Rejecting evolution with science...

[copacetic]

Read up on people who label others as "accomodationists" and see who they are .

We are talking specifically about evolution and religion being compatible/incompatible here, right?

Again, the vast bulk of opposition to this stems directly from religious people, for religious reasons...

 

[Techne]

We are talking specifically about evolution and religion being compatible/incompatible here, right?

Again, the vast bulk of opposition to this stems directly from religious people, for religious reasons...

No, I was talking about...

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view. They then abuse science (e.g. ID, YEC) in a similar fashion as those whom made these dishonest claims.

... and demonstrated that this does not only happen on the ID, YEC side. I.e it is quite prominent on both sides e.g. people who label others as accomodationists. Check out the term for yourself and see who these people are.

 

[copacetic]

No, I was talking about...

... and demonstrated that this does not only happen on the ID, YEC side. I.e it is quite prominent on both sides e.g. people who label others as accomodationists. Check out the term for yourself and see who these people are.

I am aware of the term, and I still fail to see it in action, specifically in relation to the evolution/religion issue, coming from the 'evolutionist' side in any meaningful volume... My point is simply that just about every time I come across the statement that evolution is incompatible with religion it comes from a religious source (again, ignoring the obvious and quite reasonable rejection of YEC bull****).

 

[Techne]

I am aware of the term, and I still fail to see it in action, specifically in relation to the evolution/religion issue, coming from the 'evolutionist' side in any meaningful volume... My point is simply that just about every time I come across the statement that evolution is incompatible with religion it comes from a religious source (again, ignoring the obvious and quite reasonable rejection of YEC bull****).

Well that is your personal experience. Mine differs as I see it happen quite often that people claim evolution and science in general is incompatible with religion.

 

[Unhappy1]

Well that is your personal experience. Mine differs as I see it happen quite often that people claim evolution and science in general is incompatible with empirical science.

Where? It certainly doesnt happen on this forum and i cant point to any prominent scientists purporting the idea, besides a few internet trolls and they dont exactly have any authority on the matter. I do however constantly witness it during those large religious gatherings where the person in question lectures swathes of people.

 

[copacetic]

Where? It certainly doesnt happen on this forum and i cant point to any prominent scientists purporting the idea, besides a few internet trolls and they dont exactly have any authority on the matter. I do however constantly witness it during those large religious gatherings where the person in question lectures swathes of people.

Also curious...

 

[porchrat]

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view.

In the case of a YEC the claim is not erroneous and it does indeed negate their world view. That world view of course being that their deity created the world in 6 literal days a few thousand years ago.

Also thanks for making me aware of the term "accomodationist". It seems some people use it with negative connotations but I don't see how it can be seen that way. Seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me. Heck many of arguably the world's greatest scientific minds have been devout people.

 

[Sherbang]

Where? It certainly doesnt happen on this forum and i cant point to any prominent scientists purporting the idea, besides a few internet trolls and they dont exactly have any authority on the matter. I do however constantly witness it during those large religious gatherings where the person in question lectures swathes of people.

You've never read "The God Delusion"?

How about Sam Harris?
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-must-destroy-religion

 

[copacetic]

You've never read "The God Delusion"?

How about Sam Harris?
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-must-destroy-religion

Let's not forget we were talking about evolution and what it says about religion (or at least what various people claim it says about religion)...

We can conflate this to be about a general war of ideas and ideologies, but the initial point was specifically about evolution and religion.

 

[Unhappy1]

You've never read "The God Delusion"?

How about Sam Harris?
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/science-must-destroy-religion

I've read both , these guys use arguments far beyond evolution to argue against the existence of god.

 

[Techne]

Where? It certainly doesnt happen on this forum and i cant point to any prominent scientists purporting the idea, besides a few internet trolls and they dont exactly have any authority on the matter. I do however constantly witness it during those large religious gatherings where the person in question lectures swathes of people.

It is largely a new atheist phenomenon. E.g. PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins etc.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accommodationism
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/tag/accommodationism/
http://www.edge.org/discourse/accomodationism.html

A term coined by Austin Dacey:

Dacey coined the term “accommodationism” to describe those “who either recognize no conflicts between religion and science, or who recognize such conflicts but are disinclined to discuss them publicly,”[53] a usage which has been adopted in blogosphere debates about creationism and the New Atheism.[54]

 

[Unhappy1]

It is largely a new atheist phenomenon. E.g. PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins etc.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Accommodationism
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/tag/accommodationism/
http://www.edge.org/discourse/accomodationism.html

A term coined by Austin Dacey:

Quite a lot of information here for me to sift through so forgive me if im wrong. This all seems to be a debate about the compatibility of science and religion and nothing to do with evolution falsifying religious beliefs.

 

[copacetic]

Quite a lot of information here for me to sift through so forgive me if im wrong. This all seems to be a debate about the compatibility of science and religion and nothing to do with evolution falsifying religious beliefs.

 

[Unhappy1]

, that's an interesting contraption used to move the goal posts, not the way i imagined it.

 

[Sherbang]

Quit pretending they're compatible.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2005/08/evolution_vs_religion.html

Most scientists and science organizations in America wish to stay on good terms with the believing majority, and so the fundamental incompatibility between random evolution -- which is what science says happened -- and divinely-guided evolution -- for which no evidence exists -- is kept under wraps. However, the time has come for scientists and their societies to face up to the fundamental incompatibility between naturalist and theistic evolution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/evolution-and-religion_b_1945083.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea

Before Charles Darwin, God was seen as the ultimate cause of all design, or the ultimate answer to 'why?' questions. John Locke argued for the primacy of mind before matter,[5] and David Hume, while exposing problems with Locke's view,[6] could not see any alternative.

Darwin provided just such an alternative: evolution.[7] Besides providing evidence of common descent, he introduced a mechanism to explain it: natural selection. According to Dennett, natural selection is a mindless, mechanical and algorithmic process—Darwin's dangerous idea. The third chapter introduces the concept of "skyhooks" and "cranes" (see below). He suggests that resistance to Darwinism is based on a desire for skyhooks, which do not really exist. According to Dennett, good reductionists explain apparent design without skyhooks; greedy reductionists try to explain it without cranes.

Explain again how evolution is compatible with religion?

 

[copacetic]

Explain again how evolution is compatible with religion?

If there is an incompatibility between evolution and religion, then it's an issue for the religious to deal with, as evolution is a simple and observed fact of life.

However, evolution does not (and cannot, as far as I can tell) disprove religion (aside from instances of religion that are utterly in opposition to observable reality), and I have yet to see an 'evolutionist' who insists that religion is wrong, simply based on the fact of evolution, and most certainly not with the vehemence and certainty of a religious person who denies evolution due to their religion.

 

[DJ...]

I personally believe that a creator is redundant in terms of what we now know about the universe. At no point is a creator inferred or necessary, so we simply have grandiose stories to either believe or reject. I reject talking snakes and continent-sized ship-building...

 

[Unhappy1]

Explain again how evolution is compatible with religion?

I still fail to see a part of your quoted text where it states evolution is true thus theistic beliefs are proven wrong.

Edit : Just out of curiosity how would something like this be tested for : random evolution -- which is what science says happened -- and divinely-guided evolution -- for which no evidence exists

 

[DJ...]

Explain again how evolution is compatible with religion?

Easy. Evolution doesn't involve itself with religion in any way whatsoever. It is not concerned with religion. It is not influenced by religion. It is not impacted by religion. It is absolutely uninvolved in anything religious.

Religion, well most, make no mention of the specific mechanics with which their creator, well, "created".

So at no point does observable evolution, nor the theories used to describe what we observe, in any way disprove, for example, the bible. It does however make a creator rather superfluous. Superfluous to the point where his only intervention is in the gaps of our knowledge, so as we drill deeper into our understanding of the universe, a creator becomes less relevant. I mean as far as I'm concerned, the only influence he has had may be in the Higgs field somewhere...until we discover the reasoning there as well and we realise that no divine intervention was required.

He may simply be the guy who created all of the laws of the universe. But again, this seems more and more unlikely, and that does tend to go completely against the direct intervention and timing of the creation stories of most biblical texts. So we either have the god of the gaps, or a disingenuous liar...

 

[Sherbang]

I still fail to see a part of your quoted text where it states evolution is true thus theistic beliefs are proven wrong.

It's more about being incompatible, not about one proving the other wrong.
One cannot accept both evolution and a creator.