Evolution is simply more magnificent than your religion

From time to time, whilst looking up at the stars at night and contemplating my connection to them, I get a transcendent feeling, the closest thing to what some might call a "religious experience" that I have. I stand there realising that I can't even begin to appreciate the grand scale of things. As wonderous and amazing as I think the universe is, it must, in fact, be even more astoundingly impressive than I can imagine.In the distant past, when our solar system was just beginning to form from clouds of dust, the ingredients that led to you and I were there.After a vast, impossible-to-imagine period of time, the system settled into a relative equilibrium, with the various planets having coalesced into their orbits around the sun.Somewhere along the way something happened on that third planet that allowed self-replicating entities to emerge. Our understanding of this moment remains shrouded in shadow, but many interesting ideas have been suggested including iron pyrites that might provide a matrix for amino acids to link together, radioactive beaches, and hydrothermal vents. Whatever happened here, the stage was set for our ingredients to finally start getting mixed.3.8 billion years later, I sit here typing about how amazing and wonderful it all is. I cannot imagine a more incredible thing than the knowledge that I am made of starstuff - that I, insignificant though I may be, am deeply connected to this vast cosmos. Not only that, but I get to have a brief glimpse at the inherent truth of that knowledge through the lens of science. I simply cannot imagine a religion that could inspire such a feeling of genuine awe.

​

Some reasons why evolution trumps creationism specifically
-----------------

​

Evo: The theory of evolution provides a single framework for understanding the rise of complex life from simple origins. One size fits all.

​

Creo: Each origin myth handles the core details differently, and most are mutually exclusive. Which brand do you wear, and does it really fit?

​

-----------------

​

Evo: In the ToE, all life is connected. We are all cousins.

​

Creo: The Creationists' "Kinds" are distinctly different groups, their only connection being that they were all deposited here fully formed by the same supreme being.

​

-----------------

​

Evo: There is enough evidence supporting the ToE that any remaining doubts have more to do with specific mechanisms than the process as a whole.

​

Creo: Evidence doesn't seem to exist, but also doesn't seem to be important. There generally isn't even a "process" to be understood: We were put here, and someday we'll get armageddoned or raptured off again.

​

-----------------

​

Evo: The ToE sheds light on otherwise mysterious forces, giving us one of Carl Sagan's "candles in the dark", so we can come out of the caves and quit being afraid of the moon.

​

Creo: Individual origin myths introduce more mysterious forces than they explain, and leave us wondering (for some perhaps just in the back of your mind) how accurate they really are. Whatever comfort we might gain from them is offset by doubt.

​

-----------------
Disclaimer:

​

As has been illustrated in other threads, abiogenesis and the ToE are distinctly separate. The comparisons above relate only to the specific nature of evolution (which posits a gradual ramp of increasing complexity from a primordial form) versus the specific nature of creationism (which posits a creation moment in which many fully formed "Kinds" were placed). So, if you are a deist like RAZD, these comparisons don't necessarily apply to you.

​

Edited by Briterican, : Replaced 3.5 billion with 3.8 billion.

Hi Peg, thanks for the reply I think it's obvious that I don't buy it. There is no evidence of this magnificent being, but instead quite the opposite, lots of evidence that everything progresses in the absence of such a being. Besides, where did his "mind and power" come from? Where did they originate? Turtles... all the way down. The man was indeed amazing in his own right, but his insights into physics reveal an underlying beauty of nature, and that underlying beauty is the awe inspiring part. The equations are just our way of modeling and quantifying what takes place. Einstein didn't create relativity, he discovered it. So, no, I don't find the man more awe inspiring than what he discovered. You'll notice I was careful in the statement to say "from simple origins" and not "from nothing". I think it has been adequately explained in other threads that abiogenesis and ToE are not connected. I was also careful to point out that we don't know exactly how life started, but we do know it has evolved since.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

I sorta touched on that one with... ... but I think your wording is more succint and to the point The Creationists always have a "get out of jail free card" in this respect. The very nature of their approach to "research" invalidates it before it has begun. They are analytically incompetent.

You're right that it is subjective. I sorta regreted the post not long after doing it, but only because I struggle to put into words these feelings. The feeling I wanted to get across is... "If only you guys would look at the stuff we REALLY KNOW is going on, it is amazing enough in itself without the need for Mr Magicstuff in the Sky".The difference between your "equal post about my feelings about God" is that your God isn't the subject of rigorous investigation like science is. He couldn't be. This God is not around for us to interview. This God is conspicuously absent and has left behind no calling card. This God is wholly and completely unimpressive in that he is something neither you nor any other believer can quantify or demonstrate. Science, on the other hand, is accessible to all and is present in every breath we take. Ah... the truth. We're all after the truth aren't we. You're right, that is what is important. So... which field of human endeavour is more interested in the truth, science or faith? Can things in science be demonstrated to be true to all observers? The answer is self-evidently yes. Can things in faith be similarly demonstrated? Clearly not, one of the reasons religions have split into separate sects countless times... one group's "truth" didn't sit well with the other's.

I'm pleased to hear you enjoyed that sequence in Contact. I would think that instead of "even as a believer", a religious person might be even more overwhelmed, feeling that they are getting a better look at God's creations. The potential for wonder doesn't STOP there. Like all others who are interested in these things, I'd love nothing more than to know the underlying workings of things, but this does not mean that I shall fly off in a fit of fancy and start inventing things, which is precisely what I think religion does.Idolatry? So you think i "worship science" ? As I pointed out before, Einstein doesn't awe me... the already present phenomena he discovered do. I'm not idolising the scientists, or anything for that matter. I am in awe of the accumulated knowledge we have as a species, and disappointed that some people find Bible quotes more relevant. So basically, those who don't believe in the Christian God are fools who subsequently worship men and birds and animals and reptiles? And then, because we are such sexually deviant creatures, we decide to degrade our bodies with one another? This stuff is just archaic nonsense to me. 21 exhibits the jealous god, 22 is rude, 24 is about sex (what is this preoccupation with sex?), and 25 posits a "truth of God" that isn't worth as much as the parchment it's written on.I see the relevance of 25 to the thread, but you mistake me for a worshipper. I do not worship Carl Sagan, or the birds and the bees, or the universe. I marvel at them, and I take satisfaction in being present at a time when we can truly appreciate the vast scope of existence. I will not allow the dusty binder of an ancient book to limit that experience in any way, and I think you deny yourself great intellectual satisfaction when you do so. Sounds like you are saying I would be more fulfilled if only I would lie to myself and conjure up a nifty imaginary friend that is responsible for it all. That idea sullies the whole grand scope of things. Wonder and humility are appropriate when contemplating the realities of this fantastic universe we inhabit. There is nothing wonderful or awe-inspiring about man-made origin myths that discourage free thinking and stifle investigation.

Gorgeous picture, thanks for that.Amazing guy, this God, eh? I guess he's giving it another go in the Orion nebula since we've abandoned him. And to think, he can do all that whilst simultaneously listening to everyone's prayers, forgiving their sins, and manipulating time and space to ensure that certain football teams make it into the playoffs.The picture is beautiful, even more so to us because we don't attribute it to an imaginary tinkerer, but rather to inherent characteristics of our universe.

Hi Golden Ratio A fair statement. If only I was a better narrator of my own internal feelings I might have been able to express my deep sense of awe at things without doing it in such a comparative fashion. But the title says it, "simply more magnificent". There isn't, I suppose, any ground really on which to make an objective "magnificence" comparison, and I appreciate your bringing that to my attention. I can appreciate that feeling. But somehow, I love the idea of a universe with no reason, no purpose. I like to think it exists simply in order that it might exist further. Meanwhile I'm happy to exist within it and tend to my little (infinitesimally small) patch i.e. family, friends and endeavours.

This strikes me as possibly a fair assertion, but even if I agree that science owes religion some sort of debt, it has long since been paid and it is high time to move on.I should be careful though, as there is a very important distinction I'd like to make that I may have failed to fully illustrate: I don't wish to argue with someone who believes in the kind of creator that instigated the universe and then let it run its course. An individual that accepts science, but still holds the idea of this singular moment of creation, is, at least, still accepting science.Some "moderate"(?) Christians actually say things along these lines, namely several of my own family. But that is probably more a reflection of their low level of interest in the actual nuts and bolts of Christianity. They are cultural Christians.Many Christians don't see it that way. God is on the scene and he is a busy entity, listening to prayers and helping pilots land planes in bad weather and stuff.And finally, at the hardcore end of the spectrum are the creationists pushing the 6,000 year old Earth nonsense. This flies in the face of logic and reason and everything the human species has accomplished. It is this last group that I find worrying, mainly because of the repeated attempts to influence school curricula. Fair point and I concede it. Semantics. Faith has its alternate definition just like evolution does. Someone who doesn't believe in "evolution" (Darwin's ToE)can still accept "evolution" (change over time). The ONLY sense in which Dawkins misspoke is that he probably wished he'd said "If you mean faith in the sense of 'confidence in something', then yes, but that confidence is based on evidence." Of course there is. Richard Dawkins has "faith" that his wife loves him because he was there when they first met and he was there during their whole process of courting and falling in love. Faith in God simply doesn't have this personal touch imho. It's probably safe to say that a majority of believers have not had visions or similarly life changing religious experiences, they simply inhereted and are passing on a cultural meme without any real concern or investigation into it. Even if I fully accepted this, I would simply argue that a great deal of science can be expressed mathematically and thus achieve this feat of proof. There are no "faith equations" we can look at. If it is well-founded in logical deductions and reason, then I wouldn't call it faith. But again, that's semantics. I think I get your point, and again it reminds me of some family members who accept evolution but still believe in the Christian God. If someone accepts the evidence of science and does use logic and reason, then they're going to see the universe in the same awe-inspiring way that I do.Thanks for your detailed reply.

Hi iano Why we are stardustThis is a particularly well understood process and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. Definitely more overwhelming than something a scripture might tell me. I'm not concerned with what is interesting, I'm concerned with what is observed and supported by evidence. It just so happens that the observations are of an intricate, vast, ancient universe that is far more compelling and grand in scope than any we have invented in our various origin stories.And I never used the word accident. Natural selection, for example, does NOT proceed through accident or randomness for the most part.As to the ultimate origin of the universe, nobody knows. Equally... all of us... nobody knows. We guess. We speculate. We DO however have volumes of evidence that points towards a very very very old universe, and evidence that in its earlier stages the universe was very different. We are the present day, localised result of this unimaginably vast and intricate process. THAT is even more interesting than the established fact that we are made of star dust (carbon-based). I don't think I need to add that I also find it more interesting than the account in Genesis. That's probably a fair statement, and point taken. I'm not following you here. Beware of worshipping.

Agreed. The believers would tell you that it is a test of faith. So... somehow... in their twisted logic... the individuals who are not free-thinkers and do not question things or seek evidence, but instead throw rationality aside and embrace unsupported mystical notions - they are the ones that God will favour. If God wanted us to blindly worship him and not ask the deep questions, why the hell did he (purportedly) give us big brains?It simply doesn't make any sense. But that's what happens when you try to make sense of completely arbitrary, made-up stuff.Edited by Briterican, : Spelling fail.

Truly awe-inspiring indeed!I'd like to summarise the idea I tried to present in the original post with a particularly relevant quote I came across. I feel that this elucidates the intricate connectivity of all life on this planet in a way that might even put a smile on a creationist's face.Consider this a "wrapping-up" of the thread, and thanks to all for your thoughts.--- the quote is preceded by an explanation of the origin of carbon atoms in supernovae as given earlier in the thread --- Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

No. Why should it?Alarm bells should start going off when people throw unsubstantiated things, unsupported by evidence into the mix... like your God, who you so cheerily claim above does not allow a single person to die without his say so. An extraordinary claim, completely and utterly unsupported by evidence. Forget alarm bells, you need air raid sirens.