Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
24 online now:
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,160 Year: 4,272/6,534 Month: 486/900 Week: 10/182 Day: 10/28 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Evolution a Radical Idea?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 16 of 195 (350299)
09-19-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 12:11 PM


True, we don't need it. 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.

Really just squeezing God out of one more area is hardly a devastating blow in itself. Surely the cumulative impact of science's success in explaining the natural world in all areas is the real issue - evolution is just a part of that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:11 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:57 PM PaulK has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 195 (350308)
09-19-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
09-19-2006 12:25 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 12:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 2:10 PM robinrohan has taken no action
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2006 7:09 PM robinrohan has taken no action
 Message 45 by nator, posted 09-19-2006 9:18 PM robinrohan has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 18 of 195 (350335)
09-19-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 12:57 PM


I don't see that direct creation of humans is an essential issue, any more than direct creation of plagues or earthquakes or hurricanes is an essential issue. Creation of the universe may be such an issue, but that is well beyond the scope of evolution.

The success of science is a blow against supernaturalism, and against some concepts of God. I don't think that I would call it devastating, but obviously the whole has more effect than any one part (and if God were needed to explain any of the phenomenal I mentioned, then evolution would be far less of an issue)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:57 PM robinrohan has taken no action

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4224 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 19 of 195 (350338)
09-19-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 9:53 AM


[deleted - dupe post]

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 9:53 AM robinrohan has taken no action

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4224 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 20 of 195 (350339)
09-19-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 9:53 AM


Robin,

Why couldn't the entire universe (quarks, elements, stars, planets and evolution) be a God's single act of creation?

I stress "a God" because whatever God may or may not be need not have anything to do with human interpretation.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 9:53 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 2:29 PM RickJB has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 195 (350342)
09-19-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RickJB
09-19-2006 2:20 PM


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.).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RickJB, posted 09-19-2006 2:20 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2006 2:59 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 3:29 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 33 by RickJB, posted 09-19-2006 4:13 PM robinrohan has taken no action

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5066
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 195 (350347)
09-19-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 12:20 PM


quote:
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.

Nonetheless, it is still good that you do draw that distinction.

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 12:20 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 3:26 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5066
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 195 (350349)
09-19-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 2:29 PM


quote:
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.).

Right, a philosophy of evolutionism would tell us that. But the science of evolution would not. Nor the science behind abiogenesis. Nor the science behind planetary formation. Nor the science behind cosmology. Nor any scientific discovery of the natural forces and processes involved in The Creation.

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).

So the god that a philosophy of evolutionism would consider would be a GOTG. The same god that ID considers (I once read an article by Philip Johnson in which he stated that his opposition to evolution is that it doesn't give God anything to do; blatant GOTG). The same god that "creation science" keeps invoking.

With so many creationists constantly invoking a GOTG and claiming (albeit mainly indirectly) that natural explanations disprove their god, is it any wonder that the public has accepted that premise of theirs at face value?

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 2:29 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 3:28 PM dwise1 has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 195 (350359)
09-19-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by dwise1
09-19-2006 2:47 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2006 2:47 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2006 4:12 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 34 by subbie, posted 09-19-2006 4:18 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 63 by ReverendDG, posted 09-20-2006 1:31 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 195 (350361)
09-19-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by dwise1
09-19-2006 2:59 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2006 2:59 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 09-19-2006 4:27 PM robinrohan has taken no action

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 26 of 195 (350362)
09-19-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 2:29 PM


quote:

Evolutionism tells us there's no necessity for such a concept (Big Bang ideas about something coming from nothing,etc.).

Then you need cosmology as well as evolution to get to your "evolutionism". Thus the idea that evolution alone leads to evolutionism is false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 2:29 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-19-2006 3:32 PM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 3:41 PM PaulK has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 33891
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 27 of 195 (350363)
09-19-2006 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-19-2006 3:29 PM


Then you need cosmology as well as evolution to get to your "evolutionism". Thus the idea that evolution alone leads to evolutionism is false.

You also need to throw in Abiogenesis as well and even then all you have is a glimpse into "How GOD did it".


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 3:29 PM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 3:50 PM jar has taken no action

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 28 of 195 (350367)
09-19-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by robinrohan
09-19-2006 11:41 AM


Re: Other ideas to add to the list...
The point is that they are all thing for which people used "god" as an explanation. Anytime a natural explanation is found for such things removes and "excuse" to believe in that god.

If a believer has weak or little faith then that faith is subject to threat by new knowledge.

If an individual attempts to use any scientific finding to "disprove" god then we might call that individual a militant atheist. Dawkins certainly falls into such a category. 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.

It is also obvious nonsense to call it evolutionism since, as has been pointed out, you have to, when all is said and done call it:
physicism-cosmologyism-geologyism-chemistryism-biologyism-evolutionism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 11:41 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 09-19-2006 4:08 PM NosyNed has taken no action

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 195 (350368)
09-19-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-19-2006 3:29 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 3:29 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 09-19-2006 4:51 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 195 (350377)
09-19-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
09-19-2006 3:32 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 09-19-2006 3:32 PM jar has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by U can call me Cookie, posted 09-21-2006 10:42 AM robinrohan has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022