Do atheists think that evolution theory proves that there is no God?

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

I think the argument goes more or less as follows:

Evolution is a much more elegant solutiuon than ID, which is a heavy-handed magic-wand solution that most thinking people reject. This removes the need of an interfering god in how we came about, the creator aspect really being superflous to the whole issue. Thus we are left with either no god, or an impersonal non-interfering god which really amounts to the same thing.

I agree with this entire argument, but it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that an interfering god is impossible. I agree that I.D. is a absurd non-explanation. I agree that the theory of evolution, as well as other scientific theories, have not shown that it is necessary to have an interfering deity. And I agree that there is no evidence for an interfering deity.

I find myself in a strange position here, arguing for an idea that I believe is wrong. But I think it is important do distinguish between saying and interfering god is not necessary, and saying an interfering god is not possible. And it is important to distinguish between there being no evidence for an interfering deity and saying there is evidence that there is no interfering deity. I am quite comfortable in saying that there is no such thing an a interfering creator, I think that is a reasonable position. But it is not a position that has been proven by the theory of evolution or by science in general.


If you are wondering why this matters to me it is because I don’t want people who do believe in a interfering deity to be told that they cannot believe in the theory of evolution. That is just not true. People like Dawkins might want to convince people of this in the hopes that he can bring them to atheism. People like Kent Hovind want to convince people of the same thing in hopes that the can convert people to their brand of fundamentalist Christianity. Me, I would rather bring people to science, regardless of their religion.

[Storm]

Frubals on your head, fp!

[reeferreaper]

If you believe that god guides the design of life, you are quite uneducated. There are so many flaws, just in the human body, that if you are correct about god's involvement in this process, he is not very smart.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by reeferreaper

If you believe that god guides the design of life, you are quite uneducated. There are so many flaws, just in the human body, that if you are correct about god's involvement in this process, he is not very smart.

Uncalled for and unsupported. Ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason.

And, ftr: no, I don't believe it. However, I can comprehend it.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

Personally, I don't think even that can be done. Care to try, just as a thought experiment?

Well, there's the "inordinate fondness for beetles" approach (tip of the hat to J.B.S. Haldane or whoever actually came up with the line). Most life is much less complex than us, and seems to have a tendency to stay so.

Gould presented what I consider to be a good argument to this effect in Full House (I think it was Full House - might have been Dinosaur in a Haystack): think of the distribution of complexity for life in general, either by number of species or number of organisms, and imagine it on a graph with complexity (however you measure it - there are a few ways to do it) along the X axis and relative frequency on the Y. What you would see is a strongly right-skewed distribution: the graph would be very high in the least complex points of the graph, and then peter out to a very thin tail at the most complex points. Out at our level of complexity, the tail would be tiny. In terms of statistical measures, the mode would be bacteria, the median might be at the level of complexity of eukaryotic but still unicellular organisms, and the mean would be out at some higher level of complexity, but means are strongly affected by the tails (i.e. us and other mammals), so they aren't a good measure of the overall population when it has a very skewed distribution. Effectively, the vast majority of life is so low in complexity that it just barely exceeds the level of complexity needed for it to be life at all.

However, if evolution were being guided to higher complexity, we would see something different; we would see the signs of a "push" toward higher complexity in the distribution: the median and mode would both be higher, and the distribution would be less strongly right-skewed.

IOW, if there were a general tendency toward complex life, the distribution of life's complexity wouldn't be pushed up as hard as it can against that "left wall" represented by the minimum complexity needed for life. Therefore, it seems that there is no general tendency toward complex life, and therefore the question of whether such a tendency is the work of God or not is moot.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Well, there's the "inordinate fondness for beetles" approach (tip of the hat to J.B.S. Haldane or whoever actually came up with the line). Most life is much less complex than us, and seems to have a tendency to stay so.

Gould presented what I consider to be a good argument to this effect in Full House (I think it was Full House - might have been Dinosaur in a Haystack): think of the distribution of complexity for life in general, either by number of species or number of organisms, and imagine it on a graph with complexity (however you measure it - there are a few ways to do it) along the X axis and relative frequency on the Y. What you would see is a strongly right-skewed distribution: the graph would be very high in the least complex points of the graph, and then peter out to a very thin tail at the most complex points. Out at our level of complexity, the tail would be tiny. In terms of statistical measures, the mode would be bacteria, the median might be at the level of complexity of eukaryotic but still unicellular organisms, and the mean would be out at some higher level of complexity, but means are strongly affected by the tails (i.e. us and other mammals), so they aren't a good measure of the overall population when it has a very skewed distribution. Effectively, the vast majority of life is so low in complexity that it just barely exceeds the level of complexity needed for it to be life at all.

However, if evolution were being guided to higher complexity, we would see something different; we would see the signs of a "push" toward higher complexity in the distribution: the median and mode would both be higher, and the distribution would be less strongly right-skewed.

IOW, if there were a general tendency toward complex life, the distribution of life's complexity wouldn't be pushed up as hard as it can against that "left wall" represented by the minimum complexity needed for life. Therefore, it seems that there is no general tendency toward complex life, and therefore the question of whether such a tendency is the work of God or not is moot.

That's not bad. Kudos.

However, if humanity was the point of God's exercise in evolution, there needn't be a general tendency toward complex life. Just what is necessary to produce us.

Of course, that introduces yet another assumption into the equation, but I think it's an assumption consistent with theistic evolution. And if the theistic evolution is further defined as Christian, it's supported by the scriptural teachings that we were made in God's image and given dominion/stewardship over the earth.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

That's not bad. Kudos.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Storm

However, if humanity was the point of God's exercise in evolution, there needn't be a general tendency toward complex life. Just what is necessary to produce us.

I suppose, though I think that a plausible alternate mechanism (e.g. natural selection, inheritability and random mutation) that could produce us is evidence that God might not have done what was necessary directly.

Also, it does seem that the mechanisms of evolution affect us and our ancestors just as strongly as all other life.

Originally Posted by Storm

Of course, that introduces yet another assumption into the equation, but I think it's an assumption consistent with theistic evolution. And if the theistic evolution is further defined as Christian, it's supported by the scriptural teachings that we were made in God's image and given dominion/stewardship over the earth.

I'm not sure about that. I'm in danger of getting into unscientific "gut feeling" territory here, but imagine you came across someone standing in a field quite a ways downwind from a house, tossing paint in the air; some splatters of paint land on the house occasionally, but there's a huge blob of paint on the ground downwind of him. Which do you think would be more reasonable: to say that he's painting the field, or to say that he's painting the house?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Thanks!

You're most welcome, dear.

I suppose, though I think that a plausible alternate mechanism (e.g. natural selection, inheritability and random mutation) that could produce us is evidence that God might not have done what was necessary directly.

Well, I agree, but as you probably know, I'm arguing a hypothetical myself. I don't believe in theistic evolution, either.

Also, it does seem that the mechanisms of evolution affect us and our ancestors just as strongly as all other life.

Well, of course. I don't see how that goes against theistic evolution.

I'm not sure about that. I'm in danger of getting into unscientific "gut feeling" territory here, but imagine you came across someone standing in a field quite a ways downwind from a house, tossing paint in the air; some splatters of paint land on the house occasionally, but there's a huge blob of paint on the ground downwind of him. Which do you think would be more reasonable: to say that he's painting the field, or to say that he's painting the house?

I don't understand the analogy. Well, I get what you're trying to say, but not how it relates to what I said. What part of my statement are you "not sure" about? Does "not sure" mean that you don't personally believe it, that you think my reasoning is flawed, or that you don't understand what I was getting at?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

Well, of course. I don't see how that goes against theistic evolution.

It means that the explanations that are sufficient for the rest of the tree of life are sufficient for our branch as well. It means that there's no special phenomenon for which we need to invoke God.

If someone argues that a die is loaded, but it rolls numbers the same way a fair die rolls, then the evidence indicates that the die was not loaded.