nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212: − + + + + + + + +
→The atheist and/or evolutionary view: Reply, and remove <ref> tags as talk pages don't usually use them.
:: That's not true, though. What Julian Huxley described ''isn't'' the Theory of Evolution. It states nothing about either the origin of Earth, the origin of life on it or the existence of a god or gods. It says ''only'' that the variations of life we see today evolved from earlier forms via natural selection. That's all. There is nothing that says that, for example, a deity didn't create the Universe and Earth, plant life on it and created the rules by which evolution would occur. It's compatible with theism in general, just not the majority of creation myths.
:: That's not true, though. What Julian Huxley described ''isn't'' the Theory of Evolution. It states nothing about either the origin of Earth, the origin of life on it or the existence of a god or gods. It says ''only'' that the variations of life we see today evolved from earlier forms via natural selection. That's all. There is nothing that says that, for example, a deity didn't create the Universe and Earth, plant life on it and created the rules by which evolution would occur. It's compatible with theism in general, just not the majority of creation myths.
:: Atheism means a statement about the nonexistence of gods. Evolution is a biological theory, it doesn't even come ''close'' to touching that topic. You can't have either a theistic or atheistic scientific theory because the scientific method cannot test the supernatural. Secular is the adjective which best describes a scientific theory in regards to the existence of gods. That is, it's entirely unrelated.
:: Atheism means a statement about the nonexistence of gods. Evolution is a biological theory, it doesn't even come ''close'' to touching that topic. You can't have either a theistic or atheistic scientific theory because the scientific method cannot test the supernatural. Secular is the adjective which best describes a scientific theory in regards to the existence of gods. That is, it's entirely unrelated.
:: There are two alternatives (that I can think of) to the Theory of Evolution that an atheist could subscribe to which have also been, at some point, well-accepted: Spontaneous Generation <ref>http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm</ref> and [[Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck|Lamarckism]].
:: There are two alternatives (that I can think of) to the Theory of Evolution that an atheist could subscribe to which have also been, at some point, well-accepted: Spontaneous Generation [http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm] and [[Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck|Lamarckism]].
:: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
:: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
::: What Huxley was referring to was wider than just the biological theory, that is true. But the biological theory is based on the "pattern of thought" as he put it. This pattern of thought is anti-Christian in nature, and compatible with atheism.
::: Evolution is more than just evolving "from earlier forms via natural selection". By that definition, creationists can believe in evolution. "Evolution" also encompasses the entire evolutionary "family tree". Whether or not it includes the start of that family tree (the ''origin'' of life) is a moot point. Many evolutionists ''have'' included the origin of life in the term, although I agree that many today reject that, and the currently-accepted ''mechanism'' (mutations and natural selection) doesn't cover the origin. See also [[Definition of evolution]]. You are correct that evolution, ''strictly speaking'', doesn't say anything about the origin of the "rules" of evolution, but ''in practice'', it does say things along those lines. This is because evolution is based on ''naturalism'', the view that ''nature'' is all there is; that is, there is no ''super''natural, and atheistic scientists use evolution to argue against God.
::: Further, although technically evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the laws of evolution, etc., it does say plenty that contradicts the Bible. That justifies, I would suggest, claiming that evolution ''does'' "come ''close'' to touching that topic".
::: True, you can't really have a theistic or atheistic scientific theory, but evolution doesn't really qualify as "scientific", because it is based on atheistic views, such as naturalism.
::: As for your alternatives to evolution that atheists could subscribe to, your second example is merely a different mechanism for the theory of evolution—but it's still evolution. I take it that your first example refers to spontaneous generation ''of each different life form'', as opposed to the spontaneous generation of the ''first life''. That being so, I will concede that as a possibility. Nevertheless, that view is long out of favour, so the only real option that atheists have left is evolution (in some form or other).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)