Monicks: Unleashed

Thinking Critically


Evolution is unbelievable?

5 Responses to Evolution is unbelievable?

  1. reverendbuki says:

    Who said it? “If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people”
    Ya know, if they would just keep it to themselves…
    Ah, but, that would be a miracle, no?

  2. Richard says:

    I do find it odd that macro-evolution is so often associated with atheism, as it is simply irrelevant to belief or non-belief in any religious doctrine. It does not refute the existence of God nor does it refute the biblical creation account, for there are many ways in which to interpret Genesis. This is not a retreat in the face of modern science. Saint Augustine in the year 300 postured the possibility to interpret the six day creation as hundreds of thousands of years.

    If I am skeptical of evolution, it has literally nothing at all to do with theology. It is purely a scientific basis. For instance, that array of skulls is in no way indicative of one species changing into another. It is only indicative of micro-evolution. There have been full body fossils over the years, but I think all of them have been dismissed as hoaxes or rebuked in some way. Even if there were fossils, it would be impossible to determine genetic code by them, rendering all hypothesises unprovable and unfalsifiable. If properly researched and learnt, macro-evolution can never evolve into more than a belief system based on faith.

    Finally, in their remarkable book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler outline ten steps of macro-evolution that would require so much time that the sun would have literally burnt out before each one was executed. On this foundation I submit that if evolution did occur, it would be a miracle and therefore prove the existence of God.

    On the exterior, evolution may seem to be in alignment with atheism. But after dissection, it is demonstratably in alignment with theism.

  3. reverendbuki says:

    You are correct in saying that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator, but this is in no way it’s goal.
    Yet, evolution is occurring around us at the present in observable terms.
    Consider that the fastest land animal in the world preys almost exclusively on the second fastest land animal.
    This simple illustration is best explained by evolution’s tweaking of both animals in competition: The faster animal survives. After enough generations of faster and slower, we now have animals that can out-accelerate any other land animal on the planet, as well as my Honda. Ever watch a full-speed video of a cheetah hunt? Flat out speed combined with hairpin turning ability at top speed. Incredible stuff!
    Point being that evolution is not a painstakingly slow process, nor is a creator necessarily required for its process.
    We have birds that have adapted to warm weather that only 40 years ago were only seen in the transitional seasons of fall and spring, they’re everywhere, and their plummage is changing, they’ve stopped migrating and tend to stay in warmer climes year round. The reason? Suburban sprawl has created a food glut for these grazers. Canadian geese if you’re wondering.
    A blink of an eye, and a species is evolving into something other than what it was only a single human lifetime ago.
    The common household roach of today is immune to dozens of pesticides that it’s ancestor 20 years ago would have succumbed to. Pretty impressive evolving in my book.

  4. Richard says:

    You are right, that is pretty cool. Though I do think it is evidence of micro-evolution rather than macro-evolution.

    However this is not to say that evolution did not occur. I may not have made it clear in my first comment, but I am agnostic in that issue. I was only curious as to why evolution is associated with atheism and theists take position against it. I was trying to indicate that it is simply irrelevant to religious stance.

  5. The Thinker says:

    Evolution can be shown that a traditional omni-god (all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good )is logically incompatible with it.

    The argument goes as follows:

    1. If god chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then god knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
    2. If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by god, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
    3. Once human beings had souls, they could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
    4. If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors did too and they did not have souls.
    5. This means god chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
    6. An all-good, perfectly moral god who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
    7. Therefore, the traditional notion of god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

    To say that an all-knowing and all-loving god guided evolution and may have taken pleasure in it (as some apologists have suggested) is absurd. Any god who would choose to create humans through a haphazard process that required millions of years of conscious suffering for no logically necessary reason, is to say god is either totally incompetent at creation, totally indifferent to the suffering that he chose to engineer for no reason, or is totally cruel and evil for taking pleasure in this process. If you grant a creator, you have to grant that. There’s no logical way out of it.

    And believing in a wishy-washy liberal god of pure love doesn’t fair any better. In fact, a liberal god is even less compatible with such a picture. Consider the following argument from the Rationally Speaking blog:

    (1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
    (2) Natural evil exists.
    (3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it.
    (4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.

    To deal with this, many Christians have had to deny that animals consciously experience any pain. William Lane Craig had a recent high profile screw up over this. Not only does this argument fail spectacularly upon close examination, it’s even refuted by the fact that living primates and other mammals today are conscious and experience the same suffering that we do.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers:

%d bloggers like this: