The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

[The Baron]

There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately--the lack thereof regarding evolution and it seem that there is a very important part of this conversation that is being overlooked.

Ideas have consequence. That is a inescapable fact. And some years ago, in a debate with Phillip Johnson (University of California, Berkley), William B. Provine, PhD. and Evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University summarized the implications of evolution. You can see a blurb of that debate where he summarizes the ideas presented below here.

To be sure, the ideas he listed were not his own but this was the first--and only time--I’ve been aware of anyone summarizing all of these implications together.

I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:

1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978

2. No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.
b) There is no ultimate justice.
c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.
d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.
a) No basis for morality.
b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.
c) “Might” makes “right”.

Richard Dawkins (Evolutionist, Academic, Author, Professor at Oxford University) has--on different occasions--expressed his view that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, Muslim terrorism or the atrocities of Hitler.
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016.

Part I of II​

 

[The Baron]

Part II of II​

4. No ultimate meaning in life.
a) If we have evolved from the primordial ooze, then we are not created in God’s image.
b) Human life is no more important than any other life.

“Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” - Ingrid Newkirk, Founder and President of PETA

“All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed in the nineteenth century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of Creation, that there was some magical line between Us and Them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire Western way of thinking about the place of our species in the universe” - Peter Singer, Darwinian Evolutionist, Bioethics Philosopher, Endowed Chair in Bioethics, Princeton University
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016

“[Peter] Singer is so consistent in rejecting human dignity and placing humans on par with animals that he even thinks bestiality is perfectly fine.”
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016

“On the basis of his Darwinian worldview, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes completely rejected natural rights…[h]e explicitly denied that anyone had a ‘right to life.’”
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016

“In 1927 Holmes delivered the famous Buck v. Bell decision that gave legal sanction in the United States to compulsory sterilization laws, which many states enacted to promote eugenics.”
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016

“Because of the limitations of present detection methods [1993], most birth defects are not discovered until birth…However, if a child was not declared alive until three days after birth…the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering.” - James Watson, PhD, Evolutionist, Molecular Biologist, Geneticist, 1962 Nobel Laureate
- Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998.

“The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.” - Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966), Darwinian Evolutionist, Founder Planned Parenthood
- Hanegraaff, Hank. The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution. Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1998.

5. No free will.
a) We are the product of mindless, purposeless forces.
b) As such, we cannot be expected to act in any thoughtful way but are forced by evolution to simply react to the circumstances surrounding us (“cause and effect”) (“determinism”).

Do you agree?

Discuss.

 

[Lursa]

What's good about inventing religious myths? Their purpose is to control people, usually with fear and coercion. If those were necessary in our distant past, they arent now.

What's really nuts is investing in research, discovery, and science...and ignoring it when/because it conflicts with myths.

The dumbing down to the lowest common denominator cant be good for a society.

Btw, even the Christian God gave us free will. Says so in the Bible. He gave us the free will to decide to follow Him or not. So...was that God wrong?

Basically, your post pretends or assumes that morality only comes from religion. Oh goody...which one? Pretty sure each religious person is gonna say "theirs."

And why cant an atheist have purpose in life? They cant do good deeds? Love and enjoy their family? Have passions and skills and provide for others needs? Appreciate beauty and create art? Goodness, the list is huge and please explain why atheists would be excluded? (Edit: maybe have my own answer...the OP implies that the religious do it so they can get into Heaven. Or into Paradise or God's Graces or some other self-serving reason. Is that accurate?)

 

[Loulit01]

There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately--the lack thereof regarding evolution and it seem that there is a very important part of this conversation that is being overlooked.

Ideas have consequence. That is a inescapable fact. And some years ago, in a debate with Phillip Johnson (University of California, Berkley), William B. Provine, PhD. and Evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University summarized the implications of evolution. You can see a blurb of that debate where he summarizes the ideas presented below here.

To be sure, the ideas he listed were not his own but this was the first--and only time--I’ve been aware of anyone summarizing all of these implications together.

I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:

1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978

Yes, all true. I agree.

2. No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.
b) There is no ultimate justice.

True.

c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.

Nonsense. Virtue is its own reward.

d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted.

More nonsense. We do have laws.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.

There is no ultimate foundation for ethics now.

a) No basis for morality.

More nonsense. Morality existed long before Christianity.

b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.

Ridiculous.

c) “Might” makes “right”.

Right for might is not a Christian concept.

Richard Dawkins (Evolutionist, Academic, Author, Professor at Oxford University) has--on different occasions--expressed his view that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, Muslim terrorism or the atrocities of Hitler.
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016.

Citation, please.

Part I of II​

 

[The Baron]

What's good about inventing religious myths? Their purpose is to control people, usually with fear and coercion. If those were necessary in our distant past, they arent now.

What in the cornbread-hell are you talking about and what does that have to do with the OP?

What's really nuts is investing in research, discovery, and science...and ignoring it when/because it conflicts with myths.

If you can't question it...it's not science.

The dumbing down to the lowest common denominator cant be good for a society.

And yet the government is still in charge of our children's education.

And what this has to do with anything is simply beyond me.

Btw, even the Christian God gave us free will. Says so in the Bible. He gave us the free will to decide to follow Him or not. So...was that God wrong?

No. Evolution is. The OP is concerning the implications of evolution. If you had bothered to read it you wouldn't be going off on so many tangents at the moment.

Basically, your post pretends or assumes that morality only comes from religion.

I'm neither pretending nor assuming.

I've stated it plainly.

And why cant an atheist have purpose in life? They cant do good deeds? Love and enjoy their family? Have passions and skills and provide for others needs? Appreciate beauty and create art? Goodness, the list is huge and please explain why atheists would be excluded? (Edit: maybe have my own answer...the OP implies that the religious do it so they can get into Heaven. Or into Paradise or God's Graces or some other self-serving reason. Is that accurate?)

I don't think you even read the OP.

 

[Lursa]

What in the cornbread-hell are you talking about and what does that have to do with the OP?

You were going on and on about the need/value for religion. WHy didnt you answer my question regarding a need to invent myths?

If you can't question it...it's not science.

Never wrote any such thing. Of course it should be questioned. It's like you are reading someone else's post.

And yet the government is still in charge of our children's education.

Explain how this relates to my comment?

And what this has to do with anything is simply beyond me.

You discussed free will and correlated it to evolution. And religion. Now, please answer my direct questions to your comments on free will: even the Christian God gave us free will. Says so in the Bible. He gave us the free will to decide to follow Him or not. So...was that God wrong?

And then we can relate it to evolution but I need your answer first, for a foundation.

No. Evolution is. The OP is concerning the implications of evolution. If you had bothered to read it you wouldn't be going off on so many tangents at the moment.

I know. And I'm questioning your OP with that focus. So please carry on and answer with that in mind. My questions were written with that in mind. Are you trying to avoid answering?

I'm neither pretending nor assuming.
I've stated it plainly.

Then please provide sources that prove morality only comes from religion, since you arent pretending or assuming otherwise. Since you stated it plainly. Prove your claim, otherwise it fails in debate.

I don't think you even read the OP.

I did AND I can relate it to evolution but I need you to answer my questions first. That's how discussions move forward.

Here it is again:

And why cant an atheist have purpose in life? They cant do good deeds? Love and enjoy their family? Have passions and skills and provide for others needs? Appreciate beauty and create art? Goodness, the list is huge and please explain why atheists would be excluded? (Edit: maybe have my own answer...the OP implies that the religious do it so they can get into Heaven. Or into Paradise or God's Graces or some other self-serving reason. Is that accurate?)

 

[The Baron]

Nonsense. Virtue is its own reward.

I've not stated that people can't do good for the sake of doing so. That was not the point.

More nonsense. We do have laws.

Once again--not the point.

Yes we do have laws and as you already know that is not enough. If it were we would have no needs for courts, jails, electric chairs, etc.

The appeal is to a higher authority. If there is no life after death then there is ultimate justice removing any motivation to curb our most base instincts.

There is no ultimate foundation for ethics now.

Sadly, I think that may be more true than any of us care to admit.

More nonsense. Morality existed long before Christianity.

Yes. With the Jews.

Ridiculous.

You don't mean that. Apart from some moral authority "right" can be whatever the state (or whoever else holds the power) says it is. Nazi Germany is an obvious example.

Right for might is not a Christian concept.

This was not a discussion on Christian concepts but one on an absence of Christian concepts.

Citation, please.

I provided my source in the OP, as appropriate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

These five concerns are only plausible for people who take genesis literally.

There are plenty of Christians who see genesis as allegorical.

 

[Integrityrespec]

These five concerns are only plausible for people who take genesis literally.

There are plenty of Christians who see genesis as allegorical.

There is plenty of scholastic religious work that doesn't have any trouble tying evolutionary science and Creationism to one another. The only ones that have a problem are those that can't separate themselves from the hard line of one or the other.

 

[Individual]

To repeat the words of a Buddhist Monk, "All that is important is HOW you live your life."

 

[The Baron]

To repeat the words of a Buddhist Monk, "All that is important is HOW you live your life."

And a worldview (in this case Christianity vs. Atheism) will have everything to do with "HOW you life your life".

 

[Individual]

And a worldview (in this case Christianity vs. Atheism) will have everything to do with "HOW you life your life".

In a Christian worldview, where beliefs supersede reality, it appears so.

 

[maquiscat]

There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately--the lack thereof regarding evolution and it seem that there is a very important part of this conversation that is being overlooked.

Ideas have consequence. That is a inescapable fact. And some years ago, in a debate with Phillip Johnson (University of California, Berkley), William B. Provine, PhD. and Evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University summarized the implications of evolution. You can see a blurb of that debate where he summarizes the ideas presented below here.

To be sure, the ideas he listed were not his own but this was the first--and only time--I’ve been aware of anyone summarizing all of these implications together.

I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:

1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978

2. No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.
b) There is no ultimate justice.
c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.
d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.
a) No basis for morality.
b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.
c) “Might” makes “right”.

Richard Dawkins (Evolutionist, Academic, Author, Professor at Oxford University) has--on different occasions--expressed his view that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, Muslim terrorism or the atrocities of Hitler.
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016.

Part I of II​

This goes towards both posts.

Nothing there claimed is automatically true. Evolution does nothing to dismiss the idea of a creator deity save where a set of false premises are laid. That is not to say that evolution proves such deity either, nor that a set of false premises cannot be given to make evolution support such a deity.

 

[bomberfox]

Evolutionary theory is about how life changes over successive generations, not the origin of life or how we treat each other but actually treating others with respect and kindness and cooperation gives us an advantage in the struggle to survive.

 

[The Baron]

In a Christian worldview, where beliefs supersede reality, it appears so.

Oh? How so?

 

[The Baron]

Nothing there claimed is automatically true. Evolution does nothing to dismiss the idea of a creator deity save where a set of false premises are laid.

I disagree. Point-of-fact, evolution dismisses a Creator by providing an alternative to the biblical account. Oddly enough, it has done this without ever stating how life began to begin with.

That is not to say that evolution proves such deity either, nor that a set of false premises cannot be given to make evolution support such a deity.

I'll grant you that a number of Christians believe that evolution had some part to play in the creation event but they do so without evidence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I disagree. Point-of-fact, evolution dismisses a Creator by providing an alternative to the biblical account. Oddly enough, it has done this without ever stating how life began to begin with.

I think the doctrine you are looking for is called Intelligent Design. Its not fully scientific, but its what many people believe to have happened.

I'll grant you that a number of Christians believe that evolution had some part to play in the creation event but they do so without evidence.

There is a whole body of evidence for evolution, from DNA to fossils.

 

[The Baron]

I think the doctrine you are looking for is called Intelligent Design. Its not fully scientific, but its what many people believe to have happened.

I.D. is not scientific, at all, in the same respect that evolution is not scientific. Both fields do the same thing, they look at the exact same evidence and then explain that evidence through their own paradigms.

There is a whole body of evidence for evolution, from DNA to fossils.

And the same evidence is used to support I.D.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I.D. is not scientific, at all, in the same respect that evolution is not scientific. Both fields do the same thing, they look at the exact same evidence and then explain that evidence through their own paradigms.

I agree that I.D. is not scientific, however there is no reason to believe that evolution isn't scientific.

And the same evidence is used to support I.D.

Right, except that I.D. starts with a conclusion whereas evolution did not.

 

[Individual]

Oh? How so?

I find little difference between atheists and Christians in HOW they live their lives, there are good and bad Christians and atheists, and the same applies to every other religious belief/disbelief.

 

[maquiscat]

I disagree. Point-of-fact, evolution dismisses a Creator by providing an alternative to the biblical account. Oddly enough, it has done this without ever stating how life began to begin with.

That only he's true if you take the biblical account at it's most literal. However, assumptions can be made from the account in a multitude of ways. For example, the overall creation is described in a series of days. Yet the reference by which we humans measure days (the movement of the sun across the sky) was not created until the third "day". This leaves an implication that the days referenced are not the 24 hours we humans use. This now allows for the possibility that the referenced days are those of another scale, much as a year on Pluto is on another scale from Earth's.

Likewise, with life on Earth, all we have in the account is a brief accounting of the order in which different types of life appeared, which happens to coincide with the current theory in Evolution. Breeding, especially to get certain traits, whether in plant or animal, is nothing more than directed or forced evolution. Thus there is nothing in the theory of evolution to preclude a creator from making the "tool" and using it to get the creatures It wants, and the letting the process continue to see what results. Even if we kept all of one breed of dog isolated so that no other breeds can influence, evolution will still cause changes in the breed. Just not as quickly as when humans guide the process. The only real inconsistency is the creation of Adam and Eve. Even then it seems more alagorical (sp) to most Christians.

I'll grant you that a number of Christians believe that evolution had some part to play in the creation event but they do so without evidence.

Likewise the lack of a Creator is claimed without evidence. Right now science can tell us about the mechanics of nature and existence, not it's origins. Maybe later it can, but for now, the existence of a creator deity is a Schrodinger's cat. Both possibilities are equal.

 

[The Baron]

I agree that I.D. is not scientific, however there is no reason to believe that evolution isn't scientific.

Evolution can't be considered a science for the exact same reason evolution can't be considered a science. The operate in the same way.

Right, except that I.D. starts with a conclusion whereas evolution did not.

That is your assumption. Darwin took his grandfather's theory and looked for how it could be true. This notion that Darwin observed the Galapagos Finches and then devised his theory is, itself, a myth.

 

[The Baron]

I find little difference between atheists and Christians in HOW they live their lives, there are good and bad Christians and atheists, and the same applies to every other religious belief/disbelief.

Sadly, I agree.

But what does this have to do with your comment that I was questioning (your post no. 15), "In a Christian worldview, where beliefs supersede reality, it appears so."?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Evolution can't be considered a science for the exact same reason evolution can't be considered a science. The operate in the same way.

How do you believe that they operate the same way?

That is your assumption. Darwin took his grandfather's theory and looked for how it could be true. This notion that Darwin observed the Galapagos Finches and then devised his theory is, itself, a myth.

What you are describing is a part of the scientific process called "forming a hypothesis"

 

[Quag]

There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately--the lack thereof regarding evolution and it seem that there is a very important part of this conversation that is being overlooked.

Ideas have consequence. That is a inescapable fact. And some years ago, in a debate with Phillip Johnson (University of California, Berkley), William B. Provine, PhD. and Evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University summarized the implications of evolution. You can see a blurb of that debate where he summarizes the ideas presented below here.

To be sure, the ideas he listed were not his own but this was the first--and only time--I’ve been aware of anyone summarizing all of these implications together.

I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:

1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978

2. No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.
b) There is no ultimate justice.
c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.
d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.
a) No basis for morality.
b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.
c) “Might” makes “right”.

Richard Dawkins (Evolutionist, Academic, Author, Professor at Oxford University) has--on different occasions--expressed his view that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, Muslim terrorism or the atrocities of Hitler.
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016.

Part I of II​

1. Evolution does not mean no God(s)
2. Evolution does not mean no life after death
3. Evolution does not mean no foundation for ethics
4. Evolution does not mean no meaning in life
5. Evolution does not mean no free will