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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Storm

Now, I do believe that theistic evolution is internally logical. If you disagree with that, we have something to argue.

I think theistic evolution in general is internally consistent, sure. I also think it violates Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor is no guarantee of correctness.

Originally Posted by Storm

The thing is, we have no baseline to which we can compare evolution. We have the history we have, and it doesn't answer the question.

I was thinking of the scenario you posed where the development of our particular evolutionary line was "tweaked" by God at select times along the way to ensure we were the result. In that case, we can look at our line and compare it to all others and to life in general, so in that way, we would have a baseline.

Originally Posted by Storm

OK, I get it.

Going back to playing devil's advocate, I would argue that it was indeed necessary to Create all of life. Not necessarily to get us, but to sustain us. Yes, an omnimax God could have just poofed us into existence, but without an ecosystem to support us, we wouldn't have lasted very long.

Besides, the poof theory is just boring.

Yeah, I suppose, though I would also think that an omnimax deity would be capable of sustaining us in an infinite number of different ways, and presumably would have chosen this particular way of doing it for some specific reason.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I think theistic evolution in general is internally consistent, sure. I also think it violates Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor is no guarantee of correctness.

Agreed.

I was thinking of the scenario you posed where the development of our particular evolutionary line was "tweaked" by God at select times along the way to ensure we were the result. In that case, we can look at our line and compare it to all others and to life in general, so in that way, we would have a baseline.

Well, I did specify that the argument was from a Christian perspective, which would naturally reference scripture. Those scriptures teach that we were made in God's image and given dominion over the world.

I didn't mean to argue that it was a necessary part of theistic evolution.

Yeah, I suppose, though I would also think that an omnimax deity would be capable of sustaining us in an infinite number of different ways, and presumably would have chosen this particular way of doing it for some specific reason.

My point is, whether or not said deity does exist, this is the system we got.

I also feel compelled to point out that theistic evolution does not necessarily assume that God is omnimax.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Are there any other areas of thought where, at the time, God was accepted as the best answer to the questions at hand?

Yes, but these generally traced themselves back to God. Lamarck and others recognized the variation in life over time, but didn't translate this into the idea of speciation through natural selection. The main mechanism suggested to account for the history of life was the hand of God in one form or another.

I don't disagree, but I'm talking about degrees here. Science and religion have never been so opposed as when Darwin started his work. Before that there was very little in the way of 'culture wars' as we know them. Evolution armed the atheist masses with a popular comeback answer that touched on the very nature of the human animal - whether or not it had anything to say about the existence of God went over most people's heads, as it still often does today.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I don't agree that creationism is a modern phenomenon.

I know what you are saying but I was refering to the anti-evolutionist creationists who are quite a differnt type from creationists before Darwin, attempting as they do to venture into the scientific domain as they do. This is a hostile face-off, not the amicable difference of opinion that was widespread before Darwin.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

Which atheists think that evolution disproves God?

I showed earlier that Provine does for example.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

If something is disproven but not in a scientific way, then it's not actually disproven.

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

Perhaps they are responding to theists who believe that humans are evidence of a creator God.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Perhaps they are responding to theists who believe that humans are evidence of a creator God.

So they are responding to ignorance with ignorance?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Apex

So they are responding to ignorance with ignorance?

Possibly.

[darkendless]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Exactly, nevertheless there are many atheists who see evolution as proof that God does not exist. How they define 'proof' varies from person to person apparantly.

Yes, but one thing for sure is if evolution is flawless and accepted by the scientific community then we can prove that human, also most animals then, were not created which is a serious blow to creationism in general.
I know this might sound blunt and ignorant, but honestly, at 12 years old i thought the theory that God just created everything was a load of garbage when i was 11 or 12 years old. Back then in my mind it was so weird that so many people could be so easily persuaded.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Apex