• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution, Atheism, and Religious Beliefs

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Only reason why you may reject theism once you've learned about evolution is if the only reason you held on to it in the first place was to merely explain the complexity of life.

Well many of us don't need any gods or God for that - lots of different species all fighting to survive will do it - and I think the complexity alone from this is quite understandable - and evolution certainly helps to explain it all fairly neatly even if it might not tell the whole story.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

Science had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist after being a Christian for the first 20 years of my life. I was surrounded by Christian scientists at university, and I really respected them. I still don't see why science would be a valid reason to leave Christianity. For me, it was simply the lack of evidence for Christianity and theism in general that led to my atheism.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?


If I can answer as an ex-atheist; evolution was a major foundation of my position for many decades, and for the same reason as Dawkins; if all life could be described by naturalistic processes, there is not much need of intelligent agency

So I don't think it's any coincidence that the most well known evolutionists' best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'

some believe in evolution and God, but it is also possible to be skeptical of evolution as an atheist. Which I used to be.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
That's strange. One of the first things you learn about is the nested hierarchy, yet it appears that you had never heard of it until we started discussing it a week or so ago. I highly doubt that you learned much of the science behind evolution.

Yes, and I learned about languages and the nested hierarchies you find their also- they are a product of common descent and isolation- I think we established this?

They didn't say much about the major phyla appearing suddenly as if with no evolutionary history though... or there being less transitional examples than there were in Darwin's day- that would be complicating matters!
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
They didn't say much about the major phyla appearing suddenly as if with no evolutionary history though...

They didn't say anything about it because you can't determine that a fossil has no evolutionary history by simply looking at it. Also, there shouldn't be phyla if ID/creationism is true.

or there being less transitional examples than there were in Darwin's day- that would be complicating matters!

What are you basing this on? Almost all of the famous transitional fossils (e.g. hominid transitionals, whale transitionals) were found after Darwin's death.

"Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/p142_53FCollins.pdf

I strongly encourage you to read that essay. It was written by a Christian for Christians.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
They didn't say anything about it because you can't determine that a fossil has no evolutionary history by simply looking at it. Also, there shouldn't be phyla if ID/creationism is true.

If we are sticking to the scientific evidence- that's how they appear in the record. Artistic impressions of imaginary intermediates not withstanding


What are you basing this on? Almost all of the famous transitional fossils (e.g. hominid transitionals, whale transitionals) were found after Darwin's death.

"Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/p142_53FCollins.pdf

I strongly encourage you to read that essay. It was written by a Christian for Christians.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.

David Raup, paleontologist & curator of Chicago Field Museum

So what I was being taught in standard school curriculum was already conflicting with more informed scientists at the time

There are people who dissented then and now obviously, it largely depends on how one defines 'transitional'. many here have argued that we are all 'transitional' .. but the trend unambiguously continues the same, the record becomes increasingly staccato the more fossils we find, not less so as Darwinism predicted. Having to greatly loosen the definition of 'transitional' does not help validate the prediction, it does the opposite
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If we are sticking to the scientific evidence- that's how they appear in the record. Artistic impressions of imaginary intermediates not withstanding

That is because for the most part the major phyla were formed before they evolved hard body parts. And even so the first appearances are always simpler than modern versions of the same. Those changes can be observed in the fossil record. This is not a point that in any way harms the theory of evolution. Fossils before hard body parts were formed are extremely rare and will always be significantly different than the fossils left by the hard body parts that eventually evolved.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.

It depends upon what you are looking at and it is far less "jerky" than you think that it is.

David Raup, paleontologist & curator of Chicago Field Museum

So what I was being taught in standard school curriculum was already conflicting with more informed scientists at the time

There are people who dissented then and now obviously, it largely depends on how one defines 'transitional'. many here have argued that we are all 'transitional' .. but the trend unambiguously continues the same, the record becomes increasingly staccato the more fossils we find, not less so as Darwinism predicted. Having to greatly loosen the definition of 'transitional' does not help validate the prediction, it does the opposite


Out of context quote mines are worthless in a debate. The Bible says "There is no God" at least twelve times.

And no, the record cannot become "more staccato" that is nonsense. Every new fossil tends to fit into a "gap" between two existing fossils. You are now arguing that a motion picture is jerkier than stop animation.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
If we are sticking to the scientific evidence- that's how they appear in the record.

How do you determine that a fossil has no ancestors by looking at just the fossil? I really don't see how that could be done.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.

The geologic record is jerky which is why the fossil record is jerky. We also have a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossils that are buried somewhere out there in the dirt. Darwin discussed this 150 years ago which you should be aware of if you know as much about evolution as you claim to.

There are people who dissented then and now obviously, it largely depends on how one defines 'transitional'. many here have argued that we are all 'transitional' .. but the trend unambiguously continues the same, the record becomes increasingly staccato the more fossils we find, not less so as Darwinism predicted. Having to greatly loosen the definition of 'transitional' does not help validate the prediction, it does the opposite

Staccato is exactly what we should see given the tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record we have uncovered and given the jerky nature of the geologic record that the fossils are preserved in. You should know this if you had studied evolution like you claimed you did.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God is still responsible for the "naturalistic processes," determining which mutations will occur at what times, which mutations are precursors of new species and which are not, and so on.

You probably realize that that is not Darwin's theory. What you are describing is another form of creationism, but adding some of Darwin's ideas like gradual change through genetic modification over deep time, As long as you include a supernatural agent in the process, it's not Darwin's theory. That would be artificial selection, like developing new roses.

Gee, I didn't realize that the writings of Darwin came with a codicil like the Bible, not to add to or subtract anything from his holy theory.

Now you know. If you delete or modify genetic variation and/or natural selection, it's not Darwin's theory any more.

There is room for additions such a punctuated equilibrium, however. You might say that once that idea is added that it is not Darwin's theory any more, but that would be a different sense from the way I meant it, since it would still contain it.

I suppose you could say there's an element of ID in my beliefs--but only in that I believe that there is a Creator.

You also believe that that creator is actively involved in determining how life evolves with a goal in mind. That is most definitely intelligent design. If one adds an unfalsifiable, faith based, nonscientific element of supernaturalism to what was a scientific theory before the addition, it makes it into a religious idea.

You're not alone, however. A person who claims to accept the scientific theory but who also believes that man was made in God's image, for example, has gone down that same road. When such a person tells you that they accept evolution, they are not talking about Darwin's theory.

So as a book of spiritual truth, its "vagueness" does a great job of speaking those truths to seekers of all cultures, religious persuasions and intellectual capacities.

Vague text means nothing specific. It's a verbal Rorschach test that tells more about the reader than the writer, meaning that it is the reader, not the text, that is the source of the understanding. You might find the process productive, but what you are doing is exploring yourself.

For example, what does this line from Bob Dylan's Desolation Row mean? "Cinderella, she seems so easy, "It takes one to know one, " she smiles. and puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style"

The answer is that it means whatever you want it to mean. The words likely evoke some image and feeling for you. I see a smug, street smart and cynical woman, maybe Lauren Bacall from one of her film noir movies, exchanging witty repartee with a typical Bogart character, her smile being more of a smirk, as he lights her cigarette under a streetlamp and calls Cinderella sister.

Now you know a little more about how I think, not what Dylan was trying to tell us, which I presume was nothing specific at all. I'm guessing that you get a different impression.

That's what vague language means.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
There is room for additions such a punctuated equilibrium, however. You might say that once that idea is added that it is not Darwin's theory any more, but that would be a different sense from the way I meant it, since it would still contain it.

Even Darwin put forward punctuated equilibrium as part of his theory:

Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins has stated that once he understood the explanatory power of evolution, he abandoned all belief in God. This is interesting, and it seems that many individuals transition from theistic to atheistic beliefs shortly after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life. Yet, many religious people (including many priests) fully accept evolution while still holding a strong belief in God.

So, my question is, for both atheists and theists who accept evolution, how much does recognition of the fact of evolution affect your beliefs? For atheists, did it ultimately lead you to abandon belief in God? For theists who accept the fact of naturalistic evolution, does the fact that all species with all of their complexities were formed by entirely naturalistic processes ever cause you to question your theistic faith?

It was christians who prompted my abandonment of god. I was 14 at the time and although i believed evolution prior to that it didn't actually mean much to me.

Not until i began visiting forum sites some 20 odd years later did the importance of evolution come to light
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
How do you determine that a fossil has no ancestors by looking at just the fossil? I really don't see how that could be done.

I agree, you can't

And I'm sure you apply the same rationale both ways: how do you determine that a lack of ancestors in the record, means there were lots of ancestors- lot's of finely delineated intermediates?

ID is happy to accept the scientific evidence as is, such extreme sudden appearances are to be expected, without excuses

The geologic record is jerky which is why the fossil record is jerky. We also have a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossils that are buried somewhere out there in the dirt. Darwin discussed this 150 years ago which you should be aware of if you know as much about evolution as you claim to.

Yes, but Darwin predicted that the Cambrian explosion was an artifact of that incomplete record, to be smoothed out over time, quite the opposite happened, it became ever more explosive the more fossils were found. By his own standards this may have made him a skeptic himself today

Staccato is exactly what we should see given the tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record we have uncovered and given the jerky nature of the geologic record that the fossils are preserved in. You should know this if you had studied evolution like you claimed you did.

Yes but again, as more fossils are found, that pattern at least should gradually become smoother, that's Darwinism's argument, not mine. It hasn't. abrupt appearances, jumps- as well as vast periods of practically perfect stasis, have all become better defined- to the point that many evolutionary biologists finally accepted that these phenomena are real, not just artifacts of incomplete sampling as was long maintained- splintering into ' punctuated equilibrium'

I'm sure you do know this, I'm not going to simply make accusations of ignorance, but apparently you still adhere to the gradualist denomination?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
And I'm sure you apply the same rationale both ways: how do you determine that a lack of ancestors in the record, means there were lots of ancestors- lot's of finely delineated intermediates?

I don't assume any fossil is an ancestor of any other fossil or living species. That information simply can't be gleaned from fossils.

What scientists do is look for the mixture of features in fossils and see if they fall into a nested hierarchy. That is how scientists use fossils to test the theory of evolution since there are mixtures of features that are consistent with the theory and those that are not.

ID is happy to accept the scientific evidence as is, such extreme sudden appearances are to be expected, without excuses

How do you determine if a fossil "suddenly appears"? Is it supposed to fade in and out of existence as you look at it?

Yes, but Darwin predicted that the Cambrian explosion was an artifact of that incomplete record, to be smoothed out over time, quite the opposite happened, it became ever more explosive the more fossils were found. By his own standards this may have made him a skeptic himself today

Could we see Darwin's own words on the matter so we can be on equal footing?

Yes but again, as more fossils are found, that pattern at least should gradually become smoother,

And it has. There are many hominid transitionals now. There are many whale transitionals. There more tetrapod transitionals. Where have you been?

I'm sure you do know this, I'm not going to simply make accusations of ignorance, but apparently you still adhere to the gradualist denomination?

I fully accept both punctuated equilibrium and gradualism since both occur. Punctuated equilibrium is just an effect caused by the geologic record as even Gould and Eldrige discussed. Those transitions still take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years in the PE model, and the geologic record just isn't capable of preserving that gradual change over short time periods. That's why it is hard to find fossils that fit in between species (although they do exist for some lineages).

All you are doing is making the assumption that if we haven't found a specific fossil by April of 2018 then it doesn't exist. You are also making the assumption that every tiny little change is preserved somewhere in the fossil record.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree, you can't

And I'm sure you apply the same rationale both ways: how do you determine that a lack of ancestors in the record, means there were lots of ancestors- lot's of finely delineated intermediates?

ID is happy to accept the scientific evidence as is, such extreme sudden appearances are to be expected, without excuses

What are you talking about? There is no "lack of ancestors". Constant strawmanning the position of others indicates that you are either very ignorant or very dishonest. It is not a wise debating technique. And there is no scientific evidence for ID. In science the concept of ID is "Not even wrong".

Yes, but Darwin's theory predicted that the Cambrian explosion was an artifact of that incomplete record, to be smoothed out over time, quite the opposite happened, it became ever more explosive the more fossils were found. By his own standards this may have made him a skeptic himself today

And it has been to quite an extent. It will always remain somewhat imperfect due to the nature of deposition of material and later erosion. And you are obviously wrong about when you claim that it "became ever more explosive". Where did you get that idea from? The Cambrian Explosion lasted for millions of years and was not the explosion that creationists wish it to be. Perhaps if you made concrete claims you would learn how you are wrong.

Yes but again, as more fossils are found, that pattern at least should gradually become smoother, that's Darwinism's argument, not mine. It hasn't. abrupt appearances, jumps- as well as vast periods of practically perfect stasis, have all become better defined- to the point that many evolutionary biologists finally accepted that these phenomena are real, not just artifacts of incomplete sampling as was long maintained- splintering into ' punctuated equilibrium'

And it has. That is why there have been almost violent debates about which fossilized species was the "first mammal" etc. The pattern has become ever more refined. You come up with these ridiculous claims that are in no way supported by observation.

I'm sure you do know this, I'm not going to simply make accusations of ignorance, but apparently you still adhere to the gradualist denomination?

All we know is that you are not representing what has been found accurately at all. Seriously can you support any of your claims with valid links?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
What are you basing this on? Almost all of the famous transitional fossils (e.g. hominid transitionals, whale transitionals) were found after Darwin's death.

"Macroevolution has growing and compelling evidence to support it. Elephants, turtles, whales, birds often have been cited as species where transitional species have not been identified. That is no longer true. We have gained more in the fossil record in the last ten years than in almost the entire previous history of science."--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/p142_53FCollins.pdf

I strongly encourage you to read that essay. It was written by a Christian for Christians.
I've always found creationists' reliance on quotes to be both amusing and informative. It's amusing because it shows their ignorance of basic science (quotes don't trump data), and informative because it shows a fundamental difference between the worlds of science and religion. In science assertions mean nothing, but in religion assertions from authority figures are very important.

And I'll do ya' one better than the Collins quote....;)

Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
Now you know. If you delete or modify genetic variation and/or natural selection, it's not Darwin's theory any more.

Oh, well I would never do that, so we're good.

You also believe that that creator is actively involved in determining how life evolves with a goal in mind. That is most definitely intelligent design. If one adds an unfalsifiable, faith based, nonscientific element of supernaturalism to what was a scientific theory before the addition, it makes it into a religious idea.

Like I said, the only facet of ID that I could endorse is that there is a Creator Who is the cause of evolution, gravity, photons, and everything else in the natural universe that can be described by science. That is indeed a religious idea, and as such, is of no concern to the scientific theories of evolution, gravity, electromagnetic radiation, etc.

I'm not sure I would say that the Creator is "actively" involved in determining how life evolves--creation was finalized in the moment that it occurred--but yes, I think creation was the goal of creation, if you want to call that "having a goal in mind."

A person who claims to accept the scientific theory but who also believes that man was made in God's image, for example, has gone down that same road. When such a person tells you that they accept evolution, they are not talking about Darwin's theory.

Nonsense. That's like saying that a person who believes they were created in God's image is not referring to Newtonian gravity when they talk about "gravity," or that a person who believes that God authored electromagnetic radiation is somehow seeing with different light than the rest of us. Evolution is the same evolution with or without God; the natural world is the same with or without God. I just assign a supernatural cause for the natural world, which science cannot address.

Vague text means nothing specific. It's a verbal Rorschach test that tells more about the reader than the writer, meaning that it is the reader, not the text, that is the source of the understanding. You might find the process productive, but what you are doing is exploring yourself.

You are spot on here. And I find it amazing that those of us who were created for salvation are able to find within ourselves the tools we need to divine great spiritual insights from the very same words that leave those who were created for destruction throwing up their hands in confusion. What an amazing creation this universe is, indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top