Why can't some people understand that Evolution is not Atheism.

[E. Nato Difficile]

If you believed that your "God" was directly responsible for gravity, then the theory of Gravity could be a threat to your religion. If you believe that the power of "God" is what kept the sun shining then the theory of nuclear fusion could be an attack on your beliefs. If you believed that disease was punishment for sin then germ theory could be insulting to you.

As Daniel Dennett observes, the greatest threat is to the abiding human notion that complex design requires agency. Darwin's theory is a staggering demonstration of the creative power of mechanistic processes. Evolution by natural selection is actually only impressive if we assume it's a process without foresight; if a deity couldn't concoct a less cruel or wasteful method for producing diversity of species, perhaps that deity isn't worthy of our worship.

-Nato

 

[Willamena]

No, actually on re-reading what I wrote I see where you are coming from. Let me change "would" to "could".

If you believed that your "God" was directly responsible for gravity, then the theory of Gravity could be a threat to your religion. If you believe that the power of "God" is what kept the sun shining then the theory of nuclear fusion could be an attack on your beliefs. If you believed that disease was punishment for sin then germ theory could be insulting to you.

More properly, if you see "theory" for what it is, description, then any scientific theory cannot be a threat to your religious view. Descriptions can do no harm. If you see theory for reality, then any scientific theory will undoubtedly be a threat to any religious view.

 

[fantome profane]

More properly, if you see "theory" for what it is, description, then any scientific theory cannot be a threat to your religious view. Descriptions can do no harm. If you see theory for reality, then any scientific theory will undoubtedly be a threat to any religious view.

Actually I think "theory" is better understood as an explanation rather than a mere description. Contrary to what many people think a scientific law is a description.

 

[Looncall]

It is very frustrating reading post after post in thread after thread where people claim to be arguing against the theory of evolution when it is very apparent that they have no idea what the theory of evolution is, and in fact that they have an issue with is atheism.

The theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with whether of not there is a "God", or "Gods". The vast majority of the scientific communities agrees that the theory of evolution is accurate well established scientific theory. It is not just the Atheists. Evolution is no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. So why do people insist on conflating evolution with atheism?

If you want to attack atheism go ahead, have at it. But to try to attack atheism by denying evolution is ridiculous. It is like trying to attack your enemy by banging your own head against a wall. You are not going to harm your enemy and you certainly are not going to harm the wall.

All they are doing is denying themselves a full understanding and appreciation of the world we live in.

For me it is frustrating, but for them it is an absolute tragedy.

I think that what religious types, at least Abrahamic ones, are afraid of losing is original sin. If people evolved, the Adam and Eve story makes no sense, nor does original sin. The notion of redemption also finds itself on shaky ground.

Without original sin, clerics have one less club to beat people with, and self-righteous people have one less reason for feeling superior.

 

[fantome profane]

I think that what religious types, at least Abrahamic ones, are afraid of losing is original sin. If people evolved, the Adam and Eve story makes no sense, nor does original sin. The notion of redemption also finds itself on shaky ground.

Without original sin, clerics have one less club to beat people with, and self-righteous people have one less reason for feeling superior.

Why? I am not sure I want to get into a debate about theological interpretation here, but I have never understood why a story that can be interpreted as an allegory about the origin of life cannot also be interpreted as an allegory about the original sin.

 

[cablescavenger]

It is very frustrating reading post after post in thread after thread where people claim to be arguing against the theory of evolution when it is very apparent that they have no idea what the theory of evolution is, and in fact that they have an issue with is atheism.

The theory of evolution has nothing at all to do with whether of not there is a "God", or "Gods". The vast majority of the scientific communities agrees that the theory of evolution is accurate well established scientific theory. It is not just the Atheists. Evolution is no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. So why do people insist on conflating evolution with atheism?

If you want to attack atheism go ahead, have at it. But to try to attack atheism by denying evolution is ridiculous. It is like trying to attack your enemy by banging your own head against a wall. You are not going to harm your enemy and you certainly are not going to harm the wall.

All they are doing is denying themselves a full understanding and appreciation of the world we live in.

For me it is frustrating, but for them it is an absolute tragedy.

I see no tragedy. I see a revolution.

 

[Quintessence]

But if you believed that your "God" was directly responsible for gravity, then the theory of Gravity would be a threat to your religion. If you believe that the power of "God" is what kept the sun shining then the theory of nuclear fusion would be an attack on your beliefs. If you believed that disease was punishment for sin then germ theory would be insulting to you. And I could go on.

I take your point here, but still Evolution is no more Atheistic than any other scientific theory.

Haha, no. You misunderstand my theology, but that's okay because I really haven't explained it in this thread and it's beyond its purpose anyway.

You do raise a good point. For those whose belief in god(s) is threatened by particular ideas, why evolution specifically instead of some other ideas as well? I think that other ideas DO, in fact, threaten certain people's ideas about the god(s), but this one in particular gets a lot of spotlight attention compared to others. I can imagine some finding scientific explanations for "divine miracles" like spontaneous remission of terminal illnesses to be threatening, for instance. It largely depends on the person in question and how they respond to information that poses a challenge to their worldview. We all have various methods for dealing with that. Some take an integrative approach while others deny the information is true; that decision is influenced by how rigid or flexible our worldview is. Those with rigid worldviews would see certain kinds of information as an atheistic attack on their beliefs. For some, it is enough that evolution is not inherently theistic to call it atheistic.

 

[cablescavenger]

I think it has to do with some atheist using evolution to try to disprove religion or God. It does happen, especially on various forums where one has more aggressive atheist who hate everything religion. So, in some instances, it is seen as a tool of atheism and thus as a part of atheism.

I give the religious more credit than that. I would hate to think anyone sabotaged their own education on those grounds.

I do think that the majority of people do see the difference though. More and more religious people are accepting evolution, and I think that will go up drastically in the next couple of decades (when older teachers who were taught creationism are replaced by more informed individuals).

I agree.

Change is coming.

 

[fantome profane]

Haha, no. You misunderstand my theology, but that's okay because I really haven't explained it in this thread and it's beyond its purpose anyway.

You do raise a good point. For those whose belief in god(s) is threatened by particular ideas, why evolution specifically instead of some other ideas as well? I think that other ideas DO, in fact, threaten certain people's ideas about the god(s), but this one in particular gets a lot of spotlight attention compared to others. I can imagine some finding scientific explanations for "divine miracles" like spontaneous remission of terminal illnesses to be threatening, for instance. It largely depends on the person in question and how they respond to information that poses a challenge to their worldview. We all have various methods for dealing with that. Some take an integrative approach while others deny the information is true; that decision is influenced by how rigid or flexible our worldview is. Those with rigid worldviews would see certain kinds of information as an atheistic attack on their beliefs. For some, it is enough that evolution is not inherently theistic to call it atheistic.

It was not my intention to refer to your theology, I was speaking in general terms. But this is a good post. It is true that the science of evolution is not inherently theistic, but no science is inherently theistic. So again Evolution is no different in this respect from any other theory in science.

 

[Skwim]

To be honest, the heading for this section of the board represents a major part of the problem. People on both "sides" of the issue have created a false dichotomy between evolution and creationism (which can so easily turn in to atheist versus theism).

That some may conflate evolution and atheism is beside the point of the heading of this forum. There is a very real dichotomy between evolution and creationism (the hard, Y.E. kind, which is where most of the vitriol against evolution lies). So "Evolution Vs. Creationism" is a quite valid label. It's evolution vs. hard creationism.

There are sadly plenty of people misusing evolution as a tool to attack religon (or at least Christianity) just as there are indeed relious people attacking atheism via evolution. They're all idiots.

But there's no logical connection between evolution and atheism. No reading of atheism advocates evolution; however, there are readings of Christianity that do advocate creationism. You do not need to believe in evolution to be an atheist---although I don't know what the alternative would be---but, in some forms of Christianity a belief in creationism is required. So the comparison of the two isn't all that sound. And when people rightfully cite the Bible as an accessory to the "crime" of creationism it is a justified attack on the religion of the creationist as they present it. Want to claim your religion espouses silly stuff and try to get that silly stuff accepted as the truth? then be prepared for an attack on it. Don't want to claim your brand of Christianity espouses silly stuff, etc.? then no one should be attacking it, and I don't think many do.

The big difference between evolutionists and creationists (the YE kind) is that evolutionists couldn't care less what a creationist's religion says. It never seeks to intrude into the religious sphere of life; however, the creationist does actively seek to intrude into the secular sphere of evolution. As with scientists in all spheres of science, evolutionists make it a point to stay away from issues of faith and religion, whereas the religious, Christians in this case, delight in voicing their Christian based opinions on science. Moreover they actively seek to infuse the secular world---think public schools--- with their belief. Creationists have no concept of "Stay out of my garden and I'll stay out of yours."

 

[FearGod]

of course there is no relation between evolution and atheism,
atheism is to deny the existence of god.

So if one person will believe that the evolution is done by nature alone,then he
denied god,as without a creator there is no even nature.

 

[Serenity7855]

That some may conflate evolution and atheism is beside the point of the heading of this forum. There is a very real dichotomy between evolution and creationism (the hard, Y.E. kind, which is where most of the vitriol against evolution lies). So "Evolution Vs. Creationism" is a quite valid label. It's evolution vs. hard creationism.

But there's no logical connection between evolution and atheism. No reading of atheism advocates evolution; however, there are readings of Christianity that do advocate creationism. You do not need to believe in evolution to be an atheist---although I don't know what the alternative would be---but, in some forms of Christianity a belief in creationism is required. So the comparison of the two isn't all that sound. And when people rightfully cite the Bible as an accessory to the "crime" of creationism it is a justified attack on the religion of the creationist as they present it. Want to claim your religion espouses silly stuff and try to get that silly stuff accepted as the truth? then be prepared for an attack on it. Don't want to claim your brand of Christianity espouses silly stuff, etc.? then no one should be attacking it, and I don't think many do.

The big difference between evolutionists and creationists (the YE kind) is that evolutionists couldn't care less what a creationist's religion says. It never seeks to intrude into the religious sphere of life; however, the creationist does actively seek to intrude into the secular sphere of evolution. As with scientists in all spheres of science, evolutionists make it a point to stay away from issues of faith and religion, whereas the religious, Christians in this case, delight in voicing their Christian based opinions on science. Moreover they actively seek to infuse the secular world---think public schools--- with their belief. Creationists have no concept of "Stay out of my garden and I'll stay out of yours."

Surely if you believe that the bible is the inspired word of god written by man you have to believe in a creation. Evolution does not allow for a creation in the traditional sense. If anything it dispels it as an allegory. Richard Dawkins is very keen to rid the world of religion thinking that he was going to achieve that goal by 2006. He uses evolution all the time to try and discredit religion. I consider myself as a evolutionist Christian. I believe that evolution is a reality that does not infringe in anyway with the creation or the existence of god. If we all keep to that theme there would be no arguments and cruel remarks made to the believer. What is essential is the truth. Lets have the truth from the supporters of evolution. Lets teach our children that truth and maybe Christians would not associate evolution with atheists

 

[ChristineES]

The key is educating people that evolution is not the same as atheism and that some people who are theists believe in evolution. It is tiring to teach the same things over and over again, but maybe someday people will get it.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Surely if you believe that the bible is the inspired word of god written by man you have to believe in a creation. Evolution does not allow for a creation in the traditional sense. If anything it dispels it as an allegory.

You're right. There's such a mountain of mutually-corroborating evidence for evolution by natural selection that it's silly to dispute the matter at all. And I don't buy the notion that "God used evolution," because this process is simply the cruellest, most wasteful method to create biodiversity. Evolution is ingenious only if we assume that it's an undirected process that rewards local fitness at the cost of a vast amount of suffering and waste.

So like I said before, the Biblical notion of a Creator God gets relegated to mythology with the Sun God and the Rain God. And the notion of deity gets further redefined for contemporary believers until it's just the vague being they invoke when they recite their New Age affirmations.

-Nato

 

[Skwim]

Surely if you believe that the bible is the inspired word of god written by man you have to believe in a creation.

Not a creation as espoused by creationists. And the fact is, many Christians do believe both: evolution and that the bible is the inspired word of god.

Evolution does not allow for a creation in the traditional sense. If anything it dispels it as an allegory.

Actually, it doesn't characterize it as anything, but dismisses it as wrong. However, some Christian evolutionists do regard the Bible's account of creation as allegorical.

Richard Dawkins is very keen to rid the world of religion thinking that he was going to achieve that goal by 2006.

So what?

He uses evolution all the time to try and discredit religion.

So I've heard, but never seen. Got any examples of this?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Lets have the truth from the supporters of evolution.

What is this truth?

 

[Serenity7855]

So what?

I don't lnow how to respond to that.

So I've heard, but never seen. Got any examples of this?

Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement.[4] He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—"a fixed false belief."[5] As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages.[6]

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Quintessence]

In reading Skwim's post, another thought occurred to me. Skwim claimed "no reading of atheism advocates evolution" but I don't think this is true. While atheism may in the technical sense only mean lack of belief or disbelief in some type of god(s), people who have this stance also tend to adopt additional beliefs. Because many atheists use no other self-identifying religious label, the term "atheist" also comes to be associated with these additional beliefs. These additional beliefs include science (and of course evolution), as well as rejection of anything that cannot be evidenced by science (often manifest as non/anti-supernaturalism) or anti-theism/religion/spirituality. "Atheism" has more complex subtextual meanings than I think we're giving it credit for.

 

[Skwim]

I don't lnow how to respond to that.

Your remark was irrelevant.

Dawkins is an atheist, a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement.[4] He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—"a fixed false belief."[5] As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages.[6]

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still no examples of using "evolution all the time to try and discredit religion." That Dawkins agrees with evolution and also discredits religion doesn't mean that he uses evolution to discredit religion. And, that he finds evolution to be a useful tool with which to criticize an argument for god, doesn't mean this is an attack on any religion. It's a criticism of an argument.

 

[Serenity7855]

Your remark was irrelevant.

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist and an atheist who wants to rid the world of religion. I would consider that relevant to the argument.

Still no examples of using "evolution all the time to try and discredit religion." That Dawkins agrees with evolution and also discredits religion doesn't mean that he uses evolution to discredit religion. And, that he finds evolution to be a useful tool with which to criticize an argument for god, doesn't mean this is an attack on any religion. It's a criticism of an argument.

Really, the fact that he uses evolution to disprove the existence of god which gratifies his atheistic beliefs is not an example for you? I fear that you will never find one in that case, even if it slaps you in the face. To say that evolution makes a mockery of genesis is also not an example for you either? He uses that one almost every time he appears on the TV. Never mind. there is none so blind as they that will not see

Serenity