• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

The Baron said:
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
Click to expand...
This first point seems glaringly wrong. Evolution does not mean there is no god. It simply means anyone who claims that there must be a god to explain the diversity of life is wrong. But there is nothing in evolution that says it's impossible for there to be some ultimate being that kicked things off or watches you while you sleep.

I'm astounded that the very first point is so obviously wrong...
 
tacomancer said:
It’s recognized by the broad scientific community as science
Click to expand...
And yet there are many who would disagree with that.

Consider the fact that on one hand you have any number of scientist up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does not exist and science proves it.

On the other hand you have any number of scientists up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does exist and science proves it.

If this was simply a matter of science both sides could come together and "re-do" the science. But that is not possible.

What both sides are "arguing" over is the evidence (fossil record, earth age, whatever) and the evidence of how that evidence came to be.

Probably the best comparison I've read (I honestly don't remember where I read this but I seem to recall it being from a neutral source) regarding the study of evolution is that evolution is like a crime scene. You have a body and a number of other related or potentially related clues. Now as the crime scene investigator (evolutionist or I.D.er), their job is to figure out what happened.

I think this comparison has some merit. But whereas a crime scene has a fresh body, blood splatter, fingerprints, bullet casings, surveillance video, witnesses, etc., your evidence regarding evolution / intelligent design is far more limited and is--depending on your point of view--thousands or even billions of years old so the comparison does have some limitations.
 
The Baron said:
Consider the fact that on one hand you have any number of scientist up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does not exist and science proves it.

On the other hand you have any number of scientists up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does exist and science proves it.
Click to expand...

"Any number"?

0 is a number. You'll have to be more specific, but I don't know of any scientists who believe God's existence can be proved by science, whether they believe in God or not.
 
The Baron said:
And yet there are many who would disagree with that.

Consider the fact that on one hand you have any number of scientist up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does not exist and science proves it.

On the other hand you have any number of scientists up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does exist and science proves it.

If this was simply a matter of science both sides could come together and "re-do" the science. But that is not possible.

What both sides are "arguing" over is the evidence (fossil record, earth age, whatever) and the evidence of how that evidence came to be.

Probably the best comparison I've read (I honestly don't remember where I read this but I seem to recall it being from a neutral source) regarding the study of evolution is that evolution is like a crime scene. You have a body and a number of other related or potentially related clues. Now as the crime scene investigator (evolutionist or I.D.er), their job is to figure out what happened.

I think this comparison has some merit. But whereas a crime scene has a fresh body, blood splatter, fingerprints, bullet casings, surveillance video, witnesses, etc., your evidence regarding evolution / intelligent design is far more limited and is--depending on your point of view--thousands or even billions of years old so the comparison does have some limitations.
Click to expand...
That’s great and all but generally if the disagreement is lopsidedly small, it’s still appropriate to consider that to be consensus.
 
roughdraft274 said:
This first point seems glaringly wrong. Evolution does not mean there is no god. It simply means anyone who claims that there must be a god to explain the diversity of life is wrong. But there is nothing in evolution that says it's impossible for there to be some ultimate being that kicked things off or watches you while you sleep.

I'm astounded that the very first point is so obviously wrong...
Click to expand...
There are many who disagree with your assessment including G. Richard Bozarth and myself.

I seems fundamentally silly to me to say that God created matter, space, time...everything in the universe--including the universe itself--but couldn't make the creature He wanted to but had to rely on evolution which, by the way, He was had to create (evolution, that is) to make the critters He wanted.

Just silly.
 
The Baron said:
No ultimate foundation for ethics.
a) No basis for morality.
b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.
c) “Might” makes “right”.
Click to expand...


While there is indeed no “ultimate” foundation for ethics such as a “God”, that does not keep humans from establishing their own ethical societies based on the best way to maintain a long-term stable society. This has been attempted throughout history and at this particular point has its apex in rule-of-law democratic societies.
 
The Baron said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you read the "On The Origin of Species"?
 
The Baron said:
There are many who disagree with your assessment including G. Richard Bozarth and myself.

I seems fundamentally silly to me to say that God created matter, space, time...everything in the universe--including the universe itself--but couldn't make the creature He wanted to but had to rely on evolution which, by the way, He was had to create (evolution, that is) to make the critters He wanted.

Just silly.
Click to expand...

Except for one problem. There is no evidence that there is a “God” that created space and time, etc.
 
The Baron said:
I seems fundamentally silly to me to say that God created matter, space, time...everything in the universe--including the universe itself--but couldn't make the creature He wanted to but had to rely on evolution which, by the way, He was had to create (evolution, that is) to make the critters He wanted.
Click to expand...

How do you know what God "wanted"?
 
tacomancer said:
That’s great and all but generally if the disagreement is lopsidedly small, it’s still appropriate to consider that to be consensus.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't dare argue that there's not a consensus but neither can you argue that there is not a considerable number of other scientist (and I'm not limiting my comments to biologist alone) who simply do not believe in evolution.
 
The Baron said:
I wouldn't dare argue that there's not a consensus but neither can you argue that there is not a considerable number of other scientist (and I'm not limiting my comments to biologist alone) who simply do not believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Again, what's a "considerable" number?
 
The Baron said:
I wouldn't dare argue that there's not a consensus but neither can you argue that there is not a considerable number of other scientist (and I'm not limiting my comments to biologist alone) who simply do not believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t make any difference who “believes” or not. It only depends on evidence.
 
The Baron said:
I wouldn't dare argue that there's not a consensus but neither can you argue that there is not a considerable number of other scientist (and I'm not limiting my comments to biologist alone) who simply do not believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Really? What makes you believe that belief in the veracity of evolution is not in fact widespread and near universal among the scientific community?
 
The Baron said:
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.
Click to expand...
So what if there is “no ultimate meaning”? Humans are perfectly capable of finding meaning in their lives without reference to a “God”.
 
The Baron said:
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”).
Click to expand...

I don’t care much about the free will vs determinism debate. As far as I am concerned, if it feels like fee will, that is good enough for me. But supposing that there is indeed free will, it has nothing to do with a “God” but is merely the result of this fabulous “brain” in Homo sapiens that has resulted from billions of years of evolution.
 
The Baron said:
And yet there are many who would disagree with that.

Consider the fact that on one hand you have any number of scientist up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does not exist and science proves it.

On the other hand you have any number of scientists up to and including Nobel Laureates who insist that God does exist and science proves it.

If this was simply a matter of science both sides could come together and "re-do" the science. But that is not possible.

What both sides are "arguing" over is the evidence (fossil record, earth age, whatever) and the evidence of how that evidence came to be.

Probably the best comparison I've read (I honestly don't remember where I read this but I seem to recall it being from a neutral source) regarding the study of evolution is that evolution is like a crime scene. You have a body and a number of other related or potentially related clues. Now as the crime scene investigator (evolutionist or I.D.er), their job is to figure out what happened.

I think this comparison has some merit. But whereas a crime scene has a fresh body, blood splatter, fingerprints, bullet casings, surveillance video, witnesses, etc., your evidence regarding evolution / intelligent design is far more limited and is--depending on your point of view--thousands or even billions of years old so the comparison does have some limitations.
Click to expand...
Any scientist who would insist that God does exist and science proves it isn't much of a scientist.

Only a scientist pretending to be a philosopher would make that type of claim.

Or a philosopher pretending to be a scientist.
 
The Baron said:
There are many who disagree with your assessment including G. Richard Bozarth and myself.

I seems fundamentally silly to me to say that God created matter, space, time...everything in the universe--including the universe itself--but couldn't make the creature He wanted to but had to rely on evolution which, by the way, He was had to create (evolution, that is) to make the critters He wanted.

Just silly.
Click to expand...
You are assuming a lot there including that the end goal of any God(s) was to create humans
There is literally no logical reason to claim that evolution means there are not Gods
 
Mulefoot said:
Any scientist who would insist that God does exist and science proves it isn't much of a scientist.

Only a scientist pretending to be a philosopher would make that type of claim.

Or a philosopher pretending to be a scientist.
Click to expand...
Or a theologian pretending to be a scientist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom