|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Evolution a Radical Idea? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
[deleted - dupe post]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
quote: 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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Then you need cosmology as well as evolution to get to your "evolutionism". Thus the idea that evolution alone leads to evolutionism is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024