Difference between revisions of "Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?"

Latest revision as of 11:51, June 7, 2011

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

YES

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is predicated upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called methodological naturalism, i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to squelch any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that by choosing to ignore God they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of unguided evolution is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --Ed Poor 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to call you on that, Ed - it's true that unguided evolution would be essential to an atheist worldview, but evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God. It merely explains a world without God's active involvement at a biological level. Underscoreb 21:22, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. BornAgain 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because life evolved to suit the Earth. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? Bolly Ottihw 9:52, 27 June 2007

• Yes. Amen to that, bro. Atheism and homicide. Rob Smith 22:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

• Evolution ENABLES Atheism. Before Darwin's theory of evolution, people toyed with atheism - but it was never taken seriously. Given a framework to believe that humans could exist without god (it doesn't matter if the framework is false, it still happens), people can be atheists and feel fulfilled. --Newton 17:24, 11 March 2010 (EST)

NO

Natural Selection removes an intervening hand of god. God can only set the process in motion, if god sets it in motion but then does not intervene god is irrelevant, meaningless. Therefore Evolution does not promote Atheism, BUT, any body who understands it and its implications would come to the atheistic consclusion. In short The Theory of Evolution renders God irrelevant and therefore only a mental habit of comfort.

Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--Laches 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. Bolly Ottihw 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ TheComputerWizard 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that space itself has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument against your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. Bolly Ottihw 21:04, 14 June 2007

I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--Roopilots6 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. Bolly Ottihw 10:56, 20 June 2007

Ditto for you. Thanks for making my point. This is why there is the argument to teach both points of view. Also, your problems understanding the historical records of the Old and New Testament isn't a valid one since it is politically biased along ideological lines. This also saddens those of us that seek the truth through His Word.--Roopilots6 11:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

1Living things vary 2Ofspring resemble their parents 3Not all ofspring survive 4Some variations increase the chance or amount of ofspring

Therefore living things will change in such a way as to have more ofspring. If noone has explained this to you then you need better teachers. It is also known as evolution. -Sam P.S. fix my description if it is wrong. I'm doing what I remember from bio class.

My answer is also NO. The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, but does not answer the question about the meaning of life or answer if God exists (no scientific theory can). God could create living organisms through evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). It is true that some supporters of evolutionary theory use this as an argument against the existence of God, but from methodological point of view they are wrong. Among the evolutionists there can be both theists, deists and atheists. The official statement of the Catholic Church and many Protestant Churches allows evolutionary theory. Jasra 19:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Neither

I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.User:Cthx

Hahaha, good call. :D Underscoreb 21:27, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The Theory of Evolution may or may not promote atheism. One thing for Christians to consider though is that God could have started the evolutionary chain and used that to create rather than creating directly. The important factor is that God put the first "spark", etc. Look at the Wedding Feast at Cana... He made 6 large 10 gallon pitchers of wine. God is extravagant and awe-some in his creation. (Extravagant in the sense that he does things large and big; after all he did create a huge amount of galaxies and we're the only life discovered so far...) He could easily use evolution, as a grandiose plan, which would be totally in his character.

-reporres i definitely agree with you that god created the theory of evolution. i mean i believe in god i just don't think all of this appeared randomly i think he created us with the theory of evolution gradually

Backwards

Since atheism or non-theism existed long before the theory of evolution then it would have to be that atheism promotes the theory of evolution.--Roopilots6 11:39, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it is scientists (see is gravity liberal or conservative). It leads to atheism because it provides a non-theistic explanation for design.

Incorrect! The Theory of Evolution only states that over time, members of a population will change over time to be more suited to their environments/reproduction. One great example are the Eskimo people. Because Eskimos live in cold climates, they have evolved to grow large noses, so that air has more time to warm before reaching the lungs, thus making breathing easier. Creationists disagree with the Evolutionary Model, which is based on this Theory, in addition to the fossil record, radiocarbon dating and genetic studies. The theory of Evolution therefore is NEUTRAL on this point. Don't get angry. Your anger only leads to the inevitible HEAT DEATH of the Universe happening sooner. Stop. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 22:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

When Darwin published Origin of Species, nobody had a problem with it. When he later published Descent of Man, which said humans are animals too an are not excluded, then people got upset..--funnny 8:53, 15 March 2008 (EST)

Big no-no

Evolution proves god is SMART (and why shouldn't he be?). If he's too obvious, people become dependant and he becomes a fact. Remember that he lives on FAITH, not PROOF. When he does something, it should look like he did nothing at all. Enough to make us believe (if he does too little people lose faith), but not so much that he proves himself.

--Reallyforeign 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

So if "God" presents himself to you, how would you know it's not really the the Devil/false god in disguise?

--Motch 09:21, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that really matters (with regard to this point), as would you agree that the Devil/false god cannot exist without God also existing? So if the Devil/false god presented himself appearing to be God, it would demonstrate that God exists. - JamesCA, June 7 2011