Is evolution inherently atheistic?


(Patrick ) #1

George,
There is nothing atheistic about evolution.


5 Common Objections to Evolutionary Creationism
(George Brooks) #2

Really? … if a great many Scientists/Evolutionists totally reject the possibility of God participating in the design of life … how could it be anything BUT ‘atheism’ ?

But if your point is that Evolution is compatible with either a GOD scenario or a NO-GOD scenario… then I accept your point.

George


(Patrick ) #3

Why does God need to be glorified? And told how great thou art? Doesn’t He already know it? OT Megalomania going on? Insecurity? Humans study nature to gain knowledge but the fruit of the knowledge tree was once forbidden.


#4

And nothing atheistic about gravity, etc.


(George Brooks) #5

The Atheism is injected into the discussion by ultra-rationalist scientists who insist that evolution is completely random.

This cannot be the BioLogos position.

George


(Patrick ) #6

Who are these ultra-rationalist scientists who insist this? I am having great difficulty generating a completely random number on my cell phone. It is impossible to generate something that is completely random.


(George Brooks) #7

Remember this famous graph? What percentage of Scientists don’t believe Evolution has anything to do with God?

George


(Patrick ) #8

This is a famous graph?

I worked on generating completely random numbers for encryption. Impossible to achieve.
And please note that evolution (and every natural process) is NOT completely random.


(George Brooks) #9

You don’t have to tell me! :smiley:


(Patrick ) #10

But you are equating randomness with atheism. randomness in physical processes have nothing to do with atheism.


(George Brooks) #11

Come on Patrick… keep the discussion “on context”. We know that randomness does not equate to Atheism.

But in the realm of Evolution Advocacy, we only have two choices: God is involved, or God is not (and for most scientists, saying God doesn’t get involved doesn’t mean God WISHES he could do something about Evolution but chooses not to).

George


(Patrick ) #12

I am on topic. In the realm of Evolution Advocacy, you have THREE choices: 1) God is involved, 2) God is not involved and 3) You don’t know whether or not God is involved.

All three choices have nothing to do with the study of evolution. You can continue studying evolution under any of the three choices above and come up with exactly the same understandings, discoveries, and results.


(George Brooks) #13

I agree with everything you said above … and yet you still just want to chew the fat.

My mention of “random” Evolution in connection with Atheism is purely descriptive - - not a point of logic.
The people who INSIST that Evolution has to be random, for the most part, reject mainstream (pro-evolution) Evangelical values.
The graph shows us how overwhelmingly NON-THEIST the Scientific community is regarding evolution.

If you are going to attempt to drag me into another prolonged tirade (( like the “meteor can’t be from another solar system” discussion )), I’m done right now.
Let me know if you have something interesting to discuss.

George


#14

But scientists don’t believe that evolution is completely random. Natural Selections is definitely not random.


(George Brooks) #15

@beaglelady:

Wow… there is STILL time to dispute along these lines?

I suppose there is always SOMEONE who uses terms in unexpected ways. Maybe it’s ME doing it this time. By “Random”, I mean that it was not planned… and in this case, not planned by God.

Some writers consider the effects of natural selection to be a “random walk” because no one can know for sure when factors that affect survival and multi-generational fertility are “in play” or not.
Other writers, like to say there is an “internal logic” to Natural Selection. And thus, it is not RANDOM in the pure sense of the word.

But obviously if someone argues that this or that organ is vestigial, or less than ideally efficient or practical… it is to show that the evolutionary development is not INTELLIGENT… with the intent being that INTELLIGENT is the opposite of Random.

I suppose all these definitions have their merit. But unless you really need something to write about and argue, it’s fairly distracting - - don’t you think?

For me, it is simplest to divide things accordingly:

GOD-GUIDED vs.
NOT-GOD-GUIDED, or, i.e., RANDOM.

The test for this idea is the following:

If evolution is NOT God-Guided … but Natural Selection is NOT random… then what would a RANDOM system of Evolution look like? I don’t think there is one.

I see the concept of Natural Selection as being embedded in, and an embodiment of, Evolution.

George


(Patrick ) #16

Where do you get that? How does values enter into the study of evolution?

How do you know that the scientific community is non-theist? The scientific community overwhelming says that “humans and other living things have evolved over time due to natural processes” How is that NON-THEIST?


(Patrick ) #17

The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs DID come from this solar system. The evidence is overwhelming.


(George Brooks) #18

So… I just posted the graph … and now you need to see it again … what 15 minutes later?
This is how we know the scientific community is non-theist (with respect to Evolution!). Does the number 87% ring a bell with you?


(George Brooks) #19

Last time I’m ever going to talk about that asteroid’s origin:

It makes SENSE that it comes from this solar system. The probabilities are rather overwhelming.

But when I mentioned that it could come from OUTSIDE the solar system, I was only making a hypothetical example of how far into the future God’s plan could be arranged.
I can’t believe how fixated you are on this tiny element that was IRRELEVANT to the point of the discussion at the time.

I think you like to argue JUST AS MUCH as Eddie does.

George


(Patrick ) #20

Look at the graph. Scientists like Collins would be in the group that “Humans and other living have evolved over time due to natural processes”