Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution

quote:

---

The fundamental problem I have with the theory of atheistic-evolution is that it fails to answer some of the deeper meta-physical questions concerning the origination of life.

---

So? Why is this a problem?

quote:

---

The theory of evolution is grounded on more unproven pre-suppositions than most theistic interpretation of the world in which we live and the originations of life on this planet.

---

What do you mean "unproven"? Do you mean not absolutely proven in the mathematical sense? Science does not work with proofs. It relies on assumptions that are reasonable according to current knowledge, and tests hypotheses by comparing them to observations in the real world. How has the theory of evolution failed this? You need to back up these assertians.

quote:

---

Creationism (with evolution or without) does not have the same logical dilemma.

---

No, creation suffers from another problem in that the physical evidence in the real world shows that the earth and life on earth has had a long history.

quote:

---

It is my humble opinion that the theistic approach to the world in which we live (in particular Christianity for other reasons I have not listed) is the intellectual high ground.

---

There is nothing intellectual about the theistic approaches used in creationism. Creationism ignores evidence, distorts evidence, and uses incredible illogical twists of reason. Creationism is anti-intellectual.

This is supposed to be a thread in inconsistencies within the theory of evolution. The topic has now become some confused mishmash of whether the existence of logic and/or morality implies the existence of God. Nothing in the present thread warrants its inclusion in the evolution forum. May I suggest it be moved to another forum?

grace2u, what do you know about logic? Where have you learned about it? I ask because I'm a graduate student in mathematics, I know a little something about it by training, and some of your statements don't make sense.

As a mathematician, my instinct is to pin grace2u down by demanding rigorous definitions of the words that he/she is using. I suspect a lot of "shifting definitions" is going on, not to mention quite a bit of circular reasoning.

Unfortunately, your premises are unsubstantiated assertians, and some of your terms are, I fear, not very well defined. Maybe you are trying to say too much, and so maybe we should just look at your points one (or a few) at a time.Lets go back to your original post:

quote:

---

The fundamental problem I have with the theory of atheistic-evolution is that it fails to answer some of the deeper meta-physical questions concerning the origination of life.

---

I'll ask you again: why do you think this is a problem? Metaphysical questions simply are not what any science deals with. Why not let science answer the questions that it can deal with, namely the investigation of the material universe, and the search for the best theories that explain the observations? And then you can ponder the metaphysical questions using whatever philosophical/religious tools you have?Second, why do you think that any of the metaphysical questions even have answers? It's no problem against science if it cannot answer a question that has no answer.Third, evolution is a valid explanation or it is not; this is determined by observations in the real world. If evolution explains the data well, no other theory does, but it contradicts the answers you have for your "metaphysical" questions, then shouldn't you change your metaphysical methadology?Finally, Newton's law of gravity does not answer any metaphysical questions, neither do the laws of thermodynamics, and neither does any other branch of science. Why single out biological evolution for this?

quote:

---

1) One of the observed realities of the world in which we live are the laws of morality.

---

There are no laws of morality. Morality is like beauty - it is a human invention, and the division into "moral" and "immoral" exist only in one's mind.

quote:

---

2) I contend that within an atheistic universe, having absolute truths is not allowed.

---

Perhaps you have defined "absolute truth" but if you did I did not see it. Define "absolute truth" and explain how the (non-existent) "laws of morality" are absolute truths.

quote:

---

3) Since atheism can not deal with the realities of the world in which we live in

---

Atheism is merely to believe there is no god. Atheists get along fine in the real world and have no problem explaining the real world; many are even able to answer "metaphysical questions".

quote:

---

4) While this is true, there is other evidences to backup the existence of a God.

---

You have yet to bring up any convincing evidence.

quote:

---

I only bring this up to make a point that being a theist, Christian even, is not irrational.

---

No, but it is arational - there is no evidence nor logical proof for the existence of the Christian god, nor that such a god does not exist. The existence or non-existence of god must be assumed a priori.On the other hand, belief in the Genesis story of creation and the flood is most assuredly irrational. The vast majority of the physical evidence speaks out against these myths - to accept a literal reading of Genesis is to ignore the physical evidence against common sense - an act of irrationality.[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-13-2003]