Challenge thread: Show me where in evolution is it anti-God.

[AV1611VET]

If a Creationist believes we're all lying then the obvious questions is 'why?"

I personally don't think you're lying; but I do think you are perpetuating a lie without knowing it.

There's a difference.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a claim that is bandied around so often by people who are antagonistic towards the theory of evolution; that is is anti-God. That it was designed to replace God and Christianity.

And yet, not once have I seen anyone actually present where in the theory of evolution it says that.

Hence this challenge: Show me where in the theory of evolution it is anti-God, or anti-Christianity.

In my personal evaluation, I don't see the ToE as anti-God, but at the same time we have the balking of philosophers like Daniel Dennett (in tandem with the position of Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne) who has seen evolution as a "universal acid" that erodes any need for a Grand Designer and hence, any need to continue religious beliefs.

The interesting thing, too, is that we all know not only where Darwin's religious beliefs more or less ended up............we also know where Robert FitzRoy ended up.

I can understand some of the misgivings that other Christians have against the whole idea of evolution, and they'd be correct to say that if handled by the wrong hands, it can be corrosive to faith.

But it needn't be.

 

[Occams Barber]

I personally don't think you're lying; but I do think you are perpetuating a lie without knowing it.

There's a difference.

Then that means you're not one of those Creationists who believe that ToE was made up to undermine Christianity.

For the purposes of this discussion it's immaterial whether ToE is real or false. The issue is why it came into existence and is perpetuated. Many Creationists believe it's an atheistic plot to undermine Christianity by providing a non biblical explanation for life.

OB

 

[lsume]

There is a claim that is bandied around so often by people who are antagonistic towards the theory of evolution; that is is anti-God. That it was designed to replace God and Christianity.

And yet, not once have I seen anyone actually present where in the theory of evolution it says that.

Hence this challenge: Show me where in the theory of evolution it is anti-God, or anti-Christianity.

The truth I believe is that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. When he created the creatures that occupy earth, it was done in the order outlined in Genesis. How it was done is beyond me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The interesting thing, too, is that we all know not only where Darwin's religious beliefs more or less ended up............but we also know where Robert FitzRoy ended up.

According to Wikipedia, it was New Zealand. He also basically invented forecasts and also tried his best to help protect the Maori people from illegal land grabs by British settlers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to Wikipedia, it was New Zealand. He also basically invented forecasts and also tried his best to help protect the Maori people from illegal land grabs by British settlers.

Keep reading.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Keep reading.

Yeah, he felt horrible about his contributions (wholly unplanned) to The Origin of Species.

He also helped put into place gale storm warnings and became a hero for fisherman throughout Britain.

What am I missing, except that this guy was really impressive.

 

[Occams Barber]

In my personal evaluation, I don't see the ToE as anti-God, but at the same time we have the balking of philosophers like Daniel Dennett (in tandem with the position of Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne) who has seen evolution as a "universal acid" that erodes any need for a Grand Designer and hence, any need to continue religious beliefs.

The ToE nicely fills the 'where do we come from' hole in the minds of many atheists. The fact that ToE may weaken religious belief doesn't mean it was invented or perpetuated in order to weaken religious belief. Actual impact and intended impact are two different things. Nor can the Theory be rejected based on its broader implications.

The interesting thing, too, is that we all know not only where Darwin's religious beliefs more or less ended up............but we also know where Robert FitzRoy ended up.

Darwin's later (non) religious beliefs probably owe a lot to the death of his beloved daughter. Biographers seem to agree that this hit him particularly hard and may have led to change of attitude towrads Christianity.

Talking of Fitzroy - I have an 1895 copy of the Voyage of the Beagle which I stole from my father who stole it from his father (it's a family tradition )

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, he felt horrible about his contributions (wholly unplanned) to The Origin of Species.

He also helped put into place gale storm warnings and became a hero for fisherman throughout Britain.

What am I missing, except that this guy was really impressive.

You're a smart person, and I think you can put 2 and 2 together as it applies to Fitzroy. On the one side of the debate around evolution and religion, there's Occam's Razor to consider; but at the same time, there is also Fitzroy's.

Even with the above being the case, my intent here isn't to smack you in the face. I essentially agree with you that the ToE is not anti-God, but I think you and I can see that it does seem to be so to a great many people, even educated, accomplished ones like Fitzroy. And for some, like Dennett, the ToE is indeed seen to be a "corrosive acid," it's just that it can be not only philosophically but also emotionally.

Maybe evolutionists could do better than Daniel Dennett and his entourage have done in this regard?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution has now superseded theism as the ultimate explanation for the human being and the natural world in many parts of the West.

Progress. See, it can be achieved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're a smart person, and I think you can put 2 and 2 together as it applies to Fitzgerald. On the one say of the debate around evolution and religion, there's Occam's Razor to consider; but at the same time, there is also Fitzgerald's.

Even with the above being that case, my intent here isn't to smack you in the face. I essentially agree with you that the ToE is not anti-God, but I think you and I can see that it does seem to be so to a great many people, even educated, accomplished ones like Fitzgerald. And for some, like Dennett, the ToE is indeed seen to be a "corrosive acid," it's just that it can be not only philosophically but also emotionally.

Maybe evolutionist could do better than Daniel Dennett and his entourage have done in this regard?

Oh, Fitzgerald was basically a man shaken in his faith very badly by what he perceived as an attack on his faith. Though the episode does remind me of the scene in the film Gettysburg where the Confederate generals are talking about Darwin's theory and man coming from apes.

Also, I have no idea who Daniel Dennett is. I mainly stick to military history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The ToE nicely fills the 'where do we come from' hole in the minds of many atheists. The fact that ToE may weaken religious belief doesn't mean it was invented or perpetuated in order to weaken religious belief. Actual impact and intended impact are two different things. Nor can the Theory be rejected based on its broader implications.



Darwin's later (non) religious beliefs probably owe a lot to the death of his beloved daughter. Biographers seem to agree that this hit him particularly hard and may have led to change of attitude towrads Christianity.

Talking of Fitzroy - I have an 1895 copy of the Voyage of the Beagle which I stole from my father who stole it from his father (its a family tradition )

OB

Yeah, I agree. And?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, Fitzgerald was basically a man shaken in his faith very badly by what he perceived as an attack on his faith. Though the episode does remind me of the scene in the film Gettysburg where the Confederate generals are talking about Darwin's theory and man coming from apes.

Also, I have no idea who Daniel Dennett is. I mainly stick to military history.

Oops! I meant Fitzroy.

Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher who has in the past worked with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, back when they were known as the "Four Horseman."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oops! I meant Fitzroy.

Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher who has in the past worked with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, back when they were known as the "Four Horseman."

I didn't even notice the blunder, so don't worry about it.

And knowing that he's associated with Dawkins... I'm going to steer clear since I imagine a lot of what could be said about him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Talking of Fitzroy - I have an 1895 copy of the Voyage of the Beagle which I stole from my father who stole it from his father (it's a family tradition )

If you have a son you either need to be wary of him, or look forward to his continuation of family tradition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't even notice the blunder, so don't worry about it.

And knowing that he's associated with Dawkins... I'm going to steer clear since I imagine a lot of what could be said about him.

Yep. Now you can understand the direction I'm intending to point and why some Christians feel so strongly against evolution.

Moreover, not only am I referring to Dennett in some of this, I'm also pulling some of my influences of thought regarding Darwin and Fitzroy from the book of atheist James Rachels', Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. It's there that I read for the first time years ago that Fitzroy killed himself, and at least some of that impetus likely had to do with his misgivings about Darwin's theory and having been the person who led the way for Darwin aboard his ship, the Beagle.

 

[Occams Barber]

I didn't even notice the blunder, so don't worry about it.

And knowing that he's associated with Dawkins... I'm going to steer clear since I imagine a lot of what could be said about him.

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are the main reason ToE is associated so much with atheism. These 4 were heavily involved in the opposition to teaching Creationism in schools. As publicly declared atheists they also contributed to the 'coming out' of many US atheists who were reluctant to openly admit to their lack of faith. To some extent they legitimised atheism in the US.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

If you have a son you either need to be wary of him, or look forward to his continuation of family tradition.

I have two sons - the oldest just turned 40. They occasionally buy me old books.

Neither is aware of this particular book since I have it buried among the 800 or so lining my walls. I'm saving it for a death bed confession.

OB

 

[Yttrium]

If a Creationist believes we're all lying then the obvious questions is 'why?" Why would science 'invent' the ToE?

There's a variety of different Christian outlooks on this, but I think you've already answered the question. It's supposedly an attempt to undermine Christianity.

The more paranoid version believes that it's all a conspiracy to undermine Christianity, led by Satan. It's an attempt to deceive true believers and lure them away from God's word. It includes a slippery slope argument. The more you allow for parts of the Bible to be untrue, the more inclined you are to allow for any parts of the Bible to be untrue, and the farther you move away from God.

 

[Occams Barber]

There's a variety of different Christian outlooks on this, but I think you've already answered the question. It's supposedly an attempt to undermine Christianity.

If you go back to @Warden_of_the_Storm 's OP you'll see that he assumed from the beginning that ToE was seen, by Creationists, as an attempt to undermine Christianity.

The question he asked in the OP was basically:

If you believe the ToE is intended to undermine Christianity what evidence do you have?
​

The thread explores the idea that Creationists have no real basis for assuming an intention to undermine Christianity - just a convenient excuse.

I unintentionally hijacked the thread when I saw posters consistently misunderstanding the OP. (sorry
@Warden_of_the_Storm )

OB