Rejecting evolution with science...

[Unhappy1]

Let me give you a few examples that I tend to come across quite a lot.
1) Evolution negates the religious belief of original sin and Adam and Eve.
2) Evolutionary science somehow makes God superfluous.
3) Evolutionary science shows that evolution is purposeless process or that evolution is a random process and that this is incompatible with various religious beliefs.
4) Junk DNA or vestigial structures or other examples of “bad design” shows that evolution is true and that this somehow incompatible with various religious beliefs.

1) Jerry Coyne seems to think there is some sort of slam dunk argument. I have come across many people that shares this nonsense.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...doff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/
2) I think I have seen this one in this thread and other quite a few times on MyBB and many other places. Again, it is nonsense and sad abuse of science.
3) Larry Moran and various people on this forum argue for this view. Again, nonsense. Evolutionary theory does not say evolution is purposeless or random.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/richard-dawkins-on-purpose.html
4) This is probably a favourite among people who abuse science to argue against various religious beliefs.

Joelus also pointed out a few articles by people that try to abuse science to make it incompatible with religion and he himself also is of the opinion that one cannot accept evolution and a Creator.

So I would say that this is quite a widespread misconception that is spread by new atheists and others.

I havent got time to read your links right now , will look over it later. I was under the impression that Joelus was christian?

 

[Swa]

I just want to be clear that saying there is no need for a creator, is not the same as saying there is not a creator.

I don't see the need for one, and my understanding of the natural world makes this a perfectly sensible choice.

If you, as a believer, thinks this is incorrect, then by all means, bring your evidence to the table. Fighting evolution though, and believing the earth is a couple thousand years old? That is simple bat****-insanity and ignorance, fueled purely by religion.

I will say this again, you seeing no need for one is simply your belief and not a determination of science. It is faith based so evidence does not apply. Again science can't make a reliable determination on the age of the earth because it can't determine that decay rates were constant in the past. That you see that as bat****-insanity is simply your own ignorance fueled by your own religious beliefs.

 

[Sherbang]

Are you assuming that there is only one type of christian and all christians interpret the bible in the exact same way :wtf:

All christians believe in god the creator who sent his only son jesus to earth to save us. The interpretations of the bible are the details but no christian will say don't literally believe in god or jesus, obviously...

I havent got time to read your links right now , will look over it later. I was under the impression that Joelus was christian?

I'm agnostic.

 

[Unhappy1]

All christians believe in god the creator who sent his only son jesus to earth to save us. The interpretations of the bible are the details but no christian will say don't literally believe in god or jesus, obviously...

I never said they would , im talking about the creation story specifically.

 

[Techne]

Just for fun:

Doesn't negate it, but does create the need for some very questionable rationalisations.

Point being, evolutionary science doesn't negate the idea. Arguing that it does is an example of abusing evolutionary science in much the same manner IDers do.

(Possibly) superfluous I'd say. To make an absolute judgement we'd need knowledge we likely won't ever possess.

I don't really understand why people would even begin to argue that evolutionary science makes God superfluous. Anyway, trying to argue that is just another example of abusing evolutionary science and science in general.

It is incompatible with various religious beliefs, but not universally so.

Yet, empirical evolutionary science DOES NOT say evolution is random or purposeless. It is simply a non-empirical statement that evolution is purposeless, therefore, people trying to use evolutionary science to claim this are simply again abusing science.

Just incompatible with special creation and ID; rabbits that need to eat their own poop in order to properly digest their food constitute pretty poor if not downright stupid design.

Again, why would a person argue that these are examples of incompatibilities with special creation? They are not empirical statements, so using these are simply just another example where science is abused to argue against a particular religious belief.

 

[Sherbang]

I never said they would , im talking about the creation story specifically.

Oh ok, I agree, not all christians take genesis literally, many may see it as metaphorical - but they still believe god created the universe and all the creatures in it, created humans above all other creatures, etc which is incompatible with belief in evolution by natural selection which shows that any specific outcome of the human species, or any species, came about by chance and natural selection - not divine purpose.

 

[DJ...]

Oh ok, I agree, not all christians take genesis literally, many may see it as metaphorical

Do you believe a literal interpretation of Genesis? That we are made of mud, and the order in which life was created?

 

[Sherbang]

Do you believe a literal interpretation of Genesis? That we are made of mud, and the order in which life was created?

No, of course not, I don't believe in any interpretation of Genesis. It's an ok story, as fantasy goes, I guess.

 

[DJ...]

No, of course not, I don't believe in any interpretation of Genesis. It's an ok story, as fantasy goes, I guess.

Apologies. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of whatever creation story you believe in?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Oh ok, I agree, not all christians take genesis literally, many may see it as metaphorical - but they still believe god created the universe and all the creatures in it, created humans above all other creatures, etc which is incompatible with belief in evolution by natural selection which shows that any specific outcome of the human species, or any species, came about by chance and natural selection - not divine purpose.

No, it simply isn't. Those religions have no specifically stated method or mechanism by which their god created. Why can creation not take place through evolution?

Evolution through natural selection does not preclude divine purpose, either. It's simply silent on the matter. We cannot observe or detect divine purpose, but it's not automatically excluded. Divine purpose isn't an empirical claim, so it has no bearing on evolutionary theory.

 

[Sherbang]

Apologies. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of whatever creation story you believe in?

I don't believe in any creation stories. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of whatever creation story you believe in?

 

[HapticSimian]

What opened the portal to Bizarro World? The chilis I had on my pizza last night? :wtf:

 

[Sherbang]

No, it simply isn't. Those religions have no specifically stated method or mechanism by which their god created. Why can creation not take place through evolution?

Evolution through natural selection does not preclude divine purpose, either. It's simply silent on the matter. We cannot observe or detect divine purpose, but it's not automatically excluded. Divine purpose isn't an empirical claim, so it has no bearing on evolutionary theory.

Actually, it does. If evolution is controlled by a divine purpose it is no longer evolution by natural selection, but is evolution by design, or god.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Actually, it does. If evolution is controlled by a divine purpose it is no longer evolution by natural selection, but is evolution by design, or god.

Nope. Why can't natural selection be god's mechanism? Nothing in evolutionary theory precludes this, and most religions allow for it.

Young-earth creationism and a literal interpretation of the genesis narrative, however, is incompatible with evolution.

 

[HapticSimian]

Actually, it does. If evolution is controlled by a divine purpose it is no longer evolution by natural selection, but is evolution by design, or god.

In principle the two would be indistinguishable.

 

[DJ...]

I don't believe in any creation stories. Do you believe in the literal interpretation of whatever creation story you believe in?

I believe in a creation story. Science explains it very well. I simply don't know the beginning of the story...yet...

 

[Sherbang]

Nope. Why can't natural selection be god's mechanism? Nothing in evolutionary theory precludes this, and most religions allow for it.

If God does not guide evolution but lets it occur through a process of natural selection, then, of course, god did not intentionally create human beings either, (we too occur as a result of a process which involved a number of random elements which may have led to our never evolving). There goes all the christian doctrines of original sin, of heaven and hell, etc since we were not created specially. Accepting natural selection is to accept that human beings are not actually made on purpose, in gods image, or for a divine purpose. To deny this and to say god did in fact create humans on purpose, as nearly all biblically influenced religious people seem to want to do, is to deny the existence of natural selection.

In principle the two would be indistinguishable.

It's about your own faith though. Can you honestly believe that evolution is both the result of natural selection AND at the same time, believe evolution is guided by a creator? Even if you believe in god - even if there is a god, - either you believe god does not intelligently guide evolution (natural selection) or you believe he does intelligently guide evolution. How can you believe both? Available evidence points to changes occurring in a way which not only requires no intelligent guidance but evolution makes far more sense if there is no explicit, intentional guidance from a designer (if you look at all the species that have gone extinct, for example, or the imperfect designs of creatures themselves - why would a god design imperfect creatures?).

 

[Sherbang]

I believe in a creation story. Science explains it very well. I simply don't know the beginning of the story...yet...

Science's one free miracle

Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.

Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle.

Terence McKenna

 

[HapticSimian]

It's about your own faith though...

Which is why I've said since the get-go that the two aren't incompatible in principle. Magnificent rationalisations concocted in order to reconcile the two aren't necessarily inconsistent with observation, or logically contradictory or incoherent. I do find them mightily unconvincing but that, again, is a different discussion.

 

[Sherbang]

Which is why I've said since the get-go that the two aren't incompatible in principle. Magnificent rationalisations concocted in order to reconcile the two aren't necessarily inconsistent with observation, or logically contradictory or incoherent. I do find them mightily unconvincing but that, again, is a different discussion.

The two models of reality are incompatible in principle - that's why it comes down to the ability of people to hold incompatible or contradictory ideas, to believe in both a creator and natural selection. Either one could be true, or, more likely, neither are true but it can't really be that both of them are true - there is a logical inconsistency there.