Is Evolution a Radical Idea?

I think it's more specific than just "atheism." Not only does it deny God; it offers an explanation for why things are as they are.They "evolved"--in the loose sense of that word.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you are arguing that evolution needs to be opposed because it can lead to "evolutionism". Therefore, Christianity should also be opposed because it can lead to inquisitions and even worse things, like Christian Reconstructionist theocracy. That's the same reasoning that I'm seeing you apply.So then, what are you proposing in this thread about evolution? That because someone could misuse ideas from evolution, evolution should not be taught? Should ignorance be the answer? Even a past governor of Mississippi said (in support of his education reforms), "We've already tried ignorance, so we know that it doesn't work."Certainly, they should address evolutionism and show where and why it is wrong. But why also attack evolution? Why also attack science, and in so doing weave a tangled web of lies and deception (AKA "creation science") that has destroyed the faith of far too many?
Instead of attacking science out of fear and ignorance, shouldn't they be addressing the proper roles of science and religion? Instead of creating a conflict where none needs to exist.

As a philosophy, perhaps. But it depends on how you look at it.We could get all "far out" about it. For example, intelligent life might run in an evolutionary cycle akin to something like Asimov sketched out in his short story "The Last Question". Intelligent life evolves to such an extent that it learns all that is knowable. At that point it becomes God and the cycle of creation begins once again!Or one might subscribe to the "turtles all the way down" concept of nested universes or gods...--------------As long as there are ANY questions left to be answered there will always be some form of religion. Furthermore, if the entire universe is indeed God's creation then might not science be a means to better understand God?When we meet and get to know people we learn more about what makes them tick all the time. In light of this I find it odd that some people seem to have such finite and bounded ideas about what constitutes an omnipotent being!Surely the true nature of God should fill more than 2000 pages of a single book written 2000 years ago?And all of this is coming from an agnostic!!

Well, since we know that many "liberal Christians," as well as many non-liberal Christians, have arrived at such an accomodation, your statement is demonstrably false.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

No, not at all. No, not at all. I myself don't think evolutionism is wrong. It makes sense to me. Of course, it's not certain. It's not scientific.

Well, anybody can believe anything. I just meant their ideas have logical holes.

quote:

---

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.

---

As I had indicated, GOTG is an acronym for "God of the Gaps."GOTG is an apparent attempt to preserve and protect God from the perceived encroachment of science, as one scientific explanation after another has been discovered for things that had before always been "acts of God" that had had only supernaturalistic explanations. Basically, GOTG theology takes the position that God continues to exist within the gaps of our knowledge.I don't think they had anticipated this, but that turns their god into an impotent thing that is powerless against Nature (as opposed to God as Sovereign over Nature) and that is constantly being diminished ever more as science continues to close those gaps in our knowledge. Another possibly unanticipated consequence of GOTG theology is that it paints science as "the Enemy of God" and as attacking their religion, since, they believe, it is the advance of science that is diminishing their god, whereas the truth is that it's their own false theology of GOTG that is diminishing their god.Also not anticipated, I'm sure, is that GOTG offers atheists proof that God does not exist, since the Christians who espouse GOTG set up the false premises that natural explanations disprove God.For more information, Google on "God of the Gaps". I would personally recommend a few essays by a PhD Physics and practicing Christian, Dr. Allan H. Harvey, whose essays are at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm:
"A Personal View of the Evolution Issue" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/evolution.html
"Science and Christian Apologetics" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html
"What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean?" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/gaps.html

quote:

---

So you are arguing that evolution needs to be opposed because it can lead to "evolutionism".

No, not at all.

​

That because someone could misuse ideas from evolution, evolution should not be taught?

​

No, not at all.

---

Well then I'm not sure what your point is.

quote:

---

Certainly, they should address evolutionism and show where and why it is wrong.

​

I myself don't think evolutionism is wrong. It makes sense to me. Of course, it's not certain. It's not scientific.

---

Nonetheless, anti-evolutionists do think that it is wrong. So they need to address it and make their case.Myself, I believe that it is wrong insofar as it claims that science can disprove God.

Well, my point is that evolution is not like heliocentrism. It's much more radical. Well, yes, that would be wrong.

But the Big Bang and abiogenesis both represent limits to "things turning into something else". In the case of abiogenesis the requirements for biological evolution are absent - abiogenesis requires something else.Likewise we do not know if anything preceded the Big Bang or if it is even meaningful to say that anything preceded the Big Bang. Your evolutionism would likely be happier with a Steady State universe which requires no beginning to the universe and can just happily continue with an infinite process of "things turning into something else".Evolutionism does not lead to the Big Bang, General Relativity, the observed expansion of the Universe, the Cosmic Microwave background. These are what lead to the Big Bang. And the man who first proposed it was a Catholic Priest.

actually, there'd still be a place for god. the afterlife. who else runs that place, provides for it but God? (even Jesus needed a god so that he could go to heaven).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Heavens to Betsy! That's a lot of posts in a short time.Because it is indirectly addressed to me I'm going to quickly respond to your OP, kind sir, and then try and shuffle on through the rest of the discussion. We'll see if I have anything to contribute.As the quote in your first post indicates, my gut feeling is that attitudes to heliocentrism and attitutes towards evolution are comparable and furthermore, that a comparison is instructive.Fundamentally, both have been seen as challenges to recieved ideas of God's motives and his perceived modus operandi.With regards to the church's distaste for heliocentrism, it had been widely assumed until Copernicus that humanity's home, having been created by a god with big squishy feelings for us, was likely to be afforded the top spot in the celestial order. A contradiction of that assumption seemed initially like a threat to the foundations of the Christian faith, but instead just required a reinterpretation of the relevant sections of scripture and the church was good to go.I can't see how the evidence for evolution is any less persuasive than the evidence for heliocentricity.I think that there will at first be a period of resistance mirrored with the debate about the relation of the earth and the sun. Subsequently though, the beliefs accrued around the core of the Christian faith that make evolution seem unpalatable will be sloughed and replaced with new, compatible beliefs derived from revised interpretations of religious text. That's my hope anyway.I don't see why God's contribution would be belittled in any way if it was just to make organic chemistry work in the first place. In truth, I don't see any "just" about it.Its an embarrassing failure of empathy, but I remain unable to comprehend how literalists can find the stolid imaginings of nomadic barbarians to be more profound and inspiring than the incremental development of rational, methodical scientific enquiry by the best minds of the subsequent two-and-a-half thousand years.

quote:

---

The idea of evolution and the idea of abiogenesis fit together like matching gloves.

---

They don't have to at all.There could have been a supernatural start to life and evolution took over.Or, abiogenesis could have occurred and there was a supernatural act to help things along.

quote:

---

If there were no evolutionary ideas, the only answer is special creation. We don't need that answer anymore.

---

Actually, if there were no evolutionary ideas, another answer can be "We don't know".

quote:

---

This then--science's explanations in general--is a devastating blow to religion in your view?

---

They don't seem to bother the Buddhists.