The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

[Loulit01]

We can go on like this or we can watch Spencer Tracy in

Inherit the Wind (1960) - IMDb

Inherit the Wind: Directed by Stanley Kramer. With Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly, Dick York. Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a Tennessee science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution.

www.imdb.com

 

[maquiscat]

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.

I think you have an error in here, otherwise it's just circular reasoning. I am guessing that one of those "evolution"s is supposed to be something else.

 

[Quag]

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.

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.

Huh?

 

[The Baron]

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.

Read the Genesis account. How does it describe a day?

Genesis 1:3-5
"3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."

While you are technically correct, God did divide the day and night on the first day.

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.

Does it?!?!

Where?

What I see is...

Genesis 1: 20-23
"And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day."

Breeding, especially to get certain traits, whether in plant or animal, is nothing more than directed or forced evolution.

Breeding is not "evolution". Breeding required direction. Evolution, by definition, is free of any direction.

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.

This seems very weak reasoning to me. You are suggesting that God--who had just created matter, space, the universe, et. al.--couldn't created the animals the way He wanted to begin with?

I don't buy it.

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.

Variation in a kind is not evolution. Dogs remain dogs.

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.

Does it? Where do you get that information?

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.

Science--real science--can't even do that. At best it can offer an explanation and one that is all too often unsubstantiated.

Maybe later it can, but for now, the existence of a creator deity is a Schrodinger's cat. Both possibilities are equal.

I understand your argument here but it does ignore a rather large field of study dedicated to proving the Bible--and therefore God--true.

 

[The Baron]

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

Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared all that up.

And just look at all the information you provided to support your claims.

 

[Quag]

Well, I'm certainly glad you cleared all that up.

And just look at all the information you provided to support your claims.

You provided nothing to support your claims so why should I need to provide anything to deny them?

But tell me why does evolution mean no God? (lets do one at a time)

 

[The Baron]

How do you believe that they operate the same way?

Just as I described earlier, both camps are looking at the same evidence and interpreting that evidence according to their own paradigms.

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

Thanks, but I've a Bachelor of Science Degree--specifically in Engineering. I understand how it works quite well, thanks.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

There are plenty of Christians who see genesis as allegorical.

Yep, and practically anything else which contradicts observable reality or other biblical passages is ‘fully explained‘ by simply asserting that “God works in mysterious ways”.

 

[The Baron]

You provided nothing to support your claims so why should I need to provide anything to deny them?

But tell me why does evolution mean no God? (lets do one at a time)

See my OP where I've detailed the reasons why.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Just as I described earlier, both camps are looking at the same evidence and interpreting that evidence according to their own paradigms.

Right, except the evolution crowd is using science whereas the I.D. crowd is not exclusively using science.

Thanks, but I've a Bachelor of Science Degree--specifically in Engineering. I understand how it works quite well, thanks.

Then why did you get your post wrong? Do you need to take a refresher?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yep, and parasitically anything else which contradicts observable reality or other biblical passages is ‘fully explained‘ by simply asserting that “God works in mysterious ways”.

I can't speak for others, but my belief in God has very little to do with Genesis and its various interpretations.

 

[Quag]

See my OP where I've detailed the reasons why.

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

That isn't a reason why no God(s) exist. it just points out errors in certain beliefs about Jesus

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I don't agree that evolution implies all these things, but I'll answer anyway.

1. No gods or purposive forces.

I agree.

a) This life is all there is.

Yes.

b) There is no ultimate justice

Yes.

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

I agree with the bold part, I think there are still incentives.

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

No? That's an insane logical leap.

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

There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, but you can still ground ethics in philosophy. If anything a philosophical foundation of ethics is stronger and answers more questions than a biblical one.

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.

I agree. I don't think we are inherently important.

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”).

I agree with some parts of determinism, specifically the cause and effect tenant. Not that people are not responsible for their actions.

Yes. With the Jews.

What? Pretty sure the Greeks, Persians, Native Americans etc had morals.

 

[Individual]

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."?

Many Christians, I've found to feel that a belief in their God to be a necessity, I do not. Buddhism, an atheistic religion, existed prior to Christianity, and Gautama Buddha was not a God but simply a human being.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can't speak for others, but my belief in God has very little to do with Genesis and its various interpretations.

Problems arise when the Bible can be (personally?) ‘parsed’ whereby some parts are taken literally and some parts are OK to ignore or interpret differently (even opposite of what they say). As you noted, taking away the ‘fact’ that God created the universe and mankind in his image leaves much of the rest open to alteration and/or interpretation as well. Things such as God’s view of polygamy and slavery are also subject to change with the (secular?) times.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Problems arise when the Bible can be (personally?) ‘parsed’ whereby some parts are taken literally and some parts are OK to ignore or interpret differently (even opposite of what they say). As you noted, taking away the ‘fact’ that God created the universe and mankind in his image leaves much of the rest open to alteration and/or interpretation as well. Things such as God’s view of polygamy and slavery are also subject to change with the (secular?) times.

That sort of thing tends to be a problem with any "ism". Its a result of the finite nature of human intelligence and wisdom.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

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.

Well if you don't believe in god, nothing can be inherent. He isn't saying any of those things aren't wrong. He is just saying we didn't find right and wrong written on a stone tablet. It's a concept we invented.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well if you don't believe in god, nothing can be inherent. He isn't saying any of those things aren't wrong. He is just saying we didn't find right and wrong written on a stone tablet. It's a concept we invented.

Yes and no. There are clear indications that people tend to have a problem with certain behaviors due to the nature of our evolved social drives. We may not have much more choice in finding certain behaviors abhorrent than we have in choosing what we are attracted to.

A common mistake people make is that they assume that if their personal philosophy is invalid than that means humans are a tabula rasa and therefore anything goes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That sort of thing tends to be a problem with any "ism". Its a result of the finite nature of human intelligence and wisdom.

Exactly, but once you accept as fact that the Bible is a (an evolving?) product of long dead humans, and not the “word of God”, it ceases to be an authoritative text.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Exactly, but once you accept as fact that the Bible is a (an evolving?) product of long dead humans, and not the “word of God”, it ceases to be an authoritative text.

Yes and no. My experiences in life lead me to a strong belief that God is real and cares enough about individuals to do some rather extraordinary things on our behalf and I came from a position of hating everything about Christianity 20 years ago plus being raised in an atheist family. In fact, my dad and I still have some awkwardness around that topic.

But that's a long story full of many rather extraordinary events and perhaps this is not the venue for that (but its a topic I do enjoy talking about, so I am putting the offer on the table ).

Approaching The Bible from a philosophical perspective tends not to work well, but then again God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes and no. My experiences in life lead me to a strong belief that God is real and cares enough about individuals to do some rather extraordinary things on our behalf and I came from a position of hating everything about Christianity 20 years ago plus being raised in an atheist family. In fact, my dad and I still have some awkwardness around that topic.

But that's a long story full of many rather extraordinary events and perhaps this is not the venue for that (but its a topic I do enjoy talking about, so I am putting the offer on the table ).

Approaching The Bible from a philosophical perspective tends not to work well, but then again God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise

I have no problem with those who feel that attributing superpowers to an imaginary sky daddy (and his assigns) help them get through life, but using their ‘faith’ as a reason (basis?) to call others wrong causes problems.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

There are clear indications that people tend to have a problem with certain behaviors due to the nature of our evolved social drives. We may not have much more choice in finding certain behaviors abhorrent than we have in choosing what we are attracted to.

Even if it is genetic, that still doesn't mean there is an inherently true morality or invalidate philosophically grounded morality.

For example, we could find an alien race that has their children fight to the death to see who's the strongest and finds it internally moral. Now, we might kinda feel that's wrong, but you could also philosophically find it to be wrong depending what your starting axioms are.

There are plenty of things humans do that most humans don't seem to internally feel is wrong, but philosophically many have decided are wrong, like eating meat.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have no problem with those who feel that attributing superpowers to an imaginary sky daddy (and his assigns) help them get through life,

There is a little more to that that, but sure

but using their ‘faith’ as a reason (basis?) to call others wrong causes problems.

I agree in some ways and disagree in others. Its a topic that's going to generate a lot of nuance and situational analysis.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Do you agree?

Discuss.

Because of where you put this thread, shielded by rules governing this area of the forums, we cannot have the real conversation we should.

The implications of all science end up adversarial to religion, but I cannot say much else... and I think you know why.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Even if it is genetic, that still doesn't mean there is an inherently true morality or invalidate philosophically grounded morality.

If you want to look at philosophy, for me at least, I think David Hume did the best job in figuring out how morality actually works. Of course, psychologists have taken that baton and have done much better in getting into the various details.

For example, we could find an alien race that has their children fight to the death to see who's the strongest and finds it internally moral. Now, we might kinda feel that's wrong, but you could also philosophically find it to be wrong depending what your starting axioms are.

You don't even need to that far. What humans call morality is just instinctive social drives that maximize our chances for procreation (of course, I am looking at this from a purely scientific level at the moment) and we see examples of different strategies even in various animals on earth. Humans don't act like snakes or spiders because that is not to our advantage.

There are plenty of things humans do that most humans don't seem to internally feel is wrong, but philosophically many have decided are wrong, like eating meat.

Eating meat seems wrong to some due to the care/harm drive that informs our moral reasoning. That drive can be expressed differently in different individuals. Most of the time philosophy is post-hoc reasoning to justify one of those drives.