How Can Evolution Destroy Faith In God?

[Jose Fly]

Dude, you're not even making the slightest bit of sense anymore.

Like so many have done before, you've made a bald assertion (in this case, "Darwin said the disorder of nature is proof that God doesn't exist"), but when asked to back the assertion up with evidence, you've done nothing but dodge, evade, and dance all around in a pathetically weak attempt to avoid admitting the obvious: Darwin never said that and your assertion was wrong.

I don't fully understand the psychological reasons for it, but Christians seems to be exceedingly adept at this sort of behavior.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Dude, you're not even making the slightest bit of sense anymore.

If you can't tell the difference between a philosophical/theological construct (an idea of God) and an actual being (such as Godself), that isn't my problem. What I have asserted is indisputable, I have offered proof, and if you are unable or unwilling to interact responsibly with it, that's fine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Would you please provide a specific reference?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Would you please provide a specific reference?

I've already done the best I can do with this, Jay. When I wrote this, I had thought that it actually appeared as an argument in the forward or afterward of one of his books, but I can't find it in my notes. I can't find an explicit argument other than the statement in his biography. Given Darwin's theological training, and the explicit reference to Paley's Natural Theology (post #23), I take Darwin's arguments for natural selection as strongly against the activity of the Creator as described by Christian apologists of his time. In that respect, I see Darwin as arguing against the existence of such a Creator, which caused him to struggle with his Christianity until his death - although he formed no specific argument like this in his works.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've already done the best I can do with this, Jay. When I wrote this, I had thought that it actually appeared as an argument in the forward or afterward of one of his books, but I can't find it in my notes. I can't find an explicit argument other than the statement in his biography. Given Darwin's theological training, and the explicit reference to Paley's Natural Theology (post #23), I take Darwin's arguments for natural selection as strongly against the activity of the Creator as described by Christian apologists of his time. In that respect, I see Darwin as arguing against the existence of such a Creator, which caused him to struggle with his Christianity until his death - although he formed no specific argument like this in his works.

ae, I think the phrase ...

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.

... is a poor one. First, it is at least unclear what you or, hypothetically, Darwin might mean by "the disorder of nature". And once that hurdle is cleared, it must still be realized that there is a difference between

'proof that God doesn't exist according to this natural argument '​

and

'this natural argument constituting a flawed proof of God's existence.'​

The most that can be said about evolution is that it can undermine faith in God by rendering God unnecessary in an area in which the God postulate once ruled supreme. Ontological naturalism is not compeled but qualitatively enabled.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The most that can be said about evolution is that it can undermine faith in God by rendering God unnecessary in an area in which the God postulate once ruled supreme.

That supreme rule in my opinion was very important to Christianity before Darwin.

 

[roli]

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

Excellent question, it is apparent that it only destroys it for themself, or, somewhat obscures the truth, if nothingelse.
It really changes nothing for the born again believer except to increase the Christians faith by verifying what Jesus already prophesised about false teachings,prophets and teachers coming on the scene in record numbers
If these people would recount history and all the other attempts to discount Christianty ,they would see that all the feeble attempts to discedit it, have actually promoted and increased the spread of Christianity throughout the globe.
Keep it up ,I say ,keep it up, it only furthers the kingdom and the soon coming return of our Lord ,
If one can find something,anything to disccount God or the bible,it makes it easier to justify oneself of being accountable to God, but it certainly can't discount the facts behind Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to the Christian apologists, it is God who designs! Darwin had to therefore completely rethink who he thought God was and never recovered from this. The God of Christian theology prior to this time can no longer exist.

I'm certain that you as well as anyone know that there were plenty of other arguments for the existence of God floating around 19th-Century England besides the argument from design. Incidentally refuting one of them is not the same as deliberately refuting all of them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm certain that you as well as anyone know that there were plenty of other arguments for the existence of God floating around 19th-Century England besides the argument from design. Incidentally refuting one of them is not the same as deliberately refuting all of them.

That's a good point... though I'm convinced that the argument from natural theology formed the basic epistemology that sustained everything else, at least in Christianity. There's a reason why even Darwin himself, a person trained in Christian theology, could no longer remain Christian. The concept that God made humanity in his image gives us the ability to communicate knowledge of God to eachother, no matter what the argument is.

 

[Valjean]

That supreme rule in my opinion was very important to Christianity before Darwin.

The idea that Earth was the center of the universe and motionless was central to the Christian faith at one time, too. Most Christians have learned to make accommodations. They will learn to make accommodations to evolution as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The idea that Earth was the center of the universe and motionless was central to the Christian faith at one time, too. Most Christians have learned to make accommodations. They will learn to make accommodations to evolution as well.

We should be thankful that it's not the other way around (science adjusting to Christianity).

 

[Valjean]

True that, angellous -- but Christian mythology is a worrisomely strong political forcein the US these days.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

True that, angellous -- but Christian mythology is a worrisomely strong political forcein the US these days.

Not to mention the Vatican's membership at the UN.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not to mention the Vatican's membership at the UN.

the Vatican was one of the first members.
They also have no problem with evolution nor science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the Vatican was one of the first members.
They also have no problem with evolution nor science.

In some regards; not in others.

They have no problem with evolution as long as it results in a single human man and a single human woman living at the same place and time, from which all human beings since then are descended (since this is required for the Catholic Church's doctrine of Original Sin, which is required for all sorts of things from the necessity of baptism to the need for atonement through Christ). Based on what we know of how speciation works, this just doesn't happen.

IMO, the only reason that this problem doesn't get more media air play is because people don't generally know that speciation happens in populations/groups, and not in individuals or pairs.

The Catholic Church's version of evolution still requires the direct hand of God at some point in the history of life on Earth.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

the Vatican was one of the first members.
They also have no problem with evolution nor science.

Yes, the problem is in the application of science, like sex education, healthcare (ie, abortion), and theraputic human cloning. As long as the Vatican is influencial in the UN, human progress will be stinted.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yes, the problem is in the application of science, like sex education, healthcare (ie, abortion), and theraputic human cloning. As long as the Vatican is influencial in the UN, human progress will be stinted.

But that depends on how a person defines "human progress." Those who would oppose human cloning would believe that the use of it as a therapy would stint human progress.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But that depends on how a person defines "human progress." Those who would oppose human cloning would believe that the use of it as a therapy would stint human progress.

Yeah, like curing cancer and et cetera.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Yeah, like curing cancer and et cetera.

Which is a definition of human progress. Some see the advancement of medical science as a stint. If I may play devil's advocate a moment, there is the argument that medical science focuses too much on prolonging life, rather than improving the quality. Some see the advancement of cloning as an example.

In terms of evolution vs. creationism, this applies to the view that one mode of thinking (evolution) provides some with less meaning than another (creationism). If a practical faith (or ethic) is removed to make way for a practical technology, does that advance human progress? In some points of view, perhaps, but not all.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which is a definition of human progress. Some see the advancement of medical science as a stint. If I may play devil's advocate a moment, there is the argument that medical science focuses too much on prolonging life, rather than improving the quality. Some see the advancement of cloning as an example.

They have no credible argument for human progress if they do not emphasize health. Anyone who argues against medical progress is pushing an inhumane agenda and should not have an audience anywhere. Such an argument and accompanying agenda may be considered sociopathical and insane (Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).