Does evolution contradict creationism?

Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

[shubi]

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

[Jehu]

Which part bugged you the most? That about your dim little intellects? Or the one about the infatuation with word games and biological processes? Nothing like the pride of intellect among evolutionists...its the force driving you, which at least can be identified, unlike the blind forces of evolution. I am not holding my breathe for any evolutionist to describe those forces and how they operate, or have produced a single species.

[Thatcherite]

Which part bugged you the most? That about your dim little intellects? Or the one about the infatuation with word games and biological processes? Nothing like the pride of intellect among evolutionists...its the force driving you, which at least can be identified, unlike the blind forces of evolution. I am not holding my breathe for any evolutionist to describe those forces and how they operate, or have produced a single species.

You repeat the petty insults hoping to goad me into a response. You had already made your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution and your intention not to ever learn anything about it quite clear in your earlier debates with Shubi so you didn't need to repeat that either.

[conservative_crusader]

"Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better""

Now I may be way off base here, but if I understand correctly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seriously, if the people had a chance to believe in him, but didn't, then the god(s) would punish the people for refusing him to begin with. Christian beliefs often teach a doctrine that covers this: If there's someone stranded on an island, and dies having never heard the gospel, would he go to hell? The general idea, is that if this person looks at his surroundings and believes there is a god, then he would receive a reward of sorts. This is only possible if someone has never had the opportunity for salvation according to some Christian beliefs.

"This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) ."

I cannot agree with this either, why would the deity you are characterizing punish humans for at least seeking him out?
Answer: He wouldn't.

I will agree that Christian beliefs reflect that if someone has the opportunity to convert from one religion to Christianity, and never do, then they will receive eternal punishment, but I also believe that if someone never has the opportunity to convert, then they would still receive a lesser reward.

"I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner."

there are contradictions to both sides of the argument here. For example: in Israel, one might have the option of becoming Jewish, or Muslim, or perhaps even Christian, but in a place like medieval Europe, you might be forced to be a Catholic. However, in modern society, I can think of very few scenarios where this actually applies. If you can I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm not to fond of the dinner analogy you use either. Much better to use one like opening a door before you walk through it. If you don't open the door, it's gonna hurt on the other side. And if there is more than one door (I'm not saying there are necessarily, but "if") picking which door to open.

Just curious... I suppose I could figure it out from reading all your posts, but are you affiliated with agnosticism or atheism, or any religion at all?

[conservative_crusader]

"1. Creation of the universe requires that matter pre-exist "

Not necessarily. I personally believe in an omnipotent creator. He didn't need matter to exist before the universe was created. However, that does capture the gist of the argument.


On #3
I don't think actioner is a word. But in the scope of this argument, an action requires a cause.

On #4
for the sake of accuracy the cause of the action must be a god.

[Thatcherite]

"Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better""

Now I may be way off base here, but if I understand correctly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seriously, if the people had a chance to believe in him, but didn't, then the god(s) would punish the people for refusing him to begin with. Christian beliefs often teach a doctrine that covers this: If there's someone stranded on an island, and dies having never heard the gospel, would he go to hell? The general idea, is that if this person looks at his surroundings and believes there is a god, then he would receive a reward of sorts. This is only possible if someone has never had the opportunity for salvation according to some Christian beliefs.

This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy.

An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff.

"This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) ."

I cannot agree with this either, why would the deity you are characterizing punish humans for at least seeking him out? Answer: He wouldn't.

Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible.

I will agree that Christian beliefs reflect that if someone has the opportunity to convert from one religion to Christianity, and never do, then they will receive eternal punishment, but I also believe that if someone never has the opportunity to convert, then they would still receive a lesser reward.

That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter.

"I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner."

there are contradictions to both sides of the argument here. For example: in Israel, one might have the option of becoming Jewish, or Muslim, or perhaps even Christian, but in a place like medieval Europe, you might be forced to be a Catholic. However, in modern society, I can think of very few scenarios where this actually applies. If you can I'd be interested to hear them.

I think you may have slightly misunderstood me. I am not talking about membership of a church, or the appearance of belief (unless you think that "faking it" may be good enough for God, which I suppose is as valid as any other position). I am talking about true inner belief. History shows that numerous medieval europeans (up to and including some Popes IIRC) didn't actually believe in God at all. Although they were members of the church that did not reflect their beliefs. My contention is that inner belief (surely what Pascal's reward is available for if belief is relevant at all) is a state of mind that cannot be chosen. You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you.

I'm not to fond of the dinner analogy you use either. Much better to use one like opening a door before you walk through it. If you don't open the door, it's gonna hurt on the other side. And if there is more than one door (I'm not saying there are necessarily, but "if") picking which door to open.

If the doors are beliefs, I maintain that you cannot "choose" to open any of them. I could tell you today that I'd decided to become a Christian in order to benefit from Pascal's wager (if I didn't accept the refutations at the top of this post) but I still wouldn't believe. You can't make yourself believe something.

Just curious... I suppose I could figure it out from reading all your posts, but are you affiliated with agnosticism or atheism, or any religion at all?

I am an atheist. Nobody has shown me an argument that convinces me that any deity exists, though I don't discount the possibility. I think that wikipedia characterises my position as "weak atheism".

[stremba]

You make the exact point that I make. Historically Pascal's wager has been used to argue for the existence of the CHRISTIAN God. My point is that this is a very weak argument for Christianity in that it is also an argument for ANY religion. If Pascal's wager is the only reason to believe in God, you won't be led to a belief in God as worshipped by Christians. In fact, Pascal's wager leads one away from Christianity, as any argument that supports a belief in more than one God is supporting a belief that is anti-Christian.

[Jehu]

"PP: Could you hate Santa Clause? Could you hate the tooth fairy? How does one hate something with no belief in it. Atheists can hate those that believe in God, but not God. Most atheists don't hate believers either, just those that feel they have the right to force religion into places it doesn't belong. "

To ignore or deny someone is an expression of hatred. Just because you do not carry it around as a conscious thought does not mean you are not doing this. And where does religion belong? Who put YOUR world view in charge?

"PP: Incapable of wonder? What do think motivates scientists to examine the world around them if not wonder? Too self-centred? Every scientist I know has someone they look up to as more learned and intelligent than themselves. In some cases that is God. Now you create strawman scientists. Do you ever link with reality?"

You express exactly what I was pointing out. You cannot get beyond what exists in front of you. You are enslaved by your focus on process. You pretend you admire other men of intellect, but I have never met a scientist that did not think HE was the smartest guy in the room.

[Thatcherite]

To ignore or deny someone is an expression of hatred. Just because you do not carry it around as a conscious thought does not mean you are not doing this.

So let's get this straight, you do agree that by your own lights you hate Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy? Or do you believe in them? Which is it? Presumably you also hate Vishnu, Kali, Oriris, Ra.....(snip long list of alternative Gods that I suspect you don't believe in). What a hateful world you live in.

And where does religion belong? Who put YOUR world view in charge?

Let's try out this mind-reading thing that you are so good at and see if I can do it too. You believe that your religion belongs in the home, in church, in the schools and universities, in the workplace, in the civic offices, in the courtroom... ah yes, the last group to try not restricting religion were the Taliban, with whose attitudes you have a lot in common. An absolute certainty in your own moral and spiritual authority, and a desire to impose it on everyone else.

You cannot get beyond what exists in front of you. You are enslaved by your focus on process.

This looks remarkably like a concession that you have lost the evidentiary and procedural argument.

You pretend you admire other men of intellect, but I have never met a scientist that did not think HE was the smartest guy in the room.

Jehu once again demonstrates his remarkable capacity to read the minds of others. Or perhaps he has simply never met a scientist.

[Thatcherite]

I have never met a scientist that did not think HE was the smartest guy in the room.

Actually, Jehu may have been in rooms with just a scientist for company quite often. With comments coming from Jehu like, "Allele's are just the latest pseudo buzz words by evolutionists." (post #252, hilarious) it wouldn't take the scientist long to work out who the smarter person in the room was.

[Jehu]

You're the one fascinated by processes and endless speculation. TOE is like reading one chapter in the middle of a book. I suppose I would not mind, but the proponents of TOE pretend they have read the whole book, and lie to everyone about the contents of that book.

TOE has no idea where the first cell came from let alone any species. Just endless speculation. I have asked repeatedly from evolutionists for years to give me some sort of mathematical structure behind this "scientific" theory. They do not, because they cannot.

As such you are practicing a faith, or religion. Therefor you are on MY territory and have to fight by MY rules. I have no problem with real science. Nobody has a problem with chemical formula's, Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity Theory.

Those things are real science, experiments can be setup in the lab to prove the math, or theory. And such science cares not one bit if you are a Christian, or atheist. But TOE demands you attack the central tenants of Judeo/Christian belief. Just because you do not do it in an obvious way like Islamo-facists, does not make you any less an enemy of my faith.

They both have the same goal, (Islamo-facists, and evolutionists) the eradication of Christianity from the earth.

And I have to assume the only reason people believe in such B.S. as TOE is because the alternative (a personal God) is anathema to them. Or as is ususally the case they don't have enough guts to admit they hate God, or the idea of God, so they fashion one that is just about worthless and so distant, He might as well not exist. They can mouth all the protest they want...actions speak louder than words.

[Thatcherite]

TOE has no idea where the first cell came from let alone any species. Just endless speculation. I have asked repeatedly from evolutionists for years to give me some sort of mathematical structure behind this "scientific" theory. They do not, because they cannot.

The conjecture that God must have intervened to originate life in the first place would not damage or invalidate the ToE in the least if it were shown to be true. In fact the belief that God started the process and then let evolution take over is quite a common one. Did you not know that?

As such you are practicing a faith, or religion. Therefor you are on MY territory and have to fight by MY rules. I have no problem with real science. Nobody has a problem with chemical formula's, Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity Theory.

My apologies. I had thought that you espoused Young Earth Creationism (which is conflict with numerous areas of science other than the ToE so your statement that nobody is in conflict with the rest of science is incorrect).

However the repeated assertion of creationists that the ToE is a religion does not make it so. Presumably you understand that well over 99% of scientists (presumably the best judges of what constitutes science) the world over in all fields do not agree with your assessment that the ToE somehow has a different scientific status from other theories. In evidence I submit a list of 500 scientists including 2 Nobel Laureates who support the ToE, with the twist that all of them are called Steve (that name was selected as the filter in memory of Steve Gould). This keeps the length of the list down to manageable proportions.

Those things are real science, experiments can be setup in the lab to prove the math, or theory. And such science cares not one bit if you are a Christian, or atheist. But TOE demands you attack the central tenants of Judeo/Christian belief. Just because you do not do it in an obvious way like Islamo-facists, does not make you any less an enemy of my faith. They both have the same goal, (Islamo-facists, and evolutionists) the eradication of Christianity from the earth.

Numerous laboratory experiments and mathematical predictions have confirmed the ToE. Your use of the words "prove the theory" betrays that you don't understand the scientific method. No theory is ever proven.

Science is neutral about religion. You cannot be unaware that numerous Christians and many Judeo/Christian Churches and organisations representing a huge number of Christians support the ToE and therefore do not share your paranoid unsupported assertions that the ToE was invented as an attack on Christianity.

[conservative_crusader]

"This argument and numerous arguments like it presume the conclusion that all possible Gods would consider belief to be a rewardworthy state of mind. Someone who believes may exclude behaviour from their lives (such as (for the sake of argument) open-minded investigation of the mechanics of the universe) that God might consider more praiseworthy."

So does post #126 qualify as investigating the mechanics of the universe?

"An alternative argument is that God may not care one way or the other whether we believe or not but Anti-God (an inferior but very powerful being who God also doesn't care about) punishes believers only; and in such a situation it is belief that carries the negative payoff."

A very interesting argument, this one bears thinking about. But it shows a lot more speculation on your part that I would care to accept. I'm not sure I'm willing to take that leap of faith. But lets look at this: Why would a god punish people for wanting to seek him out? If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.

"Some faiths are very clear that adherents to rival faiths get worse punishments. Just because you don't believe that of your God it doesn't make it impossible."

Very true, I do agree with you here. If you are say: a Muslim, and you have the opportunity to convert to Chritsianity. And if you refuse, and Mohamed was actually not a prophet, the bible says that you would be cast into the lake of fire. However, I did not argue against that. I am saying that it is better to believe in a god, than it is to not believe in a god. Because these same faiths you refer to, believe it is better to believe in a god than it is to not believe in one. Thats right if I were a Muslim, my idea would be Atheist < Christian < Muslim. A member of any presently known faith would not be: Other Religion < Atheist < Us.

"That may be your belief but I am not aware that the bible has anything to say on the matter"

It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.

"You cannot choose your beliefs. They happen to you."

How can you "not choose your beliefs," if they're not forced on you? If someone is really interested in seeking the creator, and they are not compelled by some other force to accept a canned god, they are entirely free to choose their faith by what they find convincing. Beliefs are not like a disease, in much the same way whether being a conservative or a liberal or a moderate is not like a disease, it's what you are convinced of. You can be convinced otherwise. An example of this would be a conversion from one belief system to another. People are free to choose their faiths.

Also, lets play with this analogy of yours. Believing in a god would be like choosing to eat. In some instances the food may be poisoned, but if you refuse to eat, then you're going to die anyway. Or perhaps, you are deathly allergic to all but one type of food, and you don't know what that food is. However if you still refuse to eat, you're going to die anyway.


" You can't make yourself believe something."

Sure you can. I do it every day. You need to bear in mind though when I make myself believe something I rarely change my mind, but I am quite capable of believing something else.

[Thatcherite]

does post #126 qualify as investigating the mechanics of the universe?

I am not sure. In any case I was not saying that a belief in God precludes one from physical investigation of nature. But some religions certainly do. It is not possible for a Young Earth Creationist to open-mindedly investigate the data and retain their literal biblical interpretations for example unless they adopt the nihilistic philosophy of omphalism (and at least two Creationists I know have indeed done so in the face of the overwhelming data that they now accept).

If nothing else, this "Anti-God" of yours would have revealed himself through some miraculous act, and taken on the role of a god. My argument, is that wanting to obey someones rules should never make someone angry. Therefore wanting to abide by the creator's rules should not make him angry.

My hypothetical Anti-God is a malevolent being who enjoys punishing those who have faith in God (who hypothetically doesn't care). To reveal itself would be counter-productive to its aims because it wants there to be as many believers as possible. It doesn't have the power of God but it has some kind of supernatural ability to harvest souls and punish them. You argument really amounts to the fact that you don't want such a being to exist and being a nice person you cannot understand the motives of such a creature (and no-one else does either), but our desire that such a creature not exist and our inability to comprehend its motives is not proof.

It's in one of Paul's letters I believe. I'm a little to lazy to look it up right now, but if you're really interested in fining out, try all the books in the new testament that begin with the word: PAUL.

Corinthians II 5 10 may be what you were thinking of, though it doesn't seem terribly specific to me. Perhaps you have a more detailed schedule of crimes and punishments elsewhere in Paul in mind.

Continued discussion about the volition of belief.

I think we are just going to have to agree to differ on this one. I don't buy any of your physical analogies of doors, or choosing to eat I'm afraid. The reason why I analogised with choosing what was for dinner was to point up that choosing physical acts is completely unlike what happens with beliefs.

You accept that beliefs can be chosen. I don't. Further discussion of that issue is unlikely to be fruitful.

[shubi]

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

[BMCDA]

You accept that beliefs can be chosen. I don't.

Yeah, it's pretty strange that those who claim that we can choose our beliefs just cannot decide to believe that some people (like you or me) are not able to simply choose what they believe.