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

[zippy2006]

One belief I see fairly regularly is Creationists assuming Evolution is some form of atheist plot. In other words Evolution is seen as having been invented or promoted with the express intention of undermining Christianity.

I think Philo's points are correct, and you follow suit here:

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens are the main reason ToE is associated so much with atheism.

I agree, and this is at the heart of the thread. Let's take your proposition in isolation:

...Evolution is seen as having been invented or promoted with the express intention of undermining Christianity.

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have "promoted Evolution with the express intention of undermining Christianity." They have done so in a public and popular way. Their primary target has been Creationism, but they often claim that non-Creationism Christianity is merely a watered down form of Christianity. Note that even the person Warden specifically singled out as an example cited Dawkins directly (link).

Now the way that Dawkins and company attack Christianity is by using Evolution to disprove a claim that they see as central to Christianity. This is precisely the sort of argumentation that is highlighted in posts such as #4, #8, #13, #29, etc. All of those posts are on target. They are identifying the very sorts of evolutionary conclusions that anti-Christians wield against Christianity.

In #18 the OP says, "What I am asking for is where, in the literature about the theory of evolution, written by Darwin or anyone, the theory of evolution states, clearly in black and white, that is is anti-God or anti-Christianity." I think we agree that this question is not very sensible, and you are suggesting that we shift the goalposts towards the proposition that I singled out above.

Supposing that we do shift those goalposts, I would say that it is uncontroversial that "promotion" occurs regularly. As for "invention," I am not knowledgeable enough to say. My sense is that Darwin himself was not motivated in that way, but I don't know enough about how the nascent theory was developed and propagated to speak to other figures. I know that the topic quickly became polemical, as indicated by things like the controversy surrounding the Huxley-Wilberforce drama.

So even if we grant that a motivation to undermine Christianity did not contribute to the original theory of evolution, the issue quickly became polemical and by the time Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens entered the scene Evolution was being explicitly and intentionally used as a weapon against Christianity. So when the Creationist says that Evolution is a threat to their Christianity and has been weaponized against it, I would say that they are perfectly correct. Evolution, especially as it is understood in the 21st century, is "anti-God" and "anti-Christianity" according to the Creationist's understanding of Christianity.* SEP <states this directly>.

* Or more precisely, it is contrary to God's revelation as understood by Creationist Christians.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

Pretty simple. It is the rejection of this scripture.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Again, that's now my question. I'm asking: Show me where in the theory of evolution it is anti-God, or anti-Christianity.

I like your focus!

 

[NBB]

Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary'

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Stephen Hawking: 'Science Makes God Unnecessary'

That reads more as Hawking's personal opinion than scientific fact.

And not something found in the theory of evolution.

 

[NBB]

That reads more as Hawking's personal opinion than scientific fact.

And not something found in the theory of evolution.

Its very relevant, one of 'top' scientists saying all that, is super relevant to this thread since evolution is part of science 'supposedly' so yes believing everything has an explanation without God is anti god and a garrafal error.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

Evolution denies that God is Creator. "Creator" is one of God's fundamental characteristics. It's how unbelievers may know that there is a God. The Bible uses words like "create", "make", "form", none of which are compatible with "evolve." Evolution is the basis for the lie that mankind in no better than an animal with a bit more intelligence. God states that we are made in His image.

No animal is considered morally culpable. If a lion attacks a human, it is just being a lion. Imagine if that principle was being applied to mankind. But that is the logic of evolution, not that evolutionists will accept that.

Unbelievers look for reasons to deny God. Evolution is as good an excuse as any.

 

[Aussie Pete]

While I certainly believe in evolution, I believe I can explain one of the standard objections. As you likely know, Christians embrace the concept of original sin - that all was hunky-dory in the world (no death or decay) until human beings sinned (in the Garden). Then, and only then so the Christian model purports, did death, for any organisms, enter the picture. Or at least that is my understanding - others can correct me if I am wrong.

I think you would agree that this is incompatible the theory of evolution - bazillions of organisms have died before modern humans appeared on the scene.

You don't know that. You were not there. Only God knows for sure. However, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation that does not require evolution. It is that there was a creation prior to what is described in Genesis 1. It is perfectly reasonable to translate the word "was", "became". It's known as pre-Adamic creation or "gap theory". Watchman Nee's "Mystery of Creation" goes into it in depth. The theory has been around for centuries, way before evolution was a thing.

 

[Aussie Pete]

While I certainly believe in evolution, I believe I can explain one of the standard objections. As you likely know, Christians embrace the concept of original sin - that all was hunky-dory in the world (no death or decay) until human beings sinned (in the Garden). Then, and only then so the Christian model purports, did death, for any organisms, enter the picture. Or at least that is my understanding - others can correct me if I am wrong.

I think you would agree that this is incompatible the theory of evolution - bazillions of organisms have died before modern humans appeared on the scene.

If man evolved, how can he be made in God's image? How could he be a sinner? Evolution poses more questions than it answers.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Its very relevant, one of 'top' scientists saying all that, is super relevant to this thread since evolution is part of science 'supposedly' so yes believing everything has an explanation without God is anti god and a garrafal error.

Except that it's not something found in any literature of evolution, nor in the theory of evolution itself either. So, no, it's not relevant to the thread.

Again, I'm asking specifically for references to the theory of evolution saying that it is anti-God or ant-Christianity.

Also, garrafal. That is my knowledge of Spanish words increased by one extra word.

 

[NBB]

Except that it's not something found in any literature of evolution, nor in the theory of evolution itself either. So, no, it's not relevant to the thread.

Again, I'm asking specifically for references to the theory of evolution saying that it is anti-God or ant-Christianity.

Also, garrafal. That is my knowledge of Spanish words increased by one extra word.

It's super relevant for me to this thread.
Evolution enables people like him to think that kind of stuff, evolutionist believe evolution is a process that does its thing alone without needing any help, where is God in that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's super relevant for me to this thread.
Evolution enables people like him to think that kind of stuff, evolutionist believe evolution is a process that does its thing alone without needing any help, where is God in that?

Okay, but again: where does it say that in the theory of evolution? Where does it say in the theory of evolution that it is anti-God? And people can easily accept both evolution and God into their lives. They are not mutually exclusive things.

Claiming it's one thing is one thing, but showing that it says such a thing is a very different thing.

 

[NBB]

Okay, but again: where does it say that in the theory of evolution? Where does it say in the theory of evolution that it is anti-God? And people can easily accept both evolution and God into their lives. They are not mutually exclusive things.

Claiming it's one thing is one thing, but showing that it says such a thing is a very different thing.

Of course they say!, you saw documentaries do you, first was the worm the worm 'mutated' into a fish, the fish mutated etc etc, of course is anti God, they explain that mutations and natural selection on an a organism for evolution to work is all you need to create every life on the planet. I don't see them saying 'things looks so complex that maybe it was designed' if you say that they 'throw you off the univerisity club' for being a creationist dumb.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course they say!, you saw documentaries do you, first was the worm the worm 'mutated' into a fish, the fish mutated etc etc, of course is anti God, they explain that mutations and natural selection on an a organism for evolution to work is all you need to create every life on the planet. I don't see them saying 'things looks so complex that maybe it was designed' if you say that they 'throw you off the univerisity club' for being a creationist dumb.

No, I see people following the science of what we see in God's creation. If you want to say it is anti-God, actually show me that it's someone writing about the theory of evolution saying it is anti-God.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

Lets say 99% of such theories do not recognize God as the Creator of life. The Bible does that.

Forty-one percent of students surveyed correctly reported that to accept evolution, a person would have to reject a literal interpretation of Judeo-Christian religious texts. “Accepting Evolution Means You Can’t Believe in God”: Atheistic Perceptions of Evolution among College Biology Students

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Lets say 99% of such theories do not recognize God as the Creator of life. The Bible does that.

That source is an opinion poll. Those are hardly scientific to begin with.

And there's a difference between being anti-God, and being indifferent to God.

 

[Bradskii]

It's super relevant for me to this thread.
Evolution enables people like him to think that kind of stuff, evolutionist believe evolution is a process that does its thing alone without needing any help, where is God in that?

I lost my belief in God before I headed down the scientific path (and read The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris - a pre Dawkins intro to evolution).

I'd already rejected six day creation, Adam and Eve and floods etc. They were stories that told me what other people thought of God when the bible was written. But if I'd read about evolution whilst still believing in God I would have thought 'Ah, that's how He did it'. Rejecting the idea of God had nothing at all to do with learning about a particular scientific theory.

 

[expos4ever]

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

I think your question is a tad unclear. I suggest it is obvious that the theory of evolution was not created with the goal of undermining traditional Christian doctrine on the matter of origins.

However, I suggest it is equally obvious that what the theory says does indeed challenge the views of a person who takes Scripture literally.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think your question is a tad unclear. I suggest it is obvious that the theory of evolution was not created with the goal of undermining traditional Christian doctrine on the matter of origins.

However, I suggest it is equally obvious that what the theory says does indeed challenge the views of a person who takes Scripture literally.

How is my question unclear?

 

[expos4ever]

And there's a difference between being anti-God, and being indifferent to God.

Agree, and per my last post, I believe the theory of evolution is "indifferent to God" in the sense that it was not developed with any agenda to undermine traditional Christian belief.

But undermine it it does, at least on my understanding.