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

[Skwim]

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.

It should come as no surprise that those who reject the existence of god would also reject anything it's said he has done, and instead opt for something that makes more sense to them: evolution. It's a pretty common sense conclusion. But to take it to the next level and say that such a commonality among atheists amounts to an outright advocacy of evolution by atheism is ignoring the very simple connection I just mention. Given two alternatives creationism (the work of a god) and evolution (the work of natural processes) it's hardly surprising which one an atheist would pick. So there's hardly any need for atheism to push evolution, even if it was thought to be in its interest to do so. You don't tell the starving they should eat.

 

[Skwim]

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

The argument that he uses evolution to discredit religion? Think an atheist who eats peanut butter uses peanut butter to discredit religion? Unless you have evidence/examples of Dawkins using evolution to discredit religion your claim is peanut butter.

Really, the fact that he uses evolution to disprove the existence of god which gratifies his atheistic beliefs is not an example for you?

SO . . . . . . .

​

Just show me the evidence that this is what Dawkins does: uses evolution to discredit religion. NOT that he happens to be an atheist who subscribes to evolution. That's already well known.

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?

So everyone in other religions who disagrees with something that's written in the Bible is making a mockery of it?   P l e a s e , give me a break. Evolutionists don't mount offensives against the Bible or even Genesis in particular. They've simply presented their case and acknowledge that it doesn't line up with the Biblical version of life. Period. That some find it necessary to take umbrage at this and wail and flail against evolution is their choice.

 

[Sunstone]

So far as I know, the most Dawkins has ever claimed is that evolution provides a well grounded alternative explanation to the Watchmaker argument for the existence of god.

 

[Serenity7855]

The argument that he uses evolution to discredit religion? Think an atheist who eats peanut butter uses peanut butter to discredit religion? Unless you have evidence/examples of Dawkins using evolution to discredit religion your claim is peanut butter.


SO . . . . . . .

​

Just show me the evidence that this is what Dawkins does: uses evolution to discredit religion. NOT that he happens to be an atheist who subscribes to evolution. That's already well known.

So everyone in other religions who disagrees with something that's written in the Bible is making a mockery of it?   P l e a s e , give me a break. Evolutionists don't mount offensives against the Bible or even Genesis in particular. They've simply presented their case and acknowledge that it doesn't line up with the Biblical version of life. Period. That some find it necessary to take umbrage at this and wail and flail against evolution is their choice.

It may be correct that Dawkins does not directly use evolution to attack religion, however, below he calls anyone who does not believe in it a few choice names. As many Christians still do not believe in evolution they would be included in his indictment on non-believers in evolution so an indirect attack on the religious has effectively been made. Not a very nice one either. He even call people who teach their children religion child abusers

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)..." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

I would say that parents should teach their children anything that's known to be factually true --like "that's a bluebird" or "that's a bald eagle." Or they could teach children that there are such things as religious beliefs. But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.

Bonus quote

Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and has also faced charges of committing elementary errors.[3][4]

The website True Free Thinker notes:

“ Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details here and here).

Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in The God Delusion.[5]
”
In 2010, a new discovery regarding the eye further discredited the evolutionary quackery of Richard Dawkins.[6] In addition, in 2010, the journal Nature featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: Atheism and Mental and Physical Health).[7][8]

Concerning the social science of history, Richard Dawkins has engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists.

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are conservative Christians which is not surprising. The Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."[9] In the United States, CBS News reported in October of 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.[10]

Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience - Conservapedia

 

[Skwim]

It may be correct that Dawkins does not directly use evolution to attack religion,

Good, we got that little misrepresentation out of the way.

however, below he calls anyone who does not believe in it a few choice names. As many Christians still do not believe in evolution they would be included in his indictment on non-believers in evolution so an indirect attack on the religious has effectively been made.

By your reasoning, if they are also black Democrats his remark would also be an indirect attack on their ethnicity and political party.

He even call people who teach their children religion child abusers

Nothing to do with evolution. This IS the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum and not the Religion Haters forum. Moreover, he has a right to his opinion. Don't like it, then I suggest you not read him. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Serenity7855]

.

By your reasoning, if they are also black Democrats his remark would also be an indirect attack on their ethnicity and political party.

Not really, He knew who is target audience was, after all, he doesn't publish books on black Democrats does he?

Serenity

 

[johnhanks]

So far as I know, the most Dawkins has ever claimed is that evolution provides a well grounded alternative explanation to the Watchmaker argument for the existence of god.

He has in fact gone further than this and stated that the theory of evolution is a necessary adjunct to atheism. You can accept evolution without being an atheist, but it's hard to defend atheism without accepting evolution.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

He has in fact gone further than this and stated that the theory of evolution is a necessary adjunct to atheism. You can accept evolution without being an atheist, but it's hard to defend atheism without accepting evolution.

What Dawkins actually said in The Blind Watchmaker was this:

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

He meant that prior to Darwin, there was no understanding of how order could arise from chaos without a pre-existing Mind. What Darwin did was demonstrate how mechanistic processes could account for the complex order that had previously been impossible to attribute to anything material.

That's why evolution by natural selection is still such a sticking point with believers. If the wonders of the biosphere are the product of earthly processes, why should we believe a deity or supernatural source is necessary to explain anything at all?

-Nato

 

[Serenity7855]

What Dawkins actually said in The Blind Watchmaker was this:

Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

He meant that prior to Darwin, there was no understanding of how order could arise from chaos without a pre-existing Mind. What Darwin did was demonstrate how mechanistic processes could account for the complex order that had previously been impossible to attribute to anything material.

That's why evolution by natural selection is still such a sticking point with believers. If the wonders of the biosphere are the product of earthly processes, why should we believe a deity or supernatural source is necessary to explain anything at all?

-Nato

I would agree with the first two paragraphs but if you think that gods only role was to create the biosphere you are very much mistaken. Our earth is but a stage on which to act out our mortal probation. It matters not what form that stage takes it is the play that is significant. The Plan of Salvation. Faith is our only stage hand to help us get through every scene. We were never meant to have a script either it is all improvisation. Evolution has had but a small negative role in my play. He was killed off in act two by sound reasoning and earnest prayer.

Serenity

 

[beerisit]

I would agree with the first two paragraphs but if you think that gods only role was to create the biosphere you are very much mistaken. Our earth is but a stage on which to act out our mortal probation. It matters not what form that stage takes it is the play that is significant. The Plan of Salvation. Faith is our only stage hand to help us get through every scene. We were never meant to have a script either it is all improvisation. Evolution has had but a small negative role in my play. He was killed off in act two by sound reasoning and earnest prayer.

Serenity

You seem to have some difficulty with believing evolution you accept it in some posts and deny it in others. Does your confusion come from your beliefs or do your beliefs come from your confusion?

 

[rusra02]

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 it is special pleading to assert that evolution and atheism are not inextricably linked. This quote from The New Biology, p.188 shows this linkage clearly: "The common opinion holds that Darwin rid biology of the need for God once and for all. Eldredge says, Darwin 'taught us that we can understand life's history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.' Julian Huxley said: 'Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as a creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.' Jacob writes: 'The idea that each species was separately designed by a Creator, was demolished by Darwin.' And Simpson writes of the origin of the first organism: 'There is, at any rate, no reason to postulate a miracle. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the origin of hte new processes of reproduction and mutation was anything but materialistic.' (Quote from g90 1/22 p.11)
The fact that professed "Christians" have forsaken the truth and embraced evolution as 'God's means of creating' allows these 'dual believers' to fit into today's materialistic society and avoid being ridiculed, while also relegating God to relative irrelevance in their own lives.
A good part of evolution's appeal is the implicit view that God is not going to do anything to me no matter what I do. I can do what I want and be independent of God. Such thinking is incorrect, of course. (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

 

[fantome profane]

I think it is special pleading to assert that evolution and atheism are not inextricably linked. This quote from The New Biology, p.188 shows this linkage clearly: "The common opinion holds that Darwin rid biology of the need for God once and for all. Eldredge says, Darwin 'taught us that we can understand life's history in purely naturalistic terms, without recourse to the supernatural or divine.' Julian Huxley said: 'Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as a creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion.' Jacob writes: 'The idea that each species was separately designed by a Creator, was demolished by Darwin.' And Simpson writes of the origin of the first organism: 'There is, at any rate, no reason to postulate a miracle. Nor is it necessary to suppose that the origin of hte new processes of reproduction and mutation was anything but materialistic.' (Quote from g90 1/22 p.11)
The fact that professed "Christians" have forsaken the truth and embraced evolution as 'God's means of creating' allows these 'dual believers' to fit into today's materialistic society and avoid being ridiculed, while also relegating God to relative irrelevance in their own lives.
A good part of evolution's appeal is the implicit view that God is not going to do anything to me no matter what I do. I can do what I want and be independent of God. Such thinking is incorrect, of course. (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

I think you don't understand what the term "special pleading" means. Evolution is no more Atheistic than any other scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. All scientific theories explain observed phenomena in purely naturalistic terms without reference to the supernatural. That is what science does. To single out one theory as being particularly odious for doing what science does, what science is suppose to do, that is an example of special pleading.

 

[johnhanks]

A good part of evolution's appeal is the implicit view that God is not going to do anything to me no matter what I do. I can do what I want and be independent of God.

If you believe god exists, then irrespective of your views on evolution such an attitude would make no sense. If you don't believe god exists, it's even more nonsensical. Either way, rusra, it's good to see you're back on form.

Such thinking is incorrect, of course. (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Such thinking is nonsense, regardless of what a 1st century preacher might have written to his pal Tim.

 

[Serenity7855]

You seem to have some difficulty with believing evolution you accept it in some posts and deny it in others. Does your confusion come from your beliefs or do your beliefs come from your confusion?

I can understand why you would say that. It might appear as though I am confused but i really am not at all confused. My belief system is dynamic and fluid. I am always willing to change it. What I cannot change is my belief in God. You see I asked God, the eternal father if these things were true and he did manifest the truth of it to my soul in and through the power of the Holy Ghost in a way that I cannot deny. So powerful was that experience that I can never deny it, neither do I want to. I would die rather than deny what I know to be true but I recognize that the experience was unique to me and I cannot prove it to anybody else. I don't try either. It is impossible for me to convert anybody. They must first have to have that desire and seek for themselves.

Evolution for me is, in all honesty, an unwelcome guest at my table. I could have done without him turning up but luckily we had enough food to go around. I do not have a problem with it now though accept that my conception of it is probably very different from most others. I believe that we evolved from a series of protozoa each evolving into the different taxons we see today. I didn't realize it until mycorrhiza pointed it out to me but I believe that the evolution from protozoa to distinct and individual organisms was actually achieved via macroevolution, for want of a better word. My belief does not incorporate the transition of one protozoa into the variation of species we see today. Each group can be traced back to a unique progenitor, or a least will be when science reaches that stage.

I can easily tie this in with my religion. God created those species via the evolution of those single celled animals. The bible says that it took 6 periods of time for the creation to complete. How long is a period of time? It does not say. It could easily be a billion years. The story of the creation is in tact. We can all believe in God and evolution.

I am not unique in my belief. There is a great deal of new blood in the science community who are looking at exactly this concept. What annoys me is the insistence that what is taught in our class rooms is an absolute fact. It simply is not. There are alternatives and if one is taught then they should all be taught in order to give the student a greater perspective on our history. It seems totally nonsensical to look at a fossil, which is simply a snap shot in time of an organism that lived on our planet, and then say that it is in transition. Two fossils with time in between them are simply two separate species and to connect then is pure speculation, which is fine as long as the truth is told. It is impossible to say that one transcended from the other. It simply can not be a fact as nobody was there to see it and any similarities may be purely incidental. Only when that time is reduced can we then start to consider the possible relationships between them

I hope that gives you a greater understanding as to what exactly I believe

Serenity

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

I can easily tie this in with my religion. God created those species via the evolution of those single celled animals. The bible says that it took 6 periods of time for the creation to complete. How long is a period of time? It does not say. It could easily be a billion years. The story of the creation is in tact. We can all believe in God and evolution.

But the Biblical account never mentions the evolutionary process per se. And the timeline is wrong anyway. Fruit-bearing trees are mentioned on the third "day," long before the creation of any animals; but in fact they weren't around until the Cretaceous period, when there were insects to pollinate them. By then there were already mammals and birds, which Genesis doesn't mention until a couple of "days" later, and dinosaurs, which don't warrant a mention in Genesis.

This doesn't mean you can't believe both in evolution and God. But it does mean that expecting scientific inquiry to validate your religious beliefs is bound to disappoint.

-Nato

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

What....?....

Then explain this guy........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This doesn't mean you can't believe both in evolution and God. But it does mean that expecting scientific inquiry to validate your religious beliefs is bound to disappoint.

That depends fully on one's religious beliefs.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

That depends fully on one's religious beliefs.

I'm afraid it doesn't at all.

Like I told Serenity, any religious believer can compartmentalize his faith and his understanding of science. That's different from expecting empirical evidential inquiry to validate his religious beliefs. The attempts I've heard to use what we know through scientific inquiry to demonstrate purpose, direction, justice, balance, or intelligent design in our cosmos have been embarrassingly facile and wrong-headed.

So unless one's religious beliefs involve an evidently indifferent universe, characterized by inexorable material functionality at the macro level and bleak uncertainty at the subatomic one, you're out of luck.

-Nato

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So unless one's religious beliefs involve an evidently indifferent universe, characterized by inexorable material functionality at the macro level and bleak uncertainty at the subatomic one, you're out of luck.

Oh, my: 'bleak' no less! And yet you have such provisional deists as E.O. Wilson somehow managing to make do.

 

[secret2]

We know that human is either female and male.
but there are gays,which are an aberrant cases.

..........What??