How Darwin caused atheism

Hi, Abe.If you'll permit me to take a side trip for this post, I'd like to make a couple simple observations. I agree that there's a lot of connection between evolution and abiogenesis. Mechanistically, they don't differ all that much: whatever caused the transition between "non-life" and "life" almost certainly happened via what could arguably be called a "random mutation," so it would seem to fit the mechanistic definition of "evolution" just fine.Where they diverge is in the fact that one of them (evolution) could happen even if the other (abiogenesis) didn't. Thus, they're not dependent on each other. However, proponents of abiogenesis are, without exception, also proponents of evolution. So I'm sure that at least some proponents have philosophically or ideologically linked the two such that they rather are dependent on each other. Still, I doubt it's the typical case, so I'm not sure that it's particularly relevant.----- Yeah, I know I've personally taken part in "ToE activism" on multiple occasions. I think it's more an artifact of having a lot of evolutionists on this site, so the posts against evolution tend to get better coverage.-----Also, I don't think you're arguing that Darwin caused atheism: you're arguing that Darwin enabled atheism.Intuitively, it makes perfect sense. Man's status as a special creation of God being arguably the most important dogma of most religions, it seems perfectly reasonable to think that a theory that challenges the specialness of man would be the most important reason for people to reject most religions.But, beyond simple intuitiveness, I don't have much to suggest that it is the actuality of things. I think it would make an interesting volunteer survey: "what is the most common reason why atheists decided to become atheists"? Does anyone know if this has been done?Edited by Bluejay, : Why are there three ways to spell "site"?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Abe. If, in the future, I become a true atheist, I think I would cite the Theory of Evolution as the primary reason for it. I think Dr Adequate's explanation in Message 76 is quite good.On top of what Dr Adequate said, I would add the following: current understanding of physics and chemistry, at best, rule out a few of God's "parlor tricks" (throwing fire from the sky, turning people to salt, etc.); but evolution challenges the very core of our relationship to God. People tend to care about what is closest to them, and our birthright is therefore a more fundamental part of our belief system than the magic magical powers that God has.Granted, ToE alone isn't enough to take me all the way to atheism: when looking at the complexity and functionality of life, I still have my moments of incredulity that mutation and natural selection did it all, and begin to wonder if, indeed, some sort of guiding intelligence was needed for some of it. Usually anymore, I'm able to remember that my incredulity isn't evidence for anything, but sometimes it takes a lot more will power than other times.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. I don't know that I entirely agree with you.If we define "mutations" narrowly to refer only to changes in DNA across generations, then I suppose I wouldn't be able to argue much. But, I think such a narrow definition would serve little purpose outside of defining abiogenesis and evolution as separate things.Surely the first replicator also had to emerge from a series of random chemical changes that were selected for at each step by a fitness filter of some kind. While this would differ in several specific ways from the mechanics of ToE, the overall process is arguably similar enough to be considered an instance of the same general phenomenon.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Petrophysics. No, I'm pretty sure I haven't. But, the methodology of withholding my decision on a matter until I have gathered all information the universe holds on the subject has not been particularly effective for me in the past, so I'm skeptical as to its usefulness in this case.----- I'm perfectly willing to admit my own idiocy and ignorance of a lot of things. If you know those three things about yourself, then I suppose you have that on me and there's not much I can do about it.In the meantime, I still find my mediocre self in the uncomfortable position of needing to learn things about the universe, and only being able to work with the very few things that I do know in order to do it.Since all you've given me here is another way to show me that this is the position I'm in, I'm sure you'll understand when I dismiss your contributions as "redundant to what the universe has already provided me," and settle back in to the only course of action that appears to have ever helped me improve my situation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Taq. Agreed.But, I'm having trouble visualizing how the process of development from basic molecules to the first replicator could have taken a path that didn't involve mutations and selection.Surely that first replicator descended from a system of molecules that had been changing slowly over time and passing through a selective filter, conceptually similar to evolution, right?The only other option seems to be that the first replicator just appeared out of the blue, in one step.I mean, I agree that the details of the chemistry would have to be different in a lot of ways (e.g. no true replication and no "genetics" as such before the first replicator), but the ToE isn't really a theory about the chemistry anyway.Do you (or anyone else) think there's a good-length discussion here? I might be interested in a thread about how abiogenesis differs from evolution.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.