Athiest non-evolutionist

[Wiccan_Child]

Panspermia usually still implies that abiogenesis and evolution occurred somewhere else. Otherwise, it would infinitely regress.

Panspermia with infinite regress, or panspermia with a 'bootstrap' temporal paradox, both sound like fun topics of conversation

Panspermia.

No, Panspermia still allows for both Abiogenesis and Evolution so it's not non evolution.

I'm with AV on this one - the question is what a non-evolutionary atheist believes regarding the origin of diversity of life, and panspermia is a valid response.

The non-evolutionary atheist may well believe that life on Earth as we see it today was specially created (i.e., did not evolve) by natural, biological alien life (i.e., not a deity), which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself... ad infinitum. Such a belief system is a) atheistic (it doesn't invoke deities), and b) non-evolutionary (evolution is not the origin of biodiversity).

Thus, panspermia qualifies as a valid answer to the OP, in my opinion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's only one requirement for being an atheist: not believing in the existence of God or gods.

There's no "must" about it. "I don't know how human beings got here" is a consistent answer with being an atheist. That is a sufficient answer.

As for panspermia, that's not an alternative to Evolution! It's an alternative to abiogenesis taking place on Earth. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different issues.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I'm with AV on this one - the question is what a non-evolutionary atheist believes regarding the origin of diversity of life, and panspermia is a valid response.

The non-evolutionary atheist may well believe that life on Earth as we see it today was specially created (i.e., did not evolve) by natural, biological alien life (i.e., not a deity), which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself... ad infinitum. Such a belief system is a) atheistic (it doesn't invoke deities), and b) non-evolutionary (evolution is not the origin of biodiversity).

Thus, panspermia qualifies as a valid answer to the OP, in my opinion.

Panspermia is, unfortunately, a vague concept. At its core though it really just replaces abiogenesis happening on earth by claiming that life was seeded here. You would still have to explain the origin of that life from somewhere else. But most of the time, advocates of panspermia do not deny that evolution is responsible for biodiversity, unless they believe the seeders (be they aliens or something) specially created every species. Aliens specially creating every species is essentially intelligent design though.

 

[Tomk80]

Thus, panspermia qualifies as a valid answer to the OP, in my opinion.

It cannot qualify. The OP states atheists who do not believe in evolution. Unless panspermia has somehow given rise to all the currently living species on this planet, and I don't think anyone has ever proposed that.

 

[Styx87]

{snip}
Aliens specially creating every species is essentially intelligent design though.

True, but it's not religion because it's not supernatural and doesn't account for the possible existence of a soul so this counts.

It's possible that some could believe that all life was genetically engineered and again seeded onto earth in steps or phases. However even in this scenario one must still recognize both micro and macro evolution to some degree even if they don't attribute it to all biodiversity.

They could claim that each of the following was engineered and placed on earth by aliens...

• Class Agnatha (jawless fishes)
• Class Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
• Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes)
• Class Amphibia (amphibians)
• Class Reptilia (reptiles)
• Class Aves (birds)
• Class Mammalia (mammals)

It's ridiculous but people can believe what ever they want... there's even some suggestive evidence for this one (crop circles etc.)

 

[USincognito]

I'm with AV on this one - the question is what a non-evolutionary atheist believes regarding the origin of diversity of life, and panspermia is a valid response.

Put me in the disagree column. Panspermia only suggests an alternative, other than on Earth for the seeds of life (it's clear that AV doesn't understand what the "spermia" in panspermia means), not what happened to that seeded primordial life once it arrived on Earth. It is the diversity of extant life on Earth that is addressed by evolution, not the source of it, which invalidates it as a response to the OP and a typical AV diversionary inanity offered by someone who after all these years still doesn't know what evolution actually is.

 

[Michael]

Panspermia with infinite regress, or panspermia with a 'bootstrap' temporal paradox, both sound like fun topics of conversation



I'm with AV on this one - the question is what a non-evolutionary atheist believes regarding the origin of diversity of life, and panspermia is a valid response.

The non-evolutionary atheist may well believe that life on Earth as we see it today was specially created (i.e., did not evolve) by natural, biological alien life (i.e., not a deity), which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself seeded by prior life, which was itself... ad infinitum. Such a belief system is a) atheistic (it doesn't invoke deities), and b) non-evolutionary (evolution is not the origin of biodiversity).

Thus, panspermia qualifies as a valid answer to the OP, in my opinion.

I agree as well. Panspermia is a valid possibility even as I view things. God is simply the equivalent of "creator" of the original DNA, and also plays the role of "Johnny Appleseed".

You have to admit it's a little unusual for you, me and AV to all be in agreement on a topic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Put me in the disagree column. Panspermia only suggests an alternative, other than on Earth for the seeds of life (it's clear that AV doesn't understand what the "spermia" in panspermia means), not what happened to that seeded primordial life once it arrived on Earth. It is the diversity of extant life on Earth that is addressed by evolution, not the source of it, which invalidates it as a response to the OP and a typical AV diversionary inanity offered by someone who after all these years still doesn't know what evolution actually is.

... Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm pretty sure the Raelians are atheist IDers. They just identify the designer(s) as aliens.

Yeah, they have infinite regress of intelligent races building new ones.

 

[Styx87]

Is this the most logical alternative to evolution that we have? Raelians? It's like I was saying before, I can't really find another science based argument against evolution, and while this isn't technically a religion based belief it is still a belief.

I have to be honest, I don't know much of anything about this belief except that it involves extraterrestrials lol.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this the most logical alternative to evolution that we have?

No ... creationism is ... unless you meant atheistic evolution.

 

[variant]

Is this the most logical alternative to evolution that we have? Raelians? It's like I was saying before, I can't really find another science based argument against evolution, and while this isn't technically a religion based belief it is still a belief.

I have to be honest, I don't know much of anything about this belief except that it involves extraterrestrials lol.

The naturalist alternative to the evolutionary hypothesis would be the drift model.

Funny enough it is what Creationists believe Evolution entails, change based upon nothing but random genetic drift and mutation.

 

[Michael]

No ... creationism is ... unless you meant atheistic evolution.

Keep in mind that few atheists grasp the fact that many "Christians" (including the entire Catholic faith) are "theistic evolutionists". That doesn't seem to compute as a valid alternative to most atheists, hence my Johnny Appleseed analogy.

 

[variant]

Keep in mind that few atheists grasp the fact that many "Christians" (including the entire Catholic faith) are "theistic evolutionists". That doesn't seem to compute as a valid alternative to most atheists, hence my Johnny Appleseed analogy.

Theistic evolution is absolutely not a valid alternative for an atheist.

Pssst (they don't believe in God)

 

[Styx87]

The naturalist alternative to the evolutionary hypothesis would be the drift model.

Funny enough it is what Creationists believe Evolution entails, change based upon nothing but random genetic drift and mutation.

I've heard about this but not in detail, can you explain it in better detail please?

(I could look it up but I think it'd be good to have a description on the forums too lol)
*looks it up anyway*

 

[USincognito]

Keep in mind that few atheists grasp the fact that many "Christians" (including the entire Catholic faith) are "theistic evolutionists". That doesn't seem to compute as a valid alternative to most atheists, hence my Johnny Appleseed analogy.

This is incorrect. I would use "most", but one could be uncharitable enough to use "some" when decribing atheists and agnostics who not only accept theistic evolutionists, but embrace them as allies in the battle against YECism.

There's plenty of militant atheists around, but when it comes to the Crevo debate, I would posit they'd be in the minority.

 

[Ken-1122]

A strange anomaly that I've encountered in these debates is the Atheist that does not believe in Evolution. But I'm not clear on what they believe. If they're not religious and don't believe in evolution then how do they explain Biodiversity?

I can't seem to get a clear answer on that so once we do that's what I would like this thread to be about. Discussing and attempting to rationalize that hypothesis.

Edit: This is the requirement for a theory or hypothesis to be put forward.

1. It can't fit the Berkly definition of Evolution.
2. It must exclude a belief in a "God" not mater which one.

Otherwise I don't really care how absurd it is. The point is to try and ascertain what a non evolutionist atheist believe as far as biodiversity and make sense of it.

Maybe the person doesn't believe what the theists tell him, doesn't believe what the scientists tell him and doesn't have an answer for biodiversity.

K

 

[Shemjaza]

Is this the most logical alternative to evolution that we have? Raelians? It's like I was saying before, I can't really find another science based argument against evolution, and while this isn't technically a religion based belief it is still a belief.

I have to be honest, I don't know much of anything about this belief except that it involves extraterrestrials lol.

Raelians are many things, but I don't think logical is one that commonly gets thrown at them.

They are Atheistic Creationists. The believe that a race of kindly, near immortal genetic engineers built life on Earth.

You know Raelians have one advantage over most other ID believers is that when an evolutionist asks "What's with the mistakes?" they can just shrug and say: "Well, they did their best, everyone makes mistakes."
(Still doesn't explain why the aliens built life to look like it evolved).

 

[Styx87]

Raelians are many things, but I don't think logical is one that commonly gets thrown at them.

They are Atheistic Creationists. The believe that a race of kindly, near immortal genetic engineers built life on Earth.

You know Raelians have one advantage over most other ID believers is that when an evolutionist asks "What's with the mistakes?" they can just shrug and say: "Well, they did their best, everyone makes mistakes."
(Still doesn't explain why the aliens built life to look like it evolved).

You got a point, and at least there's some evidence that life exists beyond earth, and that supports their claims at least to some degree (however small).

Mathematics for one has calculated a statistical probability overwhelmingly in favor of (even Stephen Hawking agrees). Organic matter in deep space. Crop circles (though still not attributed to aliens). And this... List of alleged UFO sightings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Michael]

Theistic evolution is absolutely not a valid alternative for an atheist.

Pssst (they don't believe in God)

It may not be a valid alternative in their mind, but it is a valid scientific possibility.