Evolution != Atheism (re: the Rejection of Theism in Evolution)

Using the definitions given in the first post, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that the two sides should be diametrically opposed.If God created us then we didn't evolve and vice versa. How can it be any other way?I was brought up in a strictly religious household where it was all but forbidden to even think about the "evils" of evolution. Any thoughts that even came close to questioning the "truth" of the bible were quickly suppressed with statements like "We aren't supposed to ask those questions" or "God never meant us to know those things". Theye were never answered.I was always bombarded with stuff like "Just look at all the wonders of creation! Don't you think it is ridiculous to say that all this just happened on its own? It must have been created"Then I thought of the BIG question.If all this stuff had to have been created simply because it is so complex and wonderful, then what does that say about the creator? He would have to be even more complex and wonderful. Right? "Of course" say all the preachers and religious people.OK then. Who made God then?What do you think was the answer? The usual crap that's what.
"You aren't supposed to ask that!" WHY NOT? He must have created me with an inquisitive mind.
"God was always there!" HOW? WHY? "It says so in the bible!"My conclusion is that if God does indeed exist and he did create us all then he must have come from somewhere initially. Therefore he too must have evolved! Or maybe he was created by something even more complex and wonderful?I just can't accept any of it.
Evolution works. I've personally seen it happen in test tubes and petri dishes. I have modelled it on computers. It makes predictions that always work. It makes sense!
Conversely, God makes no sense at all. He can't be proved and his existance would make a mockery of science as I know it.In my view evolutionist = Atheist and I cannot understand how anyone can rationalize beleif in both systems.PYThis message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 12-22-2004 02:11 PM

Hey PerfectDeath A non-scientist atheist might say that but they would be wrong.The precise origins of the universe may well be a hotly debated subject (on another thread I might add) but just about nobody will ever try to tell you that the particles that make it up, were "always there"Science just doesn't work that way.You think about a problem, you suggest a mechanism, the mechanism is tested and compared to all other known theories and models, if your mechanism stacks up and is able to make accurate predictions then it will likely be accepted as a "theory" by the scientific comunity."They were always there." is not a testable and falsifiable theory and is therefore not science. Just as "God was always there." is not science.I guess I just see the whole thing as a black and white (which is indeed ironic if you read some of the other threads that I have been involved in).If science is true as a whole (TOE included) then God is either

• not there
• not omnipotent
• just taking the piss

I will take the first option given the choice.PY

I guess that my problem is that the only kind of "Creationist" that I have ever had any kind of dealings with, has always been of the literal genesis kind.That viewpoint seems to me to be diametrically opposed to TOE. The only way that the two could co-exist is if God deliberately created the Earth and the whole universe to appear old.This would have to include a fake fossil record (to make us think that evolution was real), fake evolution in the short term (that we can actually observe and further conclude that evolution was real), Fake rocks with artificially modified isotope ratios (presumably put there deliberately to make us think the Earth was old), fake photons of light continuously being created all around us so that we can see disatant galaxies millions of light years away. The list goes on and on.
This kind of God would definitely be of the "taking the piss" variety.However if you beleive in a God who is not the Judeo Christian OT Despot then I guess it is feasible that he might have created the entire Universe 5 billion years ago and then kind of sat back to observe everything happening. He could have watched life evolve on this and other planets and kept a "benevolent" (I use that term very loosely) eye on our progress.In this context I could understand the possibility of theism and science in general (not just TOE) co-existing. This model isn't particularly appealing to me though as it would make us all just a bunch of lab rats in a gigantic experiment. Maybe we are all in an immense computer simulation and God is a game programmer and is about to release "SIM Universe" on an unsuspecting public of other Godlike beings. Heck! It is just as good a theory as any other involving God.This kind of thing also makes me think that God would not be omnipitent. If he knows the past, future and present then what is the point of an experiment when he already knows the outcome.Either way I look at it I cannot see any way to beleive in the reality of an omnipotent God at the same time as TOE (or any mainstream science)I just don't have a great deal of "beleif" of any kind to throw around.PY

I was always good at throwing a spanner in the works As I said in my last post (that you probably haven't got to yet), I just don't understand a way for the concept of an omnipotent God to co-exist with any kind of science (not just TOE). Just about everywhere I look, I see science and religion clashing head on.I also don't know your definition of "liberal Christianity". How much of the Bible being true does that include?It is a difficult question, I admit. And of course, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.PY

Sure he could, if he existed. That was one of my options, remember?It is very difficult to give a generalized answer because there are so many different kinds of beleif in so many different kinds of God. The version I am most familiar with is the literal Genesis where God made everything exactly as it is today.Jazzns Yes a good bit of my argument does come from that context. How about giving us an overview of your own beleif system so that I can answer in the correct context.I know you say you are a liberal Christian but I really don't know what that means exactly.PY

Rrhain

quote:

---

PurpleYouko responds to me:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God can't create life that evolves?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Sure he could, if he existed. That was one of my options, remember?

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I didn't see you mention that at all in your post. Instead, you made it seem perfectly clear that you were saying that evolution and god are incompatible. Did you or did you not say:

​

In my view evolutionist = Atheist and I cannot understand how anyone can rationalize beleif in both systems.

---

Yes I said that. I also said.. Way back in an earlier post.I will try to explain my position a little more clearly. Here are my reasons for saying that the two viewpoints are incompatable.First of all I would say that it is obvious that the fundamental Christian position of literal genesis in 6 days has to be incompatible with TOE and the fossil record. Would anyone disagree with that?let's look at the possibility that god did as described in my earlier quote. This would go something like...In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. Next he created the primevil ooze and breathed life into it. Then he sat back for over 3 billion years and watched the natural processes of evolution shape all of the various lifeforms that have ever existed until finally the first Man came along. etc. etc.The trouble I have with this scenario is that it doesn't gel with any of the bible in which God is described repeatedly as being omnipotent and all knowing of future, present and past. This scenario sounds more like a scientific experiment to see what comes out the other end and not the act of an omnipotent being who knows full well exactly what the outcome will be. It just wouldn't make sense to do it that way unless he were just messing about through shear boredom.I just don't think an omnipotent God would do it this way so my conclusion in this scenario is that God would NOT be omnipotent. hence in disagreement with biblical Christianity.The other possibility that I see is that God simply created everything as it is today with old appearing rocks, fake fossils, old photons that appear to come from vast distances, conspicuously missing isotopes and all the evidence necessary to prove the TOE.This concept is a God that is playing tricks on us by deliberately deceiving us all. Gives "father of the lie" a whole new meaning, wouldn't you say? Either way this scenario points to a God that is most definitely not good, truthfull and loving. This god is just playing games with us for his own amusement and is most definitely taking the piss. If this scenario is the way that thing really happened then I will most definitely put myself into any camp that directly opposes such a nasty, cheap, petty little God who would be indistinguishable from the devil as described in the bible. I would much rather think that he simply doesn't exist.Any way I look at it, If TOE is true then God isn't, at least in any way recognisable from Christian, Islam or any other monotheistic religion that I am familiar with.
A God that IS there but doesn't match these teachings is the same thing as saying that ALL the leading religions are false anyway so my point stands.I cannot see any way to be Christian and to simultaineously accept the TOE unless you radically redefine God!PY

If someone tells me that he beleives that then I will accept it just like I will accept that somebody beleives in purple flying chipmunks and little green men from Mars. People can beleive whatever the hell they want to.
Doesn't mean it makes any kind of sense though.And I see the usual response coming through here. Personal insults! Maybe I'm not clever enough? That doesn't even dignify a response.Face it, the only argument for the existance of God is that all this stuff must have been created. If it wasn't then what possible reason is there for even beleiving in God in the first place, let alone being Christian?If God was simply the catalyst for the Big Bang and just seeded life all over the place like a scientist with a petri dish then again, why bother with religion? Do you think germs and bacterial ook up at us from their little petri dish and worship us while they feed and grow on the "mana from heaven" that we have placed them in? By pretty much making stuff up as they go along and not encouraging any form of free thought is my experience of it. My Wife is a catholic (as is her entire family)and she is very strongly urged NOT to read the bible (particularly the OT)in case it gives her any ideas that would cause her to stray from the "one true path". the whole family all keep bibles by their beds but never open the bloody things. I doubt if they even know that the pages aren't blank. Sometimes I really wonder. And how long did it take them to come to that realization after spending such a long time condemning TOE as anti-Christian propeganda or some such crap?
That was the U-turn of the millenia.PY

Thanks for the explanation. Within the frame of your own beleif system there would not appear to be any direct contradictions. I am not about to call you a bad or misguided Christian or try to put you into any kind of compartment as many seem to do.I just have a couple of comments. I understood that the entire point of God was to be omnipotent. He would certainly have had to design every last little peice of Physics, Chemistry, Biology etc. And he would need to understand all of the forces of nature everywhere in a way that would make him indistinguishable from omnipotent.Or if God didn't actually create the universe then where does he fit into all of this at all? Where did he come from? What right does he have to order us about at all?I respect your right to believe in any way that you feel is right for you, but I will never understand the logic that allows you to do so.PY

I was. I don't deny that.And we probably do agree on a lot of stuff.except for this. I would have said they were one and the same for all the difference we are able to discern from it.Now that you have made your own position clear, the position I was arguing from is plainly not relevent from your perspective.
To be perfectly honest, I really wasn't aware that a viewpoint such as yours existed. I don't think I have ever met any religious person who didn't beleive in the complete omnipotence of the creator and the literal beleif in the entire bible. And I have had this conversation with 100s of people.
With a bunch of my family being Jehovah's witnesses and my wife's being Catholic, along with growing up with English forced religious education for more years than I would like to remember. It is only since coming to the USA that I have come across these kind of relaxed Christian beleifs.It is a whole lot more difficult to argue with people like you. PY

FYI "Stuff" does not equal evolutionary theory. Stuff, in my context, means pretty much everything else though. No not really. I could probably find out pretty easily, as could anyone. I have better things to do though.
I can tell you this much though, from first hand experience. Some priests are still doing it right now, no matter what the vatican tells them to use as an 'official' position. OK maybe I took it too personally. Possibly it is your terminology. IMO 'clever' refers to inteligence and not knowledge. Insults to inteligence are personal even if not intended as such. Being uninformed does not make one any less 'clever'.PY

Ok then name one that stands up to scientific scrutinization. Any science. Not just TOE.Kinda hard to be an expert in the non-existence of something wouldn't you say? PYThis message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 01-06-2005 11:25 AM

Official policy doesn't necessarily reflect the beleifs of the masses. I have also come across a number of Catholic preists who don't actually beleive in God at all. From time to time over the years there have also been news storys about bishops who are self confessed atheists. Don't ask for references here. I wouldn't know where to start looking. I expect we all read the same stories at the time.
I would suspect that the official policy of accepting TOE is just there for the same reason as Easter or Christmas. The Catholic church has a history of incorporating other 'pagan' beleif systems into itself and then just papering over the cracks. (ie. making stuff up)
As I stated previously, in my experience Catholics are not encouraged to think for themselves so that means that if the Pope says it is OK then it must be OK. No big mystery there. No denying that. The world certainly has plenty of fools though. Those who just follow the pack with no sign of an original thought throughout their entire lives. I tried to learn to play the electric guitar for a while. I even got half way good on the bass guitar but I could never manage to play lead riffs any sense. Just didn't have the patience for it.
Different people's brains are certainly wired differently so I guess if your definition of 'clever' is subjective to different areas in which the brain is preferentially hard wired for certain activities then that makes sense.
My brain is obviously wired to understand the definition in a more general way. But let's not bother arguing about definitions. It's kinda pointless.PY

My only claim here was that the only argument for the existence of God at all was that everythinh must have been created.OK I will retract that and replace it with this.There are NO logical and scientifically backed arguements for the existence of God. Even (most) beleivers will agree that they cannot prove his existence. It is a matter of Faith, not scientific proof.
I still contend that if a person professes to study science (TOE or otherwise) then they need to have an enquiring mind set that accepts empirical evidence above all else. The absence of evidence on a subject leaves little or no room for 'faith' that it actually exists, particularly when the available evidence tends to point the other way. There is simply no logical reason to beleive.PY

Hi TalI see that others have responded to you before I got around to it.The only comment that I would like to add is.. I don't want to get into a discussion of these supernatural events (been there. done that. See the 'faith and beleif' thread) but even given that such supernatural events could or did happen, it still doesn't prove a single thing about the existence or non existence of God.Again. No Proof!PY

Come on! You could at least include my whole response, which continued something like. Who said God had to create the universe?DUH! Creationists! I don't see any 'foundists' movements out there. Unless you know of any that is.
If God found the universe then this discussion is pretty much moot since the whole point is to rationalize a beleif in both creation (ie. God) and evolution. That scenario would make him some kind of advanced alien or something and not a true God at all. It would then become a case for asking by what right is he messing with our universe anyway? Since he didn't actually create it.Why can't God be the universe?
A kind of universal consciousness that developed as the Universe formed? That is an interesting concept and could even make some sense. I would grant you that were this the real case then my problem with conflicting views would be entirely nulified. However I seriously doubt that Creationists would accept that it is. I don't really see it that way.
In a hypothetical situation where a child is brought up to analyze everything (s)he sees, hears, smells and draw logical scientific conclusions about it without ever hearing of religion then it is highly unlikely that that child is ever going to spontaineously start to beleive in something that has no reason to exist, just for the heck of it.
You don't need a reason not to beleive but you do need one to beleive as it is an afirmative action. Not beleiving is an inaction thus requiring no motive.PY