Replies

The author of the article is a moron who ignorantly equates evolution and atheism.

Although Thomas isn't a moron, I agree that he tends to shoot off his mouth, which is why I stopped reading him years ago. (I count Walter Williams as a more recent addition to that class of columnists....)

However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)

Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.

On the "theistic" side of the fence, believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic. (God reveals His existence to us individually.) They instead attempt to argue the atheist's "proof" -- which amounts to a requirement to attack evolution.

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.

Those atheists are stupid. I'm an equal-opportunity mouth-shooter :)

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way."

I'm an atheist. When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities. I do not appeal to any physical properties of the universe, I do not appeal to any biological facts and I do not appeal to 'why did bad thing X happen' because doing so would assume specific properties of a deity, but that only works if it can be demonstrated that a deity must have those properties. To my knowledge, no such limitations have ever been demonstrated, thus the structure of the retina is not a proof that no gods exist.

Just because some people erroneously equate evolution and atheism does not mean that they are really linked. Demonstrating the existence of a deity (and Thomas doesn't even do that, he simply asserts that some 'intelligent' people believed in one) would not invalidate evolution.

I've other problems with Cal Thomas as well. Not too long ago he wrote a lovely diatribe against atheists and in doing so he employed at least six logical fallacies in three paragraphs. To date he has never addressed any criticism of his work, even though atheists and theists alike trashed it for the tripe that it was. He has no credibility with me.

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)
Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.
On the "theistic" side of the fence, believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic. (God reveals His existence to us individually.) They instead attempt to argue the atheist's "proof" -- which amounts to a requirement to attack evolution.

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

"Blanche, I think we have a bingo over here on the crevo thread!"

Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?

Nope, since it doesn't make a big enough difference to determine whether or not you see food/threats/mates/etc. Thus, natural selection is neutral toward it.

It is, however, a fatal objection to the theory that the eyes were desinged by a perfect intelligence, since such a designer would do the job so it was right, not "good enough for government work". (However, an intelligent design theory postulating a flawed designer -- perhaps the Earth was seeded by space aliens or something -- remains possible.)

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

End taxpayer support of schooling, and the debate disappears.

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

bttt....this is worth repeating.

One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)

Not necessarily; as long as something is "good enough," there's no reproductive advantage to something better, and hence natural selection won't select for it.

Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.

Obviously? It's not obvious at all--it would be nice if there were a possibility of eternal bliss, wouldn't it? I think so, and I'm an atheist. There are a lot of things about life as it is right now that make a heaven appealing; there's just no reliable evidence that there is such a thing.

believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic.

On the contrary, I believe in Gods' existence and am not uncomfortable with being unable to prove it. After all, if I could prove Gods' existence, I wouldn't need faith. And without faith, my life would loose so much of its' meaning. It would, in fact, become meaningless.

And who said that the discussion has to be purely scientific. I don't see the problem in devoting a small amount of time to discussing alternative creation models. In my high school textbook, the chapter about creation contained a few paragraphs about earlier ideas of creation, including myths (something about the infinite stacked turtles or something), and also included intelligent design and creationism.

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)

Not necessarily, there is a phenomena called an evolutionary plateau. In order for some characteristics to change in populations it would put a lineage at a selective disadvantage before the transitional process was complete. Having the optic nerve behind the retina would offer an organism possessing such an eye a selective advantage with increased visual acuity over those that had their nerves in front of the retina. However, moving the nerve from in front of the retina to the rear is a radical evolutionary process. It could not be accomplished with a single mutation, but would require many mutations over many generations. Most likely it would require completely new proteins involved in embryonic development to place the nerve in the rear. The transitionary phases would put an organism at such a disadvantage (blindness) that any individuals possessing the transitionary mutations would be strongly selected against and the mutations would not become fixed in the population. Transitionary individuals are actually less fit then the “nerve in front” individuals. Therefore the transition dies as soon as it is started. Evolution often goes with whats “good enough” rather than the best possible solution for a particular selective pressure.

However if one were designed by a perfect god "good enough" wouldn't cut it. I would expect a god to design an eye as effeciently as possible.