup billions of years ago, and it leading to what we see around us. I know there is a creator, whether it is the Jewish, Hindu, Christian or Muslim god is irrelevant, the universe is proof of the a supernatural creator.

I could be wrong though

 

[fantome profane]

…but I really can't get around life coming from an organic soup billions of years ago, and it leading to what we see around us.

Are you saying that it is beyond God’s power to create life in this manner?

And let me tell you i'm having real problems getting around Cosmic, Organic and Macro-Evolution.

Micro-Evolution? No problem.

How precisely to you distinguish between “micro” and “macro” evolution?

I hope that you are not making the common mistake of confusing cosmology (big bang) with evolutionary theory. They are not the same thing.

It, and the atheism with which it is normally associated are, in my opinion, utterly unreasonable.

Have you considered that there need not be any association between atheism and evolution. Evolution is a science, it is either right, or it is wrong. It is no different in that respect to any other science. It does not deny the existence of “God”

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've gone away for two months, searching everything I could on atheism and evolution.

Perhaps you could list the science texts that you've read and dismissed as exageration.

 

[Abdul Latif]

I Read:

'Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution' by Douglas Futuyma
'Evolution of the Insects' by Grimaldi (didnt read all of it though)
'Selfish Gene', 'Blind Watchmaker' and a couple of his articles and his 'Root of All Evil Series' (Dawkins)
'Evolution, genetics and man' by Theodosius Dobzansky

As for the exaggeration, the only observable type of evolution (micro), in no way implies evidence for macro, organic, cosmic or chemical evolution, which ultimately forms the basis of the atheistic/evolutionary argument (as far as I know anyway).

Fantome, read the title of the thread. I think it's relatively clear im speaking of the relationship between evolution as seen from the side of an atheist I've got no problem with people who believe in evolution as a result of a god empowered process, because we could fill in the logical inconsistencies with 'God made it happen'.. Whether that be life evolving from billion years of rain on rocks or evolution leading to something as mighty as what you can see by taking a look out your window. Btw, evolution on its own (as a branch of biology) does not deal with the origin of life, but rather how that life developed, my problem is with what I perceive to be irrational arguments by evolutionary atheists who claim that life came from nothing, and just use 'billions of years' as a substitute for 'fairytale'.

My mind cannot comprehend how they even came to think there is/was no creator or designer.

 

[BucephalusBB]

......we could fill in the logical inconsistencies with 'God made it happen'.. ....something as mighty as what you can see by taking a look out your window. ....... to be irrational arguments by evolutionary atheists who claim that life came from nothing, and just use 'billions of years' as a substitute for 'fairytale'.

My mind cannot comprehend how they even came to think there is/was no creator or designer.

I quoted some parts if you don't mind..
You claim yourself that you use God as a fill in. so you may use God as substitute for fairytale and we can't use time as substitute?

something mighty as you can see. When I look out of the window I see a bird flying. That bird is made of flesh, blood and bones etc, those are made of molecules and again protones, neutrones, electrones etc..
The bird is flying with a certain speed. We know it's max speed. If it would fall, we can tell when it will hit the ground. If it's gonna eat, we know what it will probably be and how his food will travel from being eaten to being pooped.

With other words, what you claim to be a mighty thing is something we humans know a lot of laws from. And the laws we simple humans think to know is not even the laws scientists are working with. And to use that time of yours again
If we found out allready so many in only the beginstage. guess what we will know in years to come.
This world is not complicated, it's simple..

 

[Abdul Latif]

Quote:

You claim yourself that you use God as a fill in. so you may use God as substitute for fairytale and we can't use time as substitute?

-------

I personally don't believe God used evolution to bring about existence. I'm speaking of people who try to concile between evolution and theism, whereby in the claims of evolution, they could use god to explain it, which would seem ok for a person who did believe in a creator.

However, atheistic evolutionists would have to explain life as a most improbable, counter-intuitive process so unlikely, with a probability so low, it would be beyond the comprehension of man.

And you said something about the earth being simple? I don't think so

 

[BucephalusBB]

However, atheistic evolutionists would have to explain life as a most improbable, counter-intuitive process so unlikely, with a probability so low, it would be beyond the comprehension of man.

And you said something about the earth being simple? I don't think so

Well then I guess those atheistic evolutionists (including me) think that proces is more likely than God.

Besides, you might think that process is unlikely, I do not. And for you the concept of God might not raise question, simply "because you have faith". For me the concept of God raises so many unanswerable questions that it is very unlikely. When you look at animals however, you see so many similarities, that evolution, big or smal doesn't sound that stupid at all.

For the rest, the thought of evolution uses knowledge of what we saw, found and heard. Creationism uses that what we can't see. I prefer the first.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

However, atheistic evolutionists would have to explain life as a most improbable, ...

This is tiresome babble unlikely from anyone who actually read the books claimed. How does being an evolutionist effect how one explains life? How does one contain "micro-evolution"?

Your wimpering thrusts at evolution are intellectually bankrupt and laughable. Go read the books you claimed to have read ...

 

[Abdul Latif]

Your wimpering thrusts at evolution are intellectually bankrupt and laughable.

Good. Tell me how life evolved spontaneously from non-life 3.5 Billion years ago, and show me one experiment which would confirm such a notion possible.

You going to give me the Miller experiment?

 

[MaddLlama]

I'll answer your question if you tell me without using any religious texts how it's possible that God exists, and if there is undeniable and reproducable proof that such a being could exist. And if there is, what is it?

And if you can't do that, then I would say that while you think that atheists are silly for not believing that a creator exists, I think that people who do believe in God are simply attached to a fantasy. A world of make-believe.

 

[fantome profane]

I've got no problem with people who believe in evolution as a result of a god empowered process, because we could fill in the logical inconsistencies with 'God made it happen'..

This is an excellent description of the “God of the Gaps” theology.

It is not a reasonable scientific explanation. You cannot just use “God” to fill in the logical inconsistencies. It is not logical, and it is not scientific, unless you can clearly show that “God made it happen”, then it is meaningless.

Worse than that it is bad theology. You are using “God” for your own purposes. You are saying that “God” can only be seen acting in those places where there are no scientific explanations. It is a very dangerous philosophy. As our scientific understanding grows, you will be forcing “God” into smaller and smaller spaces. Many atheists are former theists who at one time subscribed to the God of the Gaps theology. I really think you should spend some time reconsidering this.

Btw, evolution on its own (as a branch of biology) does not deal with the origin of life

I am glad you understand that. Abiogenesis is not evolution. And the sense I get is that your problem is not really with evolution, but with abiogenesis. So just for the sake of argument, I will grant you that there is still a great deal that is not fully known or understood about the origin of life. But saying “God did it” is not an explanation.

And what would happen to your faith if one day there was a convincing scientific explanation? You would be forced either to deny the truth, or question your faith. Don’t allow yourself to fall into that trap.



And I would still like you to define what precisely you see as the difference between micro and macro evolution. Where exactly do you draw the line and why? How can I tell the difference between micro and macro evolution?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good. Tell me how life evolved spontaneously from non-life 3.5 Billion years ago, and show me one experiment which would confirm such a notion possible. You going to give me the Miller experiment?

No, I'm going to tell you that issues of creation verses abiogenesis have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.

 

[Dickyh995]

Good. Tell me how life evolved spontaneously from non-life 3.5 Billion years ago, and show me one experiment which would confirm such a notion possible.

You going to give me the Miller experiment?

How many times? The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Even if there is never a decent Theory of how life began, or if the ToE was proved completely incorrect, it is still a huge leap to assume supernatural processes.

 

[McBell]

Good. Tell me how life evolved spontaneously from non-life 3.5 Billion years ago, and show me one experiment which would confirm such a notion possible.

You going to give me the Miller experiment?

Wait...
You claim to have read the books you listed in post #4 and you STILL do not understand that abiogenesis is not evolution?


I find it rather hard to believe that you engaged in actual research during the two months you claimed you researched.....

 

[LuisDantas]

Abdul Latif, do you think Evolution is particularly meaningful for an Atheist in some way?

It isn't. The whole "controversy" is created by Theists that have trouble with the known facts and evidences. With very little reason at that, it must be said.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've gone away for two months, searching everything I could on atheism and evolution.

Creationist propaganda doesn't constitute meaningful research on either atheism or evolution. Go back, and try reading an actual textbook or two.

 

[rusra02]

I agree with you. The Bible puts it this way: "because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." (Romans 1:19-23)

 

[McBell]

I agree with you.

[sarcasm]
Oh wow.
I am sure no one saw that coming...
[/sarcasm]

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I agree with you. The Bible puts it this way: "because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even hRis eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things." (Romans 1:19-23)

Incoherent ramblings do not a good argument make.

 

[egcroc]

I've gone away for two months, searching everything I could on atheism and evolution.

And let me tell you i'm having real problems getting around Cosmic, Organic and Macro-Evolution. The claim that immaculate design in the universe being nothing more than a result of random mutation and natural selection evolving from some organic soup really does require as much faith as any religion I know.

Micro-Evolution? No problem. The evidence is clear and overwhelming. Earth older than 6000 years old? No problem as a Muslim. Blind religious faith without evidence? Dangerous phenomenon that's plain stupid, I agree.

Evolution does have evidence, but it has been exaggerated to a most irrational body. It, and the atheism with which it is normally associated are, in my opinion, utterly unreasonable.

If science is represented by evolution (speculative chance), and religion by associating the watch with a watchmaker, then I know where I sit. The designer ought to get credit for his design, and the creator ought to be worshipped for his creation.

"Verily in the heavens and the earth are signs for those who believe. And in the creation of yourselves, and the animals scattered through the lands, are signs for those of assured faith. And in the alternation of night and day, and that fact that Allah sends down sustenance from the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are signs for those who are wise" (45:3-5).

"Oh humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured among you in the sight of Allah is the who is the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted with his creation" (49:13)

I understand I might be profoundly affected by the environment I grew up in, but I really can't get around life coming from an organic soup billions of years ago, and it leading to what we see around us. I know there is a creator, whether it is the Jewish, Hindu, Christian or Muslim god is irrelevant, the universe is proof of the a supernatural creator.

I could be wrong though

hey there Abdul Latif, welcome back to the forum...

I myself have no problem accepting the theory of evolution, however, I have a problem accepting the notion that the entire process is driven solely by random mutations and blind chance... there's got to be something more to it...you can say I believe in "intelligently-designed evolution"...

that's probably one of the reasons why I as a former muslim didn't head straight towards atheism and preferred deism instead, I believe in a higher power, but not the man-made sets of mythology written about it...

BTW, this is an article about evolution and the Quran I found earlier, Enjoy it

مسلمون ولكن: نظرية التطور والقرأن