How Does the Existence of God Negate Darwinian Evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree,

Your disagreement doesn't change the nature of science.

their are Atheist who use science in to support their faith in a Godless universe.

1. there is no such thing as "faith in a godless universe". Atheism is not a claim, nore is it a belief. Instead, it is a single stance on a single issue. It's not a claim, it's a response to a claim. The claim is "god exists" and the response is disbelief of said claim. That's it.


2. Atheists might point to science to show how certain religious claims don't match the evidence of reality. That's not the same as what you claim.

Dawkins comes to mind.

Dawkins never said anywhere that science supports a "no god" claim.
Instead, like I mentioned in point 2, Dawkins might point out evolutionary biology to show how certain religious claims (creationism) don't match the evidence of reality.

I can only repeat myself: (a)theism is wholly irrelevant to science. There is no such thing as "atheist science". And you have completely failed to show otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When an Atheist asserts and promotes their belief that religious people are deluded then that’s faith

That would completely depend on the underlying reasoning of that claim and the evidence presented.

For example, it's not faith to call YECs deluded any more then it is to call flat earthers deluded.
The evidence of reality demonstrates them being deluded. It's not faith. It's fact.

Some Atheist may see themselves as enjoying a special exemption from scrutiny over the beliefs that they assert.

That makes no sense, considering atheism is not a belief. It is the exact opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dawkins must be terribly misunderstood. Maybe he should study English and learn how to write so as to communicate what he really thinks?

Or maybe people like you should just stick to what he actually says and write, instead of what you imagine him to say and write, or what you read about other people claiming what they imagine he said and wrote.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolutionist= Simone who believes in the evolution of life.

I guess that also makes me all of the following:
- Gravitationalist
- Round-earth-ist
- Germist
- Plate-tectonicist
- Relativist
- Atomist
- quantum-mechanicist
- ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your disagreement doesn't change the nature of science.



1. there is no such thing as "faith in a godless universe". Atheism is not a claim, nore is it a belief. Instead, it is a single stance on a single issue. It's not a claim, it's a response to a claim. The claim is "god exists" and the response is disbelief of said claim. That's it.


2. Atheists might point to science to show how certain religious claims don't match the evidence of reality. That's not the same as what you claim.



Dawkins never said anywhere that science supports a "no god" claim.
Instead, like I mentioned in point 2, Dawkins might point out evolutionary biology to show how certain religious claims (creationism) don't match the evidence of reality.

I can only repeat myself: (a)theism is wholly irrelevant to science. There is no such thing as "atheist science". And you have completely failed to show otherwise.

Dawkins did say something on the order of how science gave him the freedom to be an atheist. Until he understood evolution he did not have a reasonable response to where we came from, and he felt that was needed. That is not, as you said, claiming that science disproved God.

Also I have seen countless creationists that seemed to believe using science to disprove their own personal God as " disproving God". Even when you warn them going in that only their personal version of God was disproved they still do not seem to get it.

 

[Colt]

It is not.
It is the only trustworthy path that leads to justifiable belief and eventual accuracy.

God being truth and spirit, there isn't necessarily a logic path to God.

 

[Colt]

I guess that also makes me all of the following:
- Gravitationalist
- Round-earth-ist
- Germist
- Plate-tectonicist
- Relativist
- Atomist
- quantum-mechanicist
- ...

When I say that I'm a theistic evolutionist, most people understand what that means.

 

[Colt]

90:3.10 (990.5) "Evolution unerringly achieves its end: It imbues man with that superstitious fear of the unknown and dread of the unseen which is the scaffolding for the God concept. And having witnessed the birth of an advanced comprehension of Deity, through the co-ordinate action of revelation, this same technique of evolution then unerringly sets in motion those forces of thought which will inexorably obliterate the scaffolding, which has served its purpose." UB 1955

 

[Audie]

90:3.10 (990.5) "Evolution unerringly achieves its end: It imbues man with that superstitious fear of the unknown and dread of the unseen which is the scaffolding for the God concept. And having witnessed the birth of an advanced comprehension of Deity, through the co-ordinate action of revelation, this same technique of evolution then unerringly sets in motion those forces of thought which will inexorably obliterate the scaffolding, which has served its purpose." UB 1955

Evolution has no end, and "errors" abound.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God being truth and spirit, there isn't necessarily a logic path to God.

Meaningless statement.

Also, if there is no logical path to X, then that only means that there is no justified reason to believe X.

 

[Reddwarffan]

Dawkins must be terribly misunderstood. Maybe he should study English and learn how to write so as to communicate what he really thinks?

Can you point to a reference where he said is promoting a belief?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I say that I'm a theistic evolutionist, most people understand what that means.

Only because you use that term in context of religious opposition to modern biology, which are people who like to use such labels to "distinguish" them from others.

If you would identify as such in a social context concerning people who aren't at home in such religiously inspired debates, they will likely just look at you funny.

Let's be serious here... the idea of using a label to note that one accepts a certain specific well established scientific theory, is quite ridiculous.

The only reason why the religious never talk about "germists" or "gravitationalists", is because they have no religious investment in having to argue against those theories.

Which is kind of funny, because theories of gravity aren't anywhere near as established as evolution.

 

[Sunstone]

Evolution has no end, and "errors" abound.

It might interest you to know that can
be a difficult point to grasp even for people
who accept the theory and fact of evolution.

I was in my early 30s before i even began
to get a handle on it. Just about when I did
Stephen Gould published his book,
Wonderful Life, which is more or less a
treatise on the implications of the fact that
evolution is wholly unguided and has no
proper aim or goal. It can even be a little
superficial to characterize it as "the
survival of the fittest" precisely because,
as you point out, "errors abound".

One of Gould's key points is that, evolution
would most likely never repeat itself if you
could somehow let it play out over and over
again, as if it were a lab experiment. Each
time, you would most likely end up with
a very different outcome.

Perhaps a hard point to grasp, but an
important one.

 

[janesix]

So what is your preferred explanation for the facts of biology? Where has this alternative (and better) theory been published?



I think that Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision was worse.

My current preferred explanation is Interference Theory. Musical resonance.

 

[Audie]

It might interest you to know that can
be a difficult point to grasp even for people
who accept the theory and fact of evolution.

I was in my early 30s before i even began
to get a handle on it. Just about when I did
Stephen Gould published his book,
Wonderful Life, which is more or less a
treatise on the implications of the fact that
evolution is wholly unguided and has no
proper aim or goal. It can even be a little
superficial to characterize it as "the
survival of the fittest" precisely because,
as you point out, "errors abound".

One of Gould's key points is that, evolution
would most likely never repeat itself if you
could somehow let it play out over and over
again, as if it were a lab experiment. Each
time, you would most likely end up with
a very different outcome.

Perhaps a hard point to grasp, but an
important one.

The fine points are way beyond the
person who is still unable to grasp the most simple basics.

So far no creationist here shows any understanding at all of anything about ToE
except nonsense from creationist websites.

 

[Sunstone]

The fine points are way beyond the
person who is still unable to grasp the most simple basics.

So far no creationist here shows any understanding at all of anything about ToE
except nonsense from creationist websites.

I agree with both your points. The second, I believe,
is evidence for the power of propaganda to not merely
confuse and mislead people, but dissuade them from
even trying to fairly weigh and decide an issue.

Kind of fascinating, really. Means, with the proper
marketing, I still have some chance of convincing
people I'm a genuine poet.

 

[tas8831]

So Skywalker - are you Ray Comfort? Because your WHOLE post is basically taken from Ray's book!

How can mutations and natural selection work to create the amazing complexity of life in our world? It doesn't add up. The first problem we find is that the variations we see in microevolution are always within limits set by the genetic code. Fifty years of genetic research on the fruit fly have convinced evolutionists that change is limited and confined to a defined population. Despite being bombarded with mutation agents for half a century, the mutant fruit flies continue to exist as fruit flies, leading geneticists to acknowledge that they will not evolve into something else. This confirms Gregor Mendel's findings in the 1800s that there are natural limits to genetic change. Genetics professor Francisco Ayala is quoted as saying, "I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate. Small changes aren't the only thing that doesn't add up. But more importantly, the amount of change isn't really the issue.

Mutations can only modify or eliminate existing structures, not create new ones. Within a particular type of creature, hair can vary from curly to straight, legs can vary from heavy to thin, beaks from long to short, wings from dark to light, etc. But the creatures still have hair, legs, beaks, and wings-nothing new has been added.

VERBATIM from HERE.

I see your plagiarism is alive and well. Have you no sense of shame?

 

[tas8831]

The universe is finely tuned. The knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. Therefore, the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, fully functioning joint.

All from here:
Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint

Creationists are some kind of dishonest....

 

[GardenLady]

Regarding Dawkins, I think that remarks like those in the speech linked below (Emperor Award) suggest that he is an evangelist for atheism (as opposed to merely stating that science does not support the existence of God) and is IMHO rather arrogant and dismissive, for example, saying that theologians are so drunk on metaphor they don't know what they believe." And there's this one: "I think there’s an excellent chance that Mr. Obama is not a Christian at all. I strongly suspect he may be an atheist. I say that mainly because he’s obviously intelligent and educated."

Richard Dawkins - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[Etritonakin]

I would like to understand from members how they would think or believe that the existence of God negates Darwinian evolution. Does it?

If "Darwinian" translates to "In the complete absence of creativity", then that would be negated by the existence of a responsible creator.

A creator shown to be responsible for creating the Earth and all therein about 6,000 years ago would show aspects of Darwinian evolution to be false -but that idea is an assumption based on a misreading of scripture.

As a creative, eternal God could not possibly be responsible for its own existence -and would obviously be evolving in some way if creating...
it's more likely a creative God would be the early "everything" evolving -becoming self-aware and self-determining -guiding the natural forces God essentially would BE toward intended results.