Atheistic evolutionists.....

[Mr Cleaver]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

 

[Gishin]

Have to understand where we came from in order to understand where we're going.

 

[tanzanos]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

No Evolution = No Biology
No Biology = No Medicine
No Medicine = Let's bash each other on the head with our clubs!!!!!!

 

[lawtonfogle]

Have to understand where we came from in order to understand where we're going.

Any point and a velocity vector is all you need.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

Our brains are superbly refined pattern-recognising machines, so it's no wonder we recognise patterns in biology. Those same brains also yearn to understand why the patterns exist (while it's immensely useful to recognise that lions hang out by waterholes, understanding why gives you an even better advantage).

We've just become more esoteric and sophisticated in our ponderings .

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Deep down, I know that God exists, but I live as though He doesn't so I can continue my hedonistic lifestyle. In order to try and fill the spiritual hole in my soul, I converted to the religion of evolution.

 

[BananaSlug]

Because it is just interesting to know that our planet's life's history is a long road complete with twists, turns, and potholes. That despite climate changes, volcanism, asteroid bombardment, and other disasters life here has continued to survive. The fact all living things on earth are interelated shows that we are a part of this great planet and that would should strive to take care of it. That to me is much more amazing and awe-inspiring than some deity farting out a universe.

 

[Bombila]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

Curiousity has always been a driving force of our species. Most mammals have less or more curiousity about their environment; we just extend that curiousity further. We desire to know, to find out answers regarding our origins, and in searching out those answers, we find a lot of very useful information that lets us make medicine and fix broken health and build new and brilliant tools. But curiousity leads us.

Do you have a theistic explanation for why the question of origins is not of any concern to you? Why are you content to take the word of men long dead? Do you avoid any technology, any medicines, that have been developed as a result of our curious searching for more rational answers?

 

[Washington]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

Please. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[Markus6]

Any point and a velocity vector is all you need.

If only that were possible. Curse that Heisenberg chap!

Please. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

Perhaps he was talk about the origins of species?

 

[sbvera13]

No Evolution = No Biology
No Biology = No Medicine
No Medicine = Let's bash each other on the head with our clubs!!!!!!

Hit it right on on the head.

 

[Washington]

Perhaps he was talk about the origins of species?

If that's the case then it should be quite apparent why an evolutionist would be interested in the origins of various species. It's one of the core concerns of evolutionary science: "Why or how did this species come from that species?" But I don't think this is what Mr Cleaver has in mind. HOWEVER, if it is only about the origin of all the various species, then any introductory text on evolution should suffice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Please. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

No, but it has everything to do with the origin of biodiversity. Though it is stunning how many Creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis...

 

[lucaspa]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

First, evolution is not atheism. For Christians, evolution is simply how God created.

Second, I did this in detail in another thread (the "intellectually fulfilled" thread). Maybe somebody will be kind enough to link to it. This time I'll give the short version.

In the late 1700s there were several logical arguments for the existence of God. There was "Prime Mover" and others. One of the arguments was the Argument from Design. The argument is that the only way (at that time, remember) that people knew how to get design was to have an intelligent entity (people) make it. The watch on the heath argument. Well, living organisms obviously have designs and these are very complex and beyond the ability of humans to make them (at the time, remember). So, the logic ran, the only way to have designs in plants and animals was to have a supernatural intelligent entity -- God -- make them.

In the late 1700s David Hume -- as ardent an atheist as ever lived -- wrote a book called Dialogue Concerning Natural Theology. In it he found fatal flaws with all the logical arguments for the existence of God except the Argument from Design. Hume had to concede the AfD. He saved a little pride by calling the designer "Mind" instead of "God", but it was the same thing.

In the mid 1850s Darwin and Wallace (and a few other people) independently discover an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Suddenly the Argument from Design has a fatal flaw. Plants and animals don't have to be designed by a "Mind", they can be made by natural selection. Thus, the AfD dissappears as a "proof" of the existence of God. (God doesn't disappear, but the "proof" does).

So, that's why origins are important to atheists. If natural selection is invalid, then the AfD is back. This is why you see creationists (and particularly Intelligent Designers) trying so hard to find something in plants and animals that can't be designed by natural selection. Behe has irreducible complexity. Dembski has complex, specified information. They are all trying to make the AfD valid again.

Also, creationists mistakenly use god-of-the-gaps theology. They say that if there is a gap in the material connections between things in the universe -- such as animals and humans or non-life and living cells -- then we have say "God directly made the thing". Again, that would then be a "proof" of the existence of God. So, to atheists origins are important in that there are no gaps.

Ironically, god-of-the-gaps theology is wrong theology. According to Christianity, there should be no gaps. So atheists are reacting to theology that is wrong. But many react anyway because they don't know the theology is wrong.

Is that clear?

 

[Hespera]

First, evolution is not atheism. For Christians, evolution is simply how God created.

Second, I did this in detail in another thread (the "intellectually fulfilled" thread). Maybe somebody will be kind enough to link to it. This time I'll give the short version.

In the late 1700s there were several logical arguments for the existence of God. There was "Prime Mover" and others. One of the arguments was the Argument from Design. The argument is that the only way (at that time, remember) that people knew how to get design was to have an intelligent entity (people) make it. The watch on the heath argument. Well, living organisms obviously have designs and these are very complex and beyond the ability of humans to make them (at the time, remember). So, the logic ran, the only way to have designs in plants and animals was to have a supernatural intelligent entity -- God -- make them.

In the late 1700s David Hume -- as ardent an atheist as ever lived -- wrote a book called Dialogue Concerning Natural Theology. In it he found fatal flaws with all the logical arguments for the existence of God except the Argument from Design. Hume had to concede the AfD. He saved a little pride by calling the designer "Mind" instead of "God", but it was the same thing.

In the mid 1850s Darwin and Wallace (and a few other people) independently discover an unintelligent process that gives design: natural selection. Suddenly the Argument from Design has a fatal flaw. Plants and animals don't have to be designed by a "Mind", they can be made by natural selection. Thus, the AfD dissappears as a "proof" of the existence of God. (God doesn't disappear, but the "proof" does).

So, that's why origins are important to atheists. If natural selection is invalid, then the AfD is back. This is why you see creationists (and particularly Intelligent Designers) trying so hard to find something in plants and animals that can't be designed by natural selection. Behe has irreducible complexity. Dembski has complex, specified information. They are all trying to make the AfD valid again.

Also, creationists mistakenly use god-of-the-gaps theology. They say that if there is a gap in the material connections between things in the universe -- such as animals and humans or non-life and living cells -- then we have say "God directly made the thing". Again, that would then be a "proof" of the existence of God. So, to atheists origins are important in that there are no gaps.

Ironically, god-of-the-gaps theology is wrong theology. According to Christianity, there should be no gaps. So atheists are reacting to theology that is wrong. But many react anyway because they don't know the theology is wrong.

Is that clear?

Yeah well what about irreducible complexity huh? And how about the fact that things are just TOO COMPLEX to have "just happened by random chance" huh?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yeah well what about irreducible complexity huh? And how about the fact that things are just TOO COMPLEX to have "just happened by random chance" huh?

Just what is irreduciblebly complex exactly? And just what is "TOO COMPLEX" to have happened by random chance exactly?

As Dawkins says, out of all the billions of probable planets, life only had to happen once.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

wow i think hespera is trying her poe.

 

[rjw]

... do you have an atheistic and/or evolutionary explanation for why the question of origins should be of any concern to you?

Atheistic: Whether God/the gods exist or not, I wish to know how life came to be, how rain comes to be, how clouds come to be, how rocks come to be, how stars come to be, how wind comes to be, ... So, even though I do not think that the supernatural exist, I still want to find these things out.

Evolutionary: We humans evolved with large brains. Either as an adaptation or as an "unintended" consequence of, we have this thing called curiosity. Curiosity ensures that many of us to ask these questions and attempt to address them.

Thus, while some folk think that God or gods cause wind and rain, many of us (theists and atheists) think that these are caused by nature and that this cause can be known. The former group appear not concerned to find out why wind occurs, or how rain originates - other than to say that God/ the gods do it. The latter group, because they think these questions can be answered, attempt to find out what those answers are.




Regards, Roland

 

[Maximum]

Um, can't Argument from Design be simply refuted by asking "who designed the designer?"

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, can't Argument from Design be simply refuted by asking "who designed the designer?"

No one did --- God is self-existing.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.