Blog powered by Typepad

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Become a Fan

« Subjectivism and Realism | Main | The London shooting »

July 26, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452b54c69e200d83450de2f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Atheism and evolution:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

GCT

No no no no no. A thousand times no. Science can no more disprove god than it can prove it. Evolution says nothing about belief in a deity. You can make your own philosophical conclusions based on the evidences that lead to evolution, but that is you talking, not the science. All science uses methodological naturalism, and there is nothing that makes evolution inherently more atheist than any other science. Evolution and science is religion-neutral. Please don't make the same mistake that anti-evolutionists make in mistaking a religious-neutral position for an anti-religious position.

Robert Madison

I have to agree with GCT

In fact, I'd argue that evolution can be used as evidence of a magnificent creator. (Theistic Evolution)

I'm an atheist, but when I'm talking to other theists, the argument I put forward is simply this:

1-If we assume that God created the natural world, and everything in it;
2-And because science is the study of the natural world, and everything in it;
3-Then it follows that science is an indirect study of god, and a direct study of his/her/its works.

A key question to ask theists is: Do you believe that God can work through natural processes, to include processes that are completely understood by science?

If "Yes", then why should there be *any* conflict between science and religion?

If "No"...wait a second...I thought God was omnipotent, and could do anything...

Don't know what your reading backlog is like, but if this topic is deeply interesting to you, I HIGHLY recommend you read "Finding Darwin's God", by Ken Miller. Very, very good book!

Ongoing Indignation

IMHO, most of the religious leaders who rail against evolution are doing so for political purposes. It is a sideshow for the rubes, like gay marriage. It is all about control. If the people understand, really understand evolution, then it would open their eyes to alot of other processes that are going on around them.

Another strike against evolution is that bigots would have to admit they are probably descended from Africans. The "Out of Africa" theory is a total nonstarter for them.

The whole idea of Intelligent Design is based on those two words, which are modern constructs. They have nothing to do with biology and everything to do about man's perceptions.

And if I hear one more moron try to give the "half-an-eye" argument, I'll scream. Here's your half-an-eye. Take a molecule that reacts to light, now hook it up to you. Stir for 1 billion years and you get an eyeball.

yon fishman

I agree with the first post. Evolution is not the kind of method an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and perfect designer would use to create. It is haphazard, wasteful, inefficient, and cruel. Just look up Ebola Hemorrhagic fever. If God exists, he would have to be supremely malevolent to create Ebola (along with many other diseases and natural disasters). Darwinian evolution does not definitively disprove the existence of God, but it does count as strong evidence (e.g., in a court of law) against the existence of a supremely intelligent and benevolent designer. This explains the justifiable opposition to 'Darwin's dangerous idea'. Those who argue that there is no conflict between God and evolution probably do not understand the process of Darwinian evolution or fully appreciate what it entails.

Yon

C Martin

Thanks for the information, I did'nt know about this.

3rdoption?

The evolution taught to me in school is non-extant. The deity taught to me in church is non-extant. What's an atheist to do when he is presented with two tribalistic world views and no science?

The comments to this entry are closed.