|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Evolution a Radical Idea? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
In the thread about the Pope's comments, Tusko and I were discussing "evolutionism," mentioned by the Pope as a danger to religion. I suppose we can define evolutionism as an atheistic philosophy that arises out of the Theory of Evolution. Evolution suggests abiogenesis, and abiogenesis, I would argue, suggests no God.
Tusko disagrees as follows, making an interesting parallel with heliocentrism:
I agree that some people might see God as an optional extra if they accept evolution and chemical abiogenesis to be true. But I disagree that this is necessarily the only course of action that a theist can take; personally, I think it would be a mistake. I don't think the existence of God becomes any less likely if we decide that life arose from natural processes at some point rather than god reaching down and shuffling carbon and hydrogen atoms like a magic trick. An omnipotent God who sets everything up and lets it roll is just as hands on as an interventionist god, because everything goes exactly according to plan. Those who didn't want to admit that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe saw heliocentrism as a challenge to their notion of the Almighty. Now as our notion of God has adapted, heliocentrism is largely an irrelevance. I'd argue that its similar with evolution and abiogenesis. These concepts challege people's notion of what God is and does, but there is still plenty of room for a pretty coherent notion of God that takes into account that life didn't necessarily originate with a Kazzam! one day when some omnipotent being felt like doing something a bit different. As I mentioned in the previous message, my hunch is that that if you play up the "preplanned" nature of the universe, God is made no more of an irrelevance than when earth just became the third rock from the sun. The issue here is whether evolution is the same sort of thing as heliocentrism. My own view is that evolution leads quite naturally to evolutionism and is devastating to religious belief. (I hope I got that right, Tusko).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It has nothing to do with God. The scientific theory doesn't have anything to do with God, but the ideas suggested by it do. evolutionabiogenesis formation of planets There's a similarity in all these ideas, namely the notion of gradual natural change over time. Evolutionism does away with any necessity for God. If there were no evolutionary ideas, we would have to suppose some kind of special creation. I take your point about the human-centeredness, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I cannot see this either. Evolution relies on being evidentially based, abiogenesis not. Even if someone managed to concoct some basic form of self-replicating life in a lab it says nothing at all about it ever having happened in fact. Concluding abiogenesis happened (whether due to evolution or anything else) is total leap of faith. The idea of evolution and the idea of abiogenesis fit together like matching gloves. I'm not talking about evidence, but the plausible ideas that arise out of the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
science can never address issues such as the existence or non-existence of GOD. Reality is. I'm talking about evolutionism not the scientific theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I don't see why you left these off your list: earthquakesthe sun volcanoes lightning wind storms I don't get your point. I'm speaking of origins. Let me put it this way. The concept of there being no God is much more plausible now than in, say, the 18th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Consider the history of life as we know it while remaining agnostic on evolution. Either it is the sort of thing God would produce or it is not. If it is then there is no problem with God permitting evolution to bring it about. If it is not then assuming that God directly intervened in that history only makes the problem worse. I see your point, but I am speaking of the answer to the question, "How did we get here?" If there were no evolutionary ideas, the only answer is special creation. We don't need that answer anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
BTW, good to see that you do distinguish between evolution and "evolutionism". It seems that most "creation science" rhetorics and misleading arguments is based on confusing the two terms. I'm arguing from an atheistic point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But the germ theory of disease meant we don't need the idea that God sends plagues. Meteorology meant that we don't need the idea that God sends rain or lightning or hurricanes. Plate tectonics means that we don't need the idea that God sends volcanic eruptions or earthquakes or tsunamis. Yes, but I would think that the ideas you mention are not central whereas the idea of creation is essential.If God is not the creator, there is no need for Him at all. But if God is not the rain-maker, there is still a need for Him as a creator.
Surely the cumulative impact of science's success in explaining the natural world in all areas is the real issue - This then--science's explanations in general--is a devastating blow to religion in your view?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why couldn't the entire universe (quarks, elements, stars, planets and evolution) be a God's single act of creation? Evolutionism tells us there's no necessity for such a concept (Big Bang ideas about something coming from nothing,etc.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And we need to call "creation science" proponents on it when they confuse those terms and we need to pin them down and get them to define those terms. I've tried that with creationists who would constantly toss out the term "evolutionist" and describe exactly what these "evolutionists" "believe" (ie, pure straw-man), and yet they would absolutely refuse to define that term or to describe how to determine whether someone was an "evolutionist". What I'm arguing here however is that there is a sense in which the fundamentalists (YEC's) are correct about the dangers of evolution. They recognize full well how devastating evolutionism, suggested by science, is to the religious position. The liberal Christians, I would argue, are incorrect in thinking there can be accomodation. Evolutionism is not science, but its ideas are based on the findings of science, and they are very plausible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The only kind of god that science would present a problem for is one who can only work through supernatural means and cannot work through natural forces or processes. IOW, a "God of the Gaps" (GOTG). I'm not understanding this. I guess I don't quite know what a GOTG is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Thus the idea that evolution alone leads to evolutionism is false. The idea of evolution--i.e., things gradually turning into something else--comes from evolution. Evolutionism applies the idea all the way back to the beginning, aided by the other sciences. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
You also need to throw in Abiogenesis as well and even then all you have is a glimpse into "How GOD did it". The message of evolutionism is that God is not needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is utterly ridiculous to call this "evolutionism" or any other such "ism" other than atheisim since it is an individual thing and there is clearly, creationist cries not-with-standing, no organization or plot to espouse this. I think it's more specific than just "atheism." Not only does it deny God; it offers an explanation for why things are as they are. They "evolved"--in the loose sense of that word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So you are arguing that evolution needs to be opposed because it can lead to "evolutionism". No, not at all.
That because someone could misuse ideas from evolution, evolution should not be taught? No, not at all.
Certainly, they should address evolutionism and show where and why it is wrong. I myself don't think evolutionism is wrong. It makes sense to me. Of course, it's not certain. It's not scientific.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024