What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

That doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to use evolution as a symbol, it doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to defend evolution with favor and passion (to the point that they get angry where flaws are presented) it doesn’t change the fact that many atheist become atheist because of evolution

And it doesn’t change the fact that given the truth of evolution, atheism is more likely true, than if evolution where proven wrong.

*obviously with “atheist” I mean atheist that do some kind of activism in forums, social networks, youtube etc., I am not talking about the regular guy who lives across the street that is labels himself as an atheist but doesn’t really care.

Scientists that are theists also support the theory.

I do not know of anything that shows that the theory of evolution or the fact of evolution tells us anything about the existence of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to use evolution as a symbol, it doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to defend evolution with favor and passion (to the point that they get angry where flaws are presented) it doesn’t change the fact that many atheist become atheist because of evolution

And it doesn’t change the fact that given the truth of evolution, atheism is more likely true, than if evolution where proven wrong.

*obviously with “atheist” I mean atheist that do some kind of activism in forums, social networks, youtube etc., I am not talking about the regular guy who lives across the street that is labels himself as an atheist but doesn’t really care.

Do you have evidence that learning about the theory of evolution causes atheism?

 

[Windwalker]

That doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to use evolution as a symbol, it doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to defend evolution with favor and passion (to the point that they get angry where flaws are presented) it doesn’t change the fact that many atheist become atheist because of evolution

The only reason I could see becoming an atheist because of accepting the science which shows we evolved, rather than were created out of whole cloth unlike any other animal species, is because they were taught to believe that accepting evolution denies God. If that's what their church says is the choice, then that is on the church, not the atheist.

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, but don't become atheists. They just simply rethink what they imagined about God. That's not losing faith, but simply adjusting one's beliefs, correcting them when necessary. So it's really certain churches that creates atheists, not science.

And it doesn’t change the fact that given the truth of evolution, atheism is more likely true, than if evolution where proven wrong.

I really don't think atheism has anything to do with accepting evolution, outside of being told by certain Christian leaders that you can't believe in God (their ideas of God), and evolution at the same time. That has nothing to do with science making atheists. It has everything to do with being told you have to believe like they do, or you're not a Christian. That's what makes atheists.

*obviously with “atheist” I mean atheist that do some kind of activism in forums, social networks, youtube etc., I am not talking about the regular guy who lives across the street that is labels himself as an atheist but doesn’t really care.

By atheist here, I mean those who left the church because they could see that denying science is not a pathway to understanding ultimate Truth.

 

[leroy]

Scientists that are theists also support the theory.
d.

I didn’t say that evolution absolutely falsifies theism, all I said is that evolution makes theism a little bit less probable given the truth of evolution.

In other words, if the earth would have been 6,000 years old with complex animals and humans since the beginning theism would be more likely to be true

 

[leroy]

Do you have evidence that learning about the theory of evolution causes atheism?

Yes testimonies from people who became atheist due to evolution (Richard dawkins would be an example)

 

[Wildswanderer]

It seems you're applying this "it can't be an accident, so it must have been created" line to the universe and then, something far, far more complicated magically doesn't need any explanation. If we apply your 'reasoning'

No, it just means we are not capable of understanding everything. You either have eternal mattee or an eternal being, take your pick.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn’t say that evolution absolutely falsifies theism, all I said is that evolution makes theism a little bit less probable given the truth of evolution.

I don't see it.

In other words, if the earth would have been 6,000 years old with complex animals and humans since the beginning theism would be more likely to be true

How do you know that? How does one calculate those probabilities?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes testimonies from people who became atheist due to evolution (Richard dawkins would be an example)

There must be a lot of those. What numbers have you found? How many atheists became atheists for other reasons? How do those compare?

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I was a boy, I found a round, somewhat flat rock about the size of a silver dollar. The base was a white limestone. At the center and on top was a round, slightly domed piece of yellowish brown chert. The thing looked like a fried egg. So it is the most logical, scientific approach for me to assume it was designed to look like that? You do not think this rock could have formed as the result of random natural processes?

Not random, no, because the conditions that formed it weren't random, they were created. But we know what forms human creations take, for the most part. Comparing a " natural" rock to our DNA also seems a little simplistic, don't you think? I can see how a rock can form from pressure and various elements. It's not so easy when you have something that is like a code. Even calling DNA a blueprint doesn't do it justice, but it gets us closer to understanding that it had to be designed.

 

[leroy]

The only reason I could see becoming an atheist because of accepting the science which shows we evolved, rather than were created out of whole cloth unlike any other animal species, is because they were taught to believe that accepting evolution denies God. If that's what their church says is the choice, then that is on the church, not the atheist.

There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution, but don't become atheists. They just simply rethink what they imagined about God. That's not losing faith, but simply adjusting one's beliefs, correcting them when necessary. So it's really certain churches that creates atheists, not science.


I really don't think atheism has anything to do with accepting evolution, outside of being told by certain Christian leaders that you can't believe in God (their ideas of God), and evolution at the same time. That has nothing to do with science making atheists. It has everything to do with being told you have to believe like they do, or you're not a Christian. That's what makes atheists.


By atheist here, I mean those who left the church because they could see that denying science is not a pathway to understanding ultimate Truth.

The way a see it,

There are both arguments for and against the existence of God, the truth of evolution counts as a “weak argument” against God which means that it makes you make a small step towards atheism.

I didn’t meant to imply that evolution forces you to become an atheist, just that it makes you make a tiny step towards atheism.

 

[leroy]

There must be a lot of those. What numbers have you found? How many atheists became atheists for other reasons? How do those compare?

No I don’t have stats, just a few cases where I read/heard form people who becoming an atheist because of evolution, and I haven’t seen an atheist becoming a theist because of evolution.

I am talking from I personal experience.

 

[Heyo]

The Ancient Egyptians thought dung-beetles emerged spontaneously from balls of dung, because they couldn't see what went on in there.

Nothing is so easy.

Westerners also believed in Spontaneous Generation until it was refuted by Louis Pasteur. Interestingly that didn't stir up the Christians as much as Darwin's theory did.

 

[ratiocinator]

That doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to use evolution as a symbol...

Do they? I don't think it's a symbol. It seems to have significance only to the simplistic, literal creationist cults.

...it doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to defend evolution with favor and passion...

Again, this isn't confined to atheists - it's people who have some understanding of the theory defending it against ignorance and misrepresentation that almost exclusively come from the aforementioned cultists. While I'm sure most are repeating things they've been taught by people they trust in good faith, it doesn't mean that they aren't misrepresentations and they don't display ignorance of the subject.

..to the point that they get angry where flaws are presented...

I've never once seem a creationist point out any flaws. All we tend to get is endless repetition of the same misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and falsehoods. People misrepresenting science and refusing to learn anything can indeed be rather irritating.

And it doesn’t change the fact that given the truth of evolution, atheism is more likely true, than if evolution where proven wrong.

Why? Evolution being correct says literally nothing about whether a god (or gods) exists or not. It only contradicts a very literal interpretation of a religious book that often contradicts itself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not random, no, because the conditions that formed it weren't random, they were created.

This seems like you are circling back to the claim of creation without showing me evidence that demonstrates creation.

But we know what forms human creations take, for the most part. Comparing a " natural" rock to our DNA also seems a little simplistic, don't you think?

Not if the rock looks like it was designed to appear as something else. Haven't you been basically saying that if it looks designed it is designed? Shouldn't we have more evidence than just a subjective impression of someone acting on very transient and trivial information to draw a conclusion? How is bias eliminated from a process like that, for instance?

I can see how a rock can form from pressure and various elements.

I have never actually seen a rock form, but that is my understanding of the process and, of course, there is other evidence.

It's not so easy when you have something that is like a code. Even calling DNA a blueprint doesn't do it justice, but it gets us closer to understanding that it had to be designed.

I am no closer to how you understand it to be designed. Doesn't it sound like you are saying this is too complex for you to understand so therefore it is designed? As a child I used to make up simple codes all the time in playing with my friends. We see simple codes in nature. Red and black. Venom lack.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The way a see it,

There are both arguments for and against the existence of God, the truth of evolution counts as a “weak argument” against God which means that it makes you make a small step towards atheism.

I didn’t meant to imply that evolution forces you to become an atheist, just that it makes you make a tiny step towards atheism.

I do not see the theory of evolution or the fact of it as evidence for or against God. Can you show me where it touches on the existence of God?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Random mutations are the result of natural processes that do not occur with a detectable pattern. That they occur maybe an accident, but that hardly makes the process of evolution accidental.

Why not? Nothing actually selects anything. The idea is that the mutations that make the host the most fit, survive. But genetic drift can cancel that from happening, so even that is not a sure thing. So what causes selection? Pure luck. This one happens to survive that one doesn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not? Nothing actually selects anything. The idea is that the mutations that make the host the most fit, survive. But genetic drift can cancel that from happening, so even that is not a sure thing. So what causes selection? Pure luck. This one happens to survive that one doesn't.

Can you explain this "nothing actually selects anything"? What do you mean that drift cancels what is happening?

If a mutation occurs that allows me to better utilize milk as a food source, would having that mutation give me an advantage? Doesn't that eliminate random chance or what you are calling luck?

Are you not now favoring random events over creation?

 

[ratiocinator]

No, it just means we are not capable of understanding everything. You either have eternal mattee or an eternal being, take your pick.

Using 'eternal' is a rather 19th century interpretation of time and causality. Regardless, I agree we don't understand everything but we know the universe exists, so the choice is between a universe, that we know exists but we don't know why, and a universe plus a made up being that we have no evidence of and that is equally unexplained.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I don’t have stats, just a few cases where I read/heard form people who becoming an atheist because of evolution, and I haven’t seen an atheist becoming a theist because of evolution.

I am talking from I personal experience.

So you are basing this on hearsay and not taking personal bias into account?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I am no closer to how you understand it to be designed. Doesn't it sound like you are saying this is too complex for you to understand so therefore it is designed?

I'm saying anything we see that functions like a map/ machine/ computer would have to be created. You would not suppose your smartphone was the result of random chance, and it's a lot less complicated design than the codes in your DNA.