Evolution and Darwin against Religion and God

[Erikaspirit16]

Peer reviewed paper.

I only read the summary. But it clearly said it “undermined intelligent design.” And yes, it did say it didn’t satisfactorily explain RNA / DNA, but I’m not sure that’s relevant. So we can’t explain it all in detail yet. So what? It doesn’t mean we never will…

 

[Dourbest]

Well the theory is based on science. I’m a Catholic. I also believe that we evolved into how we are today. You know why? Because there is evidence supporting the theory.

 

[Bradskii]

Not at all. The Church has made it clear: life and the development of life must involve God. I will continue to quote the Church.

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

 

[o_mlly]

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

Theists may accept or reject some or all of evolutionists claims and remain integrated in their worldview. Atheist, not so much.

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists | Fern Elsdon-Baker | The Guardian

Just over half of religious or spiritual people in both countries thought human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes. Astonishingly, we also found that over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists felt the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Straw man. Evolution does not deny God.

Theists may accept or reject some or all of evolutionists claims and remain integrated in their worldview. Atheist, not so much.

Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists | Fern Elsdon-Baker | The Guardian

Just over half of religious or spiritual people in both countries thought human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes. Astonishingly, we also found that over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists felt the same.

That’s not true on a couple of levels.

The first is that certain aspects of what can be a very involved and complex set of scientific proposals can be discounted by anyone who doesn’t believe in God. There are many aspects of evolution about which many scientists disagree - none of them associated with a belief in God in any way.

The second is perhaps the implication that evolution itself denies the existence of God. Most Christians would disagree with that. And likewise would any number of atheists as well. Myself included.

And in passing, that consciousness is a direct result of the evolutionary process is a difficult concept in itself to accept, irrespective of one’s religious beliefs. To find that some people find it so is no surprsie to me. In fact, I would have put the percentages higher. It takes a lot of reading and a lot of study (I’m talking informal study) to even get to the poi t where the proposal can be considered viable.

The majority of atheists, not having the option of a soul or an equivalent God-given inner self, would be hard pressed to offer a viable alternative. But then ‘I don’t know’ is never a bad answer.

 

[o_mlly]

That’s not true on a couple of levels.

The first is that certain aspects of what can be a very involved and complex set of scientific proposals can be discounted by anyone who doesn’t believe in God.

True. But the article indicates what is generally true is not true for the theory of evolution. If all scientists discount aspects of theories irregardless of their belief system then one would expect to see a uniform response to doubts regarding evolution’s explanation of consciousness. We do not.

Religious Discounters > 50%
Atheist (Canada) Discounters ~ 33%
Atheist (UK) < 20%

The above suggests a strong bias on the part of atheists to accept evolution’s explanation of consciousness. It seems the atheists polled are “all in” on the truth claims of evolution.

The second is perhaps the implication that evolution itself denies the existence of God.

The article argues the opposite. Religious people accept much of evolution theory as consistent with their theism.

There is a widespread assumption that religious people will find it hard to reconcile evolutionary science, and by extension science as a whole, with their religious beliefs. However, our new research turns some of this thinking on its head.

And in passing, that consciousness is a direct result of the evolutionary process is a difficult concept in itself to accept, irrespective of one’s religious beliefs. To find that some people find it so is no surprsie to me. In fact, I would have put the percentages higher. It takes a lot of reading and a lot of study (I’m talking informal study) to even get to the poi t where the proposal can be considered viable.

One would assume the article’s author has done the research you suggest is necessary and, as an atheist, came up wanting. She writes:

Even as a lifelong atheist I can see it is entirely disingenuous and unempirical to deny that we are in some ways different from the other species with which we share our planet.

But then ‘I don’t know’ is never a bad answer.

Refreshing. Conversion from atheism to agnosticism is a forward step.

 

[edwest211]

Please stop with the wishful thinking. I have pointed out many times that scientists are now forced to literally take the genome apart to learn something useful. Evolution does not apply.

 

[edwest211]

I see people posting false, atheist ideology here.

 

[edwest211]

This again. Check your logic. Science does not exclude God is like saying science does not exclude nothing. Science can’t detect God. You know that.

 

[Bradskii]

"edwest211:

Science does not exclude God is like saying science does not exclude nothing. Science can’t detect God. You know that.

Dear me, Ed. You really love pushing tbis barrow, don’t you. I think you are getting mixed up with a double negative or two into the bargain.

Science doesn’t discount God. It has no opinion on God. It cannot, by definition, suggest or claim or espouse or theorise that God is the cause of anything.

Do you understand that? I made it as simple as I could. Now for the next bit.

Science does not exclude God. You can add God wherever you want and science won’t stop you or object because science could care less.

If science says that water boils at 100 degrees C then it isn’t interested in your beliefs about God or anyone else’s about theirs. But if you want to say that water boils at that temperature because God has determined it, then go for it. You are free to hold that belief.

What you cannot do, and this is the point to seem unable to grasp, is to deny the science because it doesn’t include God. Science is science. It doesn’t care what you believe. But it is kinda picky about people claiming it is wrong for that reason.

Feel free to believe what you want. I will support your right to do so. Even the 6,000 year old earth beliefs. Even the flood beliefs. Whatever you like.

But denying science because it contradicts these fundamental beliefs and you will be held to account.

 

[edwest211]

Check your logic. It’s like saying Evolution does not deny nothing. Science can’t detect God. You know that.

 

[Bradskii]

Refreshing. Conversion from atheism to agnosticism is a forward step.

I use the term atheist because it’s nice and simple. People know that then asking ‘Then you don’t believe in God?’ is superfluous. I rarely get into discussions about the fact that nothing outside of maths can be proved one way or another so I never ever say that God doesn’t exist. But I never say that about Shiva either.

As to the article, it seems to hold up what I experience. It didn’t specifically say that only fundamental Christians (hi, Ed) deny evolution, but in my experience, that is the case. But that is not the same as someone saying that everything about evolution rings true. That is not the case. And there are many atheists I would imagine that feel that there are further discoveries to be made that will help us understand the process.

And that certainly holds with the problem of consciousness. Ask any person on the street and unless they hold to a God given soul/consciousness,you are likely to get a shrug of the shoulders if you ask where it comes from. Evolved you say? Why gee, I’n not sure. Likewise basic instincts, morality, fear and courage…you can keep adding to the list and you’ll still get a shrug of the shoulders.

Good grief, I’ve done enough reading on the subject to know that many people writing on the subject of consciousness and its emergence via the evolutionary process know how difficult it is to get the idea across. That only 20 to 30% of atheists acceot it is surprising to me.

Maybe you think that all atheists spend the wee hours reading detailed scientific papers on evolutionary theory and the emergence of consciousness and evolutionary psychology and genetic drift and dualism etc etc.

 

[edwest211]

More wishful thinking. More of the same old, same old. I’m making a list of “bad” things here.

The enemy:

Fundamentalists
Anti-Science
Anti-Intellectual
Anti-Evolution
Catholics who post what the Church is actually telling us about Evolution. Not what some people want to hear.

 

[Bradskii]

Check your logic. It’s like saying Evolution does not deny nothing. Science can’t detect God. You know that.

Sorry. I had a bit of dej vu then. OK, it’s passed. Now where was I…

Ah yes. The ‘does not deny nothing’ is the double negative I was sure I mentioned earlier. It means ‘accepts everything’. I think your original quote then reads:

‘Science accepts everything’.

And the new improved version:

‘Evolution accepts everything’.

Which is kinda silly on a very basic, easily understood level. Neither, for example (and as easy as it is to understand, I feel I have to explain), would accept that fairies make water boil or control natural selection. And I’m afraid I have to point this out YET AGAIN (sorry for shouting, but it seems not to be getting through), science/evolution does not care if you believe in fairies or God. So they don’t deny them. They simply, by the very definition of each term, cannot include them.

Clear? Good.

Now the second half…deja vu all over again…

Neither does science or evolution in particular DENY fairies or hobgoblins or anyone’s deity. It’s not part of their remit. Nothing to say. Nothing to see here. Please move on.

And having moved on, you, Ed, are free to INCLUDE God wherever and however you wish.

Clear? I sincerely doubt it.

 

[edwest211]

Your sarcasm is not appreciated. No scientist is chastised for his rabid denial of God, but mention Intelligent Design at University and the hunters’ ears perk up, you are now under the microscope. You may be suspended or reassigned and certainly denounced. Which happens here as well.

 

[Bradskii]

More wishful thinking. More of the same old, same old. I’m making a list of “bad” things here.

The enemy:

Fundamentalists
Anti-Science
Anti-Intellectual
Anti-Evolution
Catholics who post what the Church is actually telling us about Evolution. Not what some people want to hear.

Not a bad list. But some clarification is needed.

Fundamentalists are just great. Some of my best friends are fundamentalists. Buffalo for example. No problem with them or what they believe. But, by definition, they are anti-science (global floods, 6,000 year old earth, dinosaur-riding cave men etc). And when they attempt to deny science on the basis of their fundamentalist beliefs they come up against a wall of people who want to ridicule them because of that.

In that respect, fundamentalists are not the enemy. It’s the science-denying fundamentalists who are. Should I mention that you are in that camp? I think that you knew anyway.

I’m not sure why you’d in inlude anti-intellectuals. Are you one? Do you object to people having high intellects?

Anti-evolutionists? Well, see the bit about science above. That should clear that one up.

Good list though.

 

[Bradskii]

Your sarcasm is not appreciated. No scientist is chastised for his rabid denial of God, but mention Intelligent Design at University and the hunters’ ears perk up, you are now under the microscope. You may be suspended or reassigned and certainly denounced. Which happens here as well.

Well, yeah. Remember I said that science-denying fundamentalists might be considered the enemy of science literate people (Christian or otherwise), then if you up camp and join the enemy then how should you be considered?

You don’t get to teach anti-scientific mumbo jumbo in schools or colleges. If you align with the enemy then you become…the enemy!

 

[edwest211]

Oh dear. I did forget to mention science-denying fundamentalists. I have no problem with atheist friends. In fact, a friend of mine went through an atheist phase. Me and his wife prayed for him and he is now an usher at his local Catholic church.

 

[Bradskii]

Oh dear. I did forget to mention science-denying fundamentalists. I have no problem with atheist friends. In fact, a friend of mine went through an atheist phase. Me and his wife prayed for him and he is now an usher at his local Catholic church.

There was no need to mention science-denying fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are by definition science deniers. How could that not be clear?

But I need to point out that IF you are a fundamentalist (such as yourself), then you don’t deny all science. Obviously. Just the bits that contradict your fundamentalist beliefs.

So, using you as an example, you don’t deny the process of planet formation because that doesn’t contradict your beliefs. But you do deny evolution because it does (6,000.year old earth etc).

It’s only when you actively take up arms as it were, that you become the enemy. Non combatants are treated very well indeed.

 

[edwest211]

Mind reading is not your strong suit. Please avoid doing so. As for me, I will continue to post what the Church actually tells us about evolution. Not ‘Oh look. Pope John Paul II accepts evolution!’ No, he mentioned theories of evolution (plural) but that part was discarded. It’s obvious why.