Examples?
I also find it strange that theists would agree with and adopt the position of anti-theists.
There are plenty of other facts that are taught in science class. If we teach the fact that changes in air pressure cause clouds, does this unfairly assure that no consideration of a Creator would take place?
Why are you singling out evolution from the thousands of other theories in science that also donāt include the direct actions of a deity?[quote=āridgerock, post:19, topic:36062ā]
Anyone of any age or education level who is taught that evolution is the true and only explanation for how life developed,
[/quote]
They are taught that it is currently the only scientific explanation for how species changed over time because it is currently the only scientific explanation for how species changed over time. Do you want teachers to lie to their students? It isnāt the fault of science teachers that ID/creationists have failed to produce a scientific theory. ID/creationism isnāt considered IN SCIENCE because there is no scientific theory to consider. You arenāt entitled to have your ideas taught in science class just because you really, really believe in them. You have to do the science.[quote=āridgerock, post:19, topic:36062ā]
As Richard Dawkins said, āCharles Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist.ā But NOT the way Darwin presented it with many doubts and arguments against it.
It HAD to become āFACTā to be the āGodsend to Atheistsā Huxley and others recognized it had potential to be. Huxley did not agree with Darwinās central point of gradual change, but that did not stop him from selling the theory as at least āalmost certainā and science has been trying to make it an unquestioned FACT ever since, and have largely succeeded.
[/quote]
With the advent of genetics and the ability to sequence genomes, evolution is as close to a fact as anything gets in science.
1 Like
Where is Atheistic Evolution being taught? Iām guessing itās the same place where they talk about Atheistic Mathematics and Atheistic Physics?
1 Like
I had the same thought when I started this thread. I was in school a verrrry long time agoābut despite having both high school and college courses which included evolutionary biology topics, I never encountered any āatheistic evolution.ā
Now I donāt doubt those who have told me that they had a particular biology professor at Univ California at Berkeley who adamantly taught āatheistic evolutionā and some tell me that their high biology teacher did likewise. So I really donāt know how often todayās teachers go beyond the actual science and start pontificating their personal philosophies about atheism. I would be curious to know what any sort of large scale surveys have shown.
If there is such a thing as āatheistic evolutionā, I would also like to know if there is āatheistic photosynthesisā and āatheistic mitosis.ā I donāt see why evolutionary processes should be singled out as somehow uniquely dependent on divine or non-divine agency.
I spent much of my life within an anti-evolution Young Earth Creationist church tradition, so Iām very familiar with these issues and the unfortunate false dichotomy. But I decided long ago that because Godās creation is filled with evolutionary processes everywhere I look and Godās Bible says nothing to contradict what Godās creation has revealed about those processes, I see no conflict to worry about. Moreover, my view of God has grown exponentially as Iāve learned more and more about the evolutionary processes God created. Truly, I praise God for the amazing wonders of evolutionary processes. Only an omniscient and omnipotent God could create something so utterly amazing!
3 Likes
you asked for examples of outspoken anti-theists that provide fuel for creationist fires, and also expressed surprise that theists would follow the cues of anti-theists.
Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchins, Harris, and Krauss are a few I can name just off the top of my head, and there are probably many more but those are some of the famously published ones.
It is indeed ironic that so many YECs site these figures as authorities, but that is exactly what they do. They have an agenda to show that evolution equates to atheism, and when challenged on that they look for examples to help bolster their case. And on that score, the anti-theistic authors are happy to oblige and these atheistic authors are approvingly sited and quoted in YEC material and by lay readers as evidence that it does.
Whenever reactionary causes are born, one should ask what it is a reaction to. And most of the authors in my list above are still around plying their philosophical wares, keeping the fires stoked. Meanwhile, the true friends of science (both religious and irreligious) are just happily engaging in science or learning from it, knowing better than to try to force fit this or that idealogy into it. The Christian thinkers among them arenāt trying to squeeze Christianity into their science. They have science inside their Christianity.
3 Likes
I too have had a similar experience, as we were taught at lower levels (pre-college/university) that evolution was embedded in history, so we learnt about cave men and saber tooth tigers, and all sorts of stuff; unfortunately a couple of years later, in college class, most of these nice stories were either revised, or simply forgotten. Yet anyone (such as myself) who asked why, purely from a scientific curiosity, was seen as a radical - why? because even 40 years ago, no-one was supposed to question the silly ToE - because, some claimed, it had been proven completely. So why so many changes, but worst of all, why insist it must be believed? I cannot find ANY other branch of science that has been viewed in this way.
Usually the advocates (and I still regard some of these as fanatics) insisted that ToE (in whatever guise) MUST be believed (read cannot be questioned), otherwise the creationists may win some argument, or we were not scientific.
I cannot fathom the same attitude of blank acceptance of ToE displayed by many on this site. I guess things have not changed a great deal over 40 or so years.
By the same token, we should not forget about theistic gravity, theistic chemistry (and how God controls them uv rays) and to the ultimate Theistic evolution (oops I should say evolutionary creationism).
I find such reasoning entertaining - so many on this site seem to turn to science (and donāt get me started on orthodox theology), and yet almost all turn to "evolution is what (how) Godā¦(fill in the blank). 
What if one were to suggest that the scientific evidence is strongly (or even overwhelmingly) supporting the theory of evolution, but admits there are still questions to be answered? Would you agree that one could ābelieveā and still have questions? At the risk of lighting a match in a TNT factoryā¦ I think it is perfectly reasonable to ābelieveā in a theology (Orthodoxy or otherwise) and still question some of its teachings.
2 Likes
I was thinking more of specific things that a supposed anti-theist has said where they claim God canāt exist if evolution is true.[quote=āMervin_Bitikofer, post:27, topic:36062ā]
It is indeed ironic that so many YECs site these figures as authorities, but that is exactly what they do. They have an agenda to show that evolution equates to atheism, and when challenged on that they look for examples to help bolster their case. And on that score, the anti-theistic authors are happy to oblige and these atheistic authors are approvingly sited and quoted in YEC material and by lay readers as evidence that it does.
[/quote]
What I have always found interesting is the strategy among some creationists to portray evolution and atheism as religions in order to discredit them both. We often hear these same creationists claim that āscientismā is false, that truth isnāt found in just science. They then turn around and destroy that entire argument by implying that evolution canāt be true because it isnāt science but religion instead. In fact, the entire effort of trying to portray ID/creationism as being scientific is a tacit admission that science holds more truth than religious belief.
And just to be clear, I am talking about a select group of creationists. The philosophical and theological positions held here at BioLogos are very different from those I describe in the paragraph above.
Whether you believe the theory is accurate is up to you. The point of science class is to teach students what the consensus theories are in the sciences, and evolution is the overwhelming consensus view in biology. If you are going to go on and be a biologist you must understand how the theory works and how it may impact your work. If you want to understand some of the new research within the field of biology you must also understand what the theory of evolution.
I have never been in a biology class where I was told that I must believe that evolution is true. Never has this happened, and I have been in quite a few biology classes (I have a degree in Zoology). What you are describing is simply a self made persecution fantasy.[quote=āGJDS, post:28, topic:36062ā]
I cannot fathom the same attitude of blank acceptance of ToE displayed by many on this site. I guess things have not changed a great deal over 40 or so years.
[/quote]
What I find strange is that many on this site can present, describe, and discuss big pieces of evidence that support the theory of evolution. Those that oppose the theory canāt address this evidence. We are then told that we the evolution supporters blindly accept the theory. Do you see the problem?
Which of those are scientific?
The point we are trying to make is that evolution is no more atheistic than germ theory, atomic theory, the theory of gravity, or quantum mechanics. If you donāt want evolution taught because it does not mention God, then you are saying that you donāt want any science taught.
In the UK, I didnāt get that feeling that ToE must be believed - at school, it was presented like every other theory and we assumed we didnāt know enough to try to argue against it yet. But it didnāt become a dogma of faith! The absence of teaching on creation at school actually encouraged me to think it all through. It helped that my dad was a pastor and a scientist, so he encouraged me to make up my own mind too!
Honestly, I donāt think I understand your point. Perhaps evolutionary biology was taught very differently to your generation. In my educational background, it was taught like any other scientific theory. None of my professors were like Richard Dawkins and looking for every excuse to mix his philosophies into a science presentation. So perhaps you saw a lot of inappropriate anti-theist commentary in the classroom. But Iāve never seen that. So it is difficult for me to grasp what you experienced.
I was an anti-evolution Young Earth Creationist for many years. Eventually I investigated the evidence and even double-checked the citations in my ācreation scienceā books. I found the evidence for the Theory of Evolution to be absolutely overwhelming even while I was unable to find any evidence to undermine the theory. Unfortunately, I discovered that my ācreation scienceā books horrendously misrepresented the science and even outright lied about the evidence. So many of the footnotes revealed dishonest quote-mines and even outright fabrications.
As a result, I regard the Theory of Evolution much like I do the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Photosynthesis, the Special Theory of Relativity, and lots of other well-established science. I no longer find any denials of evolutionary processes in the Bibleāso I honestly donāt understand what you think is wrong about how many forum participants are approaching these topics. So Iām curious what you mean by commenters here saying that āevolution is what (how) Godā¦(fill in the blank).ā Seeing how we all consider God to be the Creator of everything, doesnāt it make sense that we would see evolutionary processes as how God diversified life on earth? Are you perhaps implying that we should assume that some biological structures or phenomena were due to evolutionary processes and some were caused by direct Divine intervention? Are you wanting us to leave more room for God to āhelp alongā evolution? Or are you suggesting a macro-evolution versus micro-evolution view?
Iām not trying to argue with your position. Iām just trying to understand it.
1 Like
The following quote from Darwin seems to be appropriate for this thread. It would seem to me that Darwin would fit in quite nicely with the BioLogos crew.
āIt can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ā¦ I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, āas subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.ā A celebrated author and divine has written to me that āhe has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.āā
ā Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)
2 Likes
I used to have a lot of interaction with faculty colleagues within the science departments and now that Iām in retirement I do a lot of reading on paleontology, geology, and genomics forums. Rarely, if ever, do the scientists ever mention creationists or people who are opposed evolutionary biology. (For that, I usually have to go to forums specifically focused on science education or the politics of science and society to find any mention of such conflicts.)
Nowadays I have some paleontogist and geneticist friends online who do regularly engage Young Earth Creationists on various forums. They all tell me the same thing: āWhen I tell faculty colleagues in my department about Ken Hamās latest claims or about the issues discussed on anti-evolution forums, they think Iām pulling their leg. They all know that there are Americans who deny evolution but few of the faculty know much about their reasons. A few learned of Ken Ham because of the Ark Encounter publicity but most donāt know of it. None of my colleagues have heard of the Nye-Ham debate. Creationism simply isnāt on their radar. Occasionally a Teaching Assistant will tell the professor about some Young Earth Creationist student who objected to something in the textbook, but this rarely gets much of the professorās attention.ā
That seems to fit my past experience when I was teaching on a state university campus. Creationism was not something that got much mention. Ken Ham et al pretend that āthe evilutionist scientistsā are spending each and every day plotting against their enemies. But Iāve never seen any indication that the average science professor ever thinks about itāunless they are in a Bible Belt state and the legislature has some firebrands threatening to cut off university funding because of something they donāt like.
Is my experience atypical? Is there an out-in-the-open war between the science professors and evolution-deniers? Are students fed a daily diet of anti-theism on some campuses? Iāve been retired for too long to know.
I teach at a small, liberal-arts, Christian university, but I havenāt seen any sign of any supposed war. I think a vast majority of science professors are busy enough dealing with their own research and career to go out of their way to ātake up armsā in a fight that so few serious scientists engage in. I know for a fact that there are people that still believe in a flat earth, but I simply donāt find that minority compelling enough to find the time to aggressively counter their scientific understanding.
I would take this idea a step further. I try to find opportunities to get off campus every year or two and engage with more mainstream professors. Not once in my interactions off campus have I even felt a bit of judgement or scorn, let alone any outright hostility, for teaching at a Christian institution. There are obviously the outspoken few who are hostile to Christianity, but I think that minority is a lot smaller than the average layperson in the Christian community realizes.
4 Likes
I think we should accept natural history as it is but point out that there are events that are unexplained by philosophical naturalism. For example, there is no explanation for the cause of the Big Bang. There is no natural explanation for the cause of fine tuning.
There are a number of responses to my post, so I will try and make this reply as general as I can, to cover most of the points raised.
- I am recounting my student experiences (too many years ago alas), and most of what I said relates to how other students engaged in discussions and debates.
- I still interact with academics, and also professional scientists, and I cannot recollect any discussion on ToE, and certainly nothing resembling a debate. We regard ToE as one branch of biology, and in the Universities I have carried out research, I cannot recall any class or course on ToE.
- My point on theistic evolution was to illustrate that scientific subjects are neither atheistic or theistic. Since atheists annul any belief in God, the subject is irrelevant. ALSO if some think it is theistic, they must, from sheer necessity, discuss theology. If they do, science can be included in a philosophical context to enable meaningful discusions that eventually become theological.
THUS, just as atheistic science is nonsensical, so is theistic science. ToE cannot be an exception, otherwise it ceases to be a branch of science.
- My comments mean atheists cannot imo participate in theological debates (by definition), scientists cannot consider ourselves as theologians, and opinions should take a philosophical point of view. This means creationists of any stripe should also avoid presenting science as if it were based on theology.
The only war that I am aware of is from anti-theists who use ToE as a belief system to attack religion, and between YEC and various TEstrains, along with ID.
Orthodoxy simply regards science as an interesting subject, an activity by us humans, and is more interested in what are good or bad outcomes.
My comments from the distant past point to how some students took ToE - without question, This still strikes me as odd, as a scientist, I prefer to question everything, especially my discipline.
1 Like
I agree; I have also made the point that universities that I have carried out research did not, to the best of my knowledge, offer any course on biological evolution. I recently found a sub-subject taught in a class on Zoology that mentioned evolution. I have also noted recent changes to classes on the environment that at times mention evolution.
So it is not such a big deal - as I state below, my remarks deal with those exciting student days when we would debate many subjects between students - these often had the flavour of Dawkins and insistence that we accept evolution without question.
As usual you are another that twists my words around to mean what you wish - just plain wrong. 