The Logical Pathway From "Evolution is wrong" to "Therefore God"

[The Cadet]

Can anyone help me understand this? In another thread, a member tried to explain to me that the only reason people like me cling to the theory of evolution is because if evolution is untrue, belief in god must follow. I asked him to explain this logic, but he opted not to, accusing me of "already knowing". But he neglected something in this: I'm an ignoramus!

No, seriously, I'm kinda dumb! There are a lot of things I just don't know! I've repeatedly bowed out of cosmology discussions because I barely know anything about basic physics, let alone quantum physics or astrophysics. And, if it turns out most of what colloquially gets referred to as "evolutionary science" is wrong, then there are a lot more things I don't know as well.

If the theory of evolution is wrong, I have no way of accounting for the diversity of life on the planet. I don't know. Haven't the foggiest what valid alternative there might be.
If the theory of abiogenesis is wrong, I have no way of accounting for the existence of life on this planet. I don't know!
If our understanding of cosmology is wrong, again, I have no way of explaining how everything came to be. I don't know.

Some people claim that if these are wrong, it leads to god. I'd like to ask... How? God is a proposed explanation, sure, but it's a false dichotomy to propose either God or Evolution. What if there was some other, as-of-yet undiscovered mechanism for the birth and diversification of life? It's not like some boolean choice - proving evolution wrong does not necessarily tell us that God is true, it just means that we need some other explanation. God might be that explanation, but it needs to be justified, just like any other explanation. That means we need evidence that God did these things.

What I've seen so far, however, is a big fat argument from ignorance. "We don't know that cause, therefore god". This argument has been used countless times, and never once has it been a good argument, as things attributed to god, or spirits, or the supernatural are constantly revealed to be nothing more than natural phenomena.

So is there a logical pathway from "Evolution is wrong" to "God did it"? If so, I'd love to see it, because, as said above, I'm kinda dumb, and it's something not immediately obvious to me.

 

[Armoured]

I've asked the same question before. Get ready for either a long wait, or various explanations of "why they shouldn't have to answer that" type answers.

 

[whois]

Can anyone help me understand this?

good question, and both sides are guilty of it.
you cannot question ANY aspect of evolution without being accused of being a creationist.
anybody familiar with my posting history will tell you, i find the concept of god ludicrous, but yet i'm accused constantly of being a creationist.
i try to give both sides an fair representation.

In another thread, a member tried to explain to me that the only reason people like me cling to the theory of evolution is because if evolution is untrue, belief in god must follow.

there are only 3 possibilities in regards to how life got here, well actually 4.
1. natural, some type of "evolution" theory.
2. unnatural, the "god" scenario.
3. life and the universe is eternal, life has always been here.
4. we aren't actually here at all, the holographic universe scenario.

If the theory of evolution is wrong, I have no way of accounting for the diversity of life on the planet. I don't know. Haven't the foggiest what valid alternative there might be.

correction, if the CURRENT theory is wrong.

God is a proposed explanation, sure, but it's a false dichotomy to propose either God or Evolution.

oh man, and i thought i was the only one that believed that.

What if there was some other, as-of-yet undiscovered mechanism for the birth and diversification of life? It's not like some boolean choice - proving evolution wrong does not necessarily tell us that God is true, it just means that we need some other explanation. God might be that explanation, but it needs to be justified, just like any other explanation. That means we need evidence that God did these things.

ba da boom, ba da bing!!
you sir are truly an "outside" the box thinker.

So is there a logical pathway from "Evolution is wrong" to "God did it"? If so, I'd love to see it, because, as said above, I'm kinda dumb, and it's something not immediately obvious to me.

i think most people confuse evolution with darwinism, and they are not the same thing.
darwinism is the current theory for evolution.
on top of that, darwinism doesn't encompass the entire field of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

good question, and both sides are guilty of it.
you cannot question ANY aspect of evolution without being accused of being a creationist.
anybody familiar with my posting history will tell you, i find the concept of god ludicrous, but yet i'm accused constantly of being a creationist.

That's because you quote creationist websites and use creationist arguments.

there are only 3 possibilities in regards to how life got here, well actually 4.
1. natural, some type of "evolution" theory.
2. unnatural, the "god" scenario.
3. life and the universe is eternal, life has always been here.
4. we aren't actually here at all, the holographic universe scenario.

You forgot . . .

5. a natural process that isn't evolution

 

[Armoured]

5. a natural process that isn't evolution

Lamarckianism, for example. Or Spontaneous genesis.

 

[Loudmouth]

We could use the same "logic" (sarcasm quotes) for other scientific ideas through the centuries.

For example, here are the options for phlogiston theory:

1. natural process of releasing phlogiston from burning objects.
2. unnatural, the "god" scenario where god has to make supernatural fire for everything.
3. fire and the universe is eternal, fire has always been here.
4. fire aren't actually here at all, the holographic universe scenario.

Or . . . the natural process of oxidation. What creati . . . ahem, people like whois always forget is the undiscovered natural process. In fact, I have yet to hear of a situation where we have thrown out a natural explanation and replaced it with a verified supernatural mechanism. However, we have replaced millions of supernatural explanations with verified natural explanations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can anyone help me understand this? In another thread, a member tried to explain to me that the only reason people like me cling to the theory of evolution is because if evolution is untrue, belief in god must follow.

God's not even worth second billing, is He?

 

[DogmaHunter]

you cannot question ANY aspect of evolution without being accused of being a creationist.

That is simply not true.
Aspects of evolution theory are questioned every single day by actual working scientists. They aren't called creationists.

Wheter or not you are identified as a creationist has everything to do with your religious views on the matter.

anybody familiar with my posting history will tell you, i find the concept of god ludicrous, but yet i'm accused constantly of being a creationist.
i try to give both sides an fair representation.

If yoiu think the concept of god is ludicrous - why would it need a "fair representation"?

if the concept of god is ludicrous, doesn't it then follow that things attributed to this god are equally ludicrous?

there are only 3 possibilities in regards to how life got here, well actually 4.
1. natural, some type of "evolution" theory.
2. unnatural, the "god" scenario.
3. life and the universe is eternal, life has always been here.
4. we aren't actually here at all, the holographic universe scenario.

I feel like you lack in imagination.
FYI: evolution is not about life got here. it's about the process it is subject to once it actually already exists.

 

[whois]

That is simply not true.
Aspects of evolution theory are questioned every single day by actual working scientists. They aren't called creationists.

Wheter or not you are identified as a creationist has everything to do with your religious views on the matter.

well yes, it is true.
the way i'm referred to as a creationist is typical of such behavior.

If yoiu think the concept of god is ludicrous - why would it need a "fair representation"?

if the concept of god is ludicrous, doesn't it then follow that things attributed to this god are equally ludicrous?

i find abiogenesis equally ludicrous, thats why.
"things becoming alive" flies in the face of everything rational.

I feel like you lack in imagination.
FYI: evolution is not about life got here. it's about the process it is subject to once it actually already exists.

no need to chastise me, i was simply answering the OPs questions regarding the topic.

 

[JasonClark]

you cannot question ANY aspect of evolution without being accused of being a creationist.

That is simply not true, what you cannot do (and this applies to everything) is simply say "It's wrong" without giving a valid reason why you think "It's wrong".
"I don't like it" or "I don't want to believe it" are equally ridiculous, juvenile and inconsequential statements to make, it's like a child saying "I don't like it because I don't".

 

[AV1611VET]

That is simply not true, what you cannot do (and this applies to everything) is simply say "It's wrong" without giving a valid reason why you think "It's wrong".
"I don't like it" or "I don't want to believe it" are equally ridiculous, juvenile and inconsequential statements to make, it's like a child saying "I don't like because I don't".

LOL -- I get that too.

And what is "valid" to one person, may not be valid to the next.

 

[The Cadet]

i find abiogenesis equally ludicrous, thats why.
"things becoming alive" flies in the face of everything rational.

Here's a scary thought for you. "Alive" is not a clearly deliniated term. In organisms like humans, we can usually tell pretty well if someone is alive or not... Or, at least, we used to be able to tell. Was Terry Schiavo alive or dead? Her heart was pumping, her organs were working, her body was warm... But her brain was dead. How do we know that that's "dead"? It's a tricky question, one solved more out of necessity than anything else - a braindead human will never come back from brain death, and essentially at that point is essentially a husk with none of the qualities left that makes them human or even really decently alive.

When it comes to simpler organisms, it's even harder to deliniate. What makes something "alive"? Is this self-replicating complex chemical string contained in a lipid shell "alive"? How about this very early, very simplistic prokaryote? Trick question, I just described the same thing twice. Now how about this group of simplistic prokaryotes which came together to form a useful system? Is that then alive?

There doesn't seem to be any sort of "spark of life", or anything of the sort. While alive/dead may be fairly simple to determine when we ignore modern medical advances and stick to macroscopic animals, what has been found is that, overwhelmingly, whether something is alive or not is a very hard question to answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a scary thought for you. "Alive" is not a clearly deliniated term.

Unless it applies to the philosophy behind abortion, where "live," "live," and "alive" become three different things.

 

[whois]

Here's a scary thought for you. "Alive" is not a clearly deliniated term. In organisms like humans, we can usually tell pretty well if someone is alive or not... Or, at least, we used to be able to tell. Was Terry Schiavo alive or dead? Her heart was pumping, her organs were working, her body was warm... But her brain was dead. How do we know that that's "dead"? It's a tricky question, one solved more out of necessity than anything else - a braindead human will never come back from brain death, and essentially at that point is essentially a husk with none of the qualities left that makes them human or even really decently alive.

When it comes to simpler organisms, it's even harder to deliniate. What makes something "alive"? Is this self-replicating complex chemical string contained in a lipid shell "alive"? How about this very early, very simplistic prokaryote? Trick question, I just described the same thing twice. Now how about this group of simplistic prokaryotes which came together to form a useful system? Is that then alive?

There doesn't seem to be any sort of "spark of life", or anything of the sort. While alive/dead may be fairly simple to determine when we ignore modern medical advances and stick to macroscopic animals, what has been found is that, overwhelmingly, whether something is alive or not is a very hard question to answer.

biologists seem to answer the question quite nicely with the biological living cell.
i believe this is about as close as we can get.
the cell, what we find in plants and animals.

 

[The Cadet]

biologists seem to answer the question quite nicely with the biological living cell.
i believe this is about as close as we can get.
the cell, what we find in plants and animals.

Yes, but when we look back through time, we find that most likely, the first cells were incredibly simplistic, to the point where such definitions are questionable at best. It's not a clear-cut divide. There's not some unbridgeable gap between non-living matter and living matter.

 

[whois]

Yes, but when we look back through time, we find that most likely, the first cells were incredibly simplistic, to the point where such definitions are questionable at best.

here is a link for the criteria of "what is alive"
infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7characterisitcs_of_life.htm

It's not a clear-cut divide. There's not some unbridgeable gap between non-living matter and living matter.

maybe, maybe not.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, but when we look back through time, we find that most likely, the first cells were incredibly simplistic, to the point where such definitions are questionable at best. It's not a clear-cut divide. There's not some unbridgeable gap between non-living matter and living matter.

I admire the glib way in which you refer to a hypothetical past situation as though it had actually occurred.

More to the point – I think that it entirely depends on one's definition of "evolution." If one adopts the definition of evolution found in a biology textbook, then neither acceptance nor rejection of evolution results in a belief in God.

If, however, one rejects the idea that life arose spontaneously without any supernatural intervention... then it follows logically that one must believe that life arose thanks to supernatural intervention.

That's what we call the law of the excluded middle.

 

[Loudmouth]

If, however, one rejects the idea that life arose spontaneously without any supernatural intervention... then it follows logically that one must believe that life arose thanks to supernatural intervention.

Belief is not evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

Belief is not evidence.

You must be in the wrong thread. The title of this thread is:

"The logical pathway from evolution is wrong to therefore God."

 

[Loudmouth]

You must be in the wrong thread. The title of this thread is:

"The logical pathway from evolution is wrong to therefore God."

I am in the right thread.

It is the same as asking "The logical pathway from Newtonian gravity is wrong to therefore gravity fairies".

Saying, "I believe in gravity fairies" is not the logical pathway.