How Can Evolution Destroy Faith In God?

[Nick Soapdish]

Why do some people believe that accepting evolution as a fact destroys belief in the God of the Bible?

I believe the evolutionary process has some truth to it. I just find the idea that it was started and completely driven by indifferent processes too hard to believe.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Why do some people believe that accepting evolution as a fact destroys belief in the God of the Bible?

Biblical literalism my friend. If every word is the literal word of God, then there was a Noahic Flood, we have a Young Earth, and the dinosaur bones were either planted there to test our faith, or the dino's died in the flood. Because these things are THE WAY THINGS ARE, then the idea of a Billions of years old Earth and Evolution are obviously just things made up by egghead's to try to erode the one true faith.

At least those are the stories I hear in North Texas by the good Evangelicals I work with, who are all very happy to inform me that I am wrong and will be wishing I had listened to them 2 seconds after I die and the flames start to lick at me.

B.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've never heard this before. When and where did Darwin argue this?

I'll find it.... I have written an article on the first Christian responses to Darwin. As you'll see, Christian rebuttals to evolution have not changed.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/articles/32186-some-notes-charles-hodge.html

From the great and powerful wiki:

Charles Darwin's views on religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p.87)

That quote was from his autobiography:

The Autobiography of Charles Darwin was published posthumously, and quotes about Christianity were omitted by Darwin's wife Emma and his son Francis because they were deemed dangerous for Charles Darwin's reputation. Only in 1958 Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version which contained the omissions. This included statements such as the following:

 

[Fluffy]

It defeats the argument from design which beforehand was a major defeater of atheism.

 

[Valjean]

I believe the evolutionary process has some truth to it. I just find the idea that it was started and completely driven by indifferent processes too hard to believe.

I understand, Nick, but by the same token many find the idea that evolution might be driven by magic a bit hard to swallow, as well.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I understand, Nick, but by the same token many find the idea that evolution might be driven by magic a bit hard to swallow, as well.

You are mis-characterizing my post.

Miracle
1.an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

Magic
1. the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring: to pull a rabbit out of a hat by magic.

 

[Valjean]

Point taken, my friend. But I'm afraid I find your definition of magic as exclusively an entertainment art unrealistically narrow.

Magic is usually conceived of as any effect with an unknowable or inexplicable mechanism. Folklore is full of examples.

Inasmuch as positing God as sufficient explanation of a Natural phenomenon is positing an unknowable/inexplicable mechanism (or ignoring the stumbling-block of mechanism completely), I'd say it was, in fact, an appeal to magic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Darwin never saw his theories as in any way against Christianity nor God.
It was fundamentalists who had the problem with his science;
As they already knew how the world and nature worked.
Bible alone Christianity had not yet become a subset of Christianity in his day.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Darwin never saw his theories as in any way against Christianity nor God.
It was fundamentalists who had the problem with his science;
As they already knew how the world and nature worked.
Bible alone Christianity had not yet become a subset of Christianity in his day.

See quote above. Darwin made many statements against Christianity, but wanted to remain a theist.

Charles Darwin's views on religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Point taken, my friend. But I'm afraid I find your definition of magic as exclusively an entertainment art unrealistically narrow.

Magic is usually conceived of as any effect with an unknowable or inexplicable mechanism. Folklore is full of examples.

Inasmuch as positing God as sufficient explanation of a Natural phenomenon is positing an unknowable/inexplicable mechanism (or ignoring the stumbling-block of mechanism completely), I'd say it was, in fact, an appeal to magic.

I suppose one distinction I would make is that God is not a magician or wizard, but rather the infinite source that created and sustains the Universe.

 

[Jose Fly]

angellous,

Are you arguing that Darwin stating, "biological structures are the result of natural selection rather than design by a god" is the same as Darwin saying, "the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist " (your original assertion)?

If you are, you've got some explaining to do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous,

Are you arguing that Darwin stating, "biological structures are the result of natural selection rather than design by a god" is the same as Darwin saying, "the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist " (your original assertion)?

If you are, you've got some explaining to do.

To you? I doubt that will do any good, seeing as I've explained myself lucidly quoting Darwin himself. Read the thread if you want to contribute something useful, because I'm not going to repeat myself.

 

[Jose Fly]

angellous,

You asserted that Darwin stated, "the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist". Yet all you have offered in support of that assertion is Darwin arguing that biological structures are the result of natural selection and not supernatural design, and him stating that he doesn't accept the Christian version of god.

Are you arguing that those statements are one and the same?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Jose Fly,

Your questions don't make sense. I have argued what I have argued. If you're confused, quote the evidence that I cited and try to ask a question related to it.

 

[Jose Fly]

angellous,

Your questions don't make sense.

"I'm not going to repeat myself".....heh, heh.

It's quite simple. In post #7 you stated, "Darwin argued that the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist". In post #11 I asked you where he specifically made that argument; others questioned your assertion in #7 as well.

In post #23 you posted the following:

Charles Darwin's views on religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p.87)

Then in post #29 you posted:

Charles Darwin's views on religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)

Now, where exactly did you support your assertion that Darwin argued "the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist"?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

See quote above. Darwin made many statements against Christianity, but wanted to remain a theist.

Charles Darwin's views on religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In deed he did and my statement did not dispute that.
But he did not see natural selection as in conflict with Christianity.

There were many conflicts at his time between the established church and the free churches and even more with the Unitarians, to which he at various times was attracted. His was largely an argument against Dogma, but he remained at least an agnostic. Rather than reject Christianity outright.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In deed he did and my statement did not dispute that.
But he did not see natural selection as in conflict with Christianity.

There were many conflicts at his time between the established church and the free churches and even more with the Unitarians, to which he at various times was attracted. His was largely an argument against Dogma, but he remained at least an agnostic. Rather than reject Christianity outright.

It is, however, in conflict with the apologetist's argument that God exists because of ordered nature. It's not an argument against the existence of God in general, because Darwin considered himself a theist, but against the prevailing Christian apologetic. So it's an argument against what the Christians used as an argument for natural theology. Christianity, of course, is free to change and abandon this argument.

Perhaps that will answer Jose Fly's question, too.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because Christian apologetics before (and after) Darwin argued that the ordered quality of nature is proof that God both exists and is benevolent. Darwin argued that the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist -- it wasn't just a refutation that Christian apologetics were wrong on one point, but the argument was simply reversed.

Christianity has not been able to recover from this - obviously.

Perhaps reading this statement can be clarified:

Because Christian apologetics before (and after) Darwin argued according to natural theology that the ordered quality of nature is proof that God both exists and is benevolent. Darwin argued that the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist according to this natural argument -- it wasn't just a refutation that Christian apologetics were wrong on one point, but the argument was simply reversed.

Christianity has not been able to recover from this - obviously.

 

[namguy]

Why do some people believe that accepting evolution as a fact destroys belief in the God of the Bible?

Some of the passages in the Bible are related to science...very few I might add. It's impossible to equate the Miracles of The Lord compared to what science teaches us. Now I'm not saying science isn't very good, this would be a sorry world without it. But it comes to faith science is out done. A miracle of The Lord was the creating of the universe...one of many.

 

[namguy]

It's people who believe the earth is only 6-8,000 years old who have the toughest time believing in evolution and god at the same time. It becomes more apparent every day the earth is much older and that fact goes against literal belief in bible chronology for them.

Also, the evolutionary theory that life began in the sea doesn't sit too well either, for obvious reasons.

I believe that the earth isn't any older that 6 to 8 thousand years, no matter what science tells us.