Evolution is proven to be true

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

 

[Colter]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

I've known evolution was a fact since I was conscious of the world. I think God is creating by the process of cosmic evolution. It's not either or.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

Nothing unusual and I don't believe people would renounce a belief in God, because they now agree with evolution. Some may, but many would not.

 

[quatona]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

Why would they renounce their belief in deities?

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

Why would anything particular happen if literally everyone were convinced of evolution theory?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

I guess I was trying to create a scenario in which the all of the questions regarding creationism vs evolution were answered and all of it pointed to evolution.
In other words - what sort of science would progress unhampered by religious influence from any source?

 

[variant]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

Well for one thing evolutionary theory says nothing about deities.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

Just more of the same social ramifications that have already been affecting society (the world) since 1859.

 

[Audacious]

It's really impossible to deny the literal mountains of evidence now, but people still manage it, so... what, exactly, would it take for everyone to believe in evolution? Probably some kind of mind control.

I've known evolution was a fact since I was conscious of the world. I think God is creating by the process of cosmic evolution. It's not either or.

'Cosmic evolution' is a nonscientific, borderline nonsense term that really shouldn't be used in a discussion of evidence -- or the ramifications of said evidence -- in support of scientific phenomena.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

People would be more educated.
Religiosity would be down.

 

[quatona]

I guess I was trying to create a scenario in which the all of the questions regarding creationism vs evolution were answered and all of it pointed to evolution.

1. Evolution theory and creation aren´t mutually exclusive.
2. "All of it" already points to evolution.

In other words - what sort of science would progress unhampered by religious influence from any source?

What do you mean - "sort of science"?
Hopefully, science is already unhampered by religious influences.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true.

Like right now in real life?

So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

Wouldn't happen. It's possible to reconcile creation with evolution, and many believers already do this. Some will simply plug their ears with their fingers and hum really loud.

So, we'd have the same exact future.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let's say that one day, all of evolution was proven to be absolutely true. So much so, in fact, that every single person is convinced of it, and all religious people renounce their faith in their respective creation beliefs and belief in deities.

What would happen in the next 5 years? 10? 50?

The Creation Museum & things of that ilk would close or become curiosities.

The Science Forums here would get much quieter, and a lot of us would get more useful work done in our lives.

It seems unlikely that people would not just renounce creation stories, but their deities as well, but if that's what we're supposing...

Religion will live on as more of a social club, more like it's practiced in the Nordic countries, where many belong to the church but do not believe in any gods.

Religious charities will do more good works, and less proselytization.

Religious tensions would subside, but not disappear. The Israel/Palestine situation will hardly change at all, and it will become clearer to everyone that religious differences are not the root cause of that conflict.

Violent reactions to blasphemy will largely disappear. Terrorism, whether of abortion clinics by Christianists or Western targets by Islamists, will decrease, but probably only slightly. Terrorism will become identified (probably correctly) as being more cultural or political in nature, rather than religious.

 

[Colter]

Religion has evolved, why is it strange that the world would evolve?

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

The Creation Museum & things of that ilk would close or become curiosities.

The Science Forums here would get much quieter, and a lot of us would get more useful work done in our lives.

It seems unlikely that people would not just renounce creation stories, but their deities as well, but if that's what we're supposing...

Religion will live on as more of a social club, more like it's practiced in the Nordic countries, where many belong to the church but do not believe in any gods.

Religious charities will do more good works, and less proselytization.

Religious tensions would subside, but not disappear. The Israel/Palestine situation will hardly change at all, and it will become clearer to everyone that religious differences are not the root cause of that conflict.

Violent reactions to blasphemy will largely disappear. Terrorism, whether of abortion clinics by Christianists or Western targets by Islamists, will decrease, but probably only slightly. Terrorism will become identified (probably correctly) as being more cultural or political in nature, rather than religious.

Thanks, man...this is actually the sort of response I'd more or less expected.

This was my first attempt at starting a new topic, but I understand it's not a good hypothetical. I don't expect that people would necessarily renounce their religious faith regardless of what sort of evidence is presented.

Maybe it's better to ask what groups such as the "new atheism" movement hope to achieve...?

 

[SuperCloud]

I guess I was trying to create a scenario in which the all of the questions regarding creationism vs evolution were answered and all of it pointed to evolution.
In other words - what sort of science would progress unhampered by religious influence from any source?

There are religious people (not merely Christians) that understand the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution. One of my biology TA's was a younf Hindu woman from India who would come into lab with one of those Hindu dots on her forehead.

There are atheist people that understand the fundamentals of the Theory of Evolution.

But it seems to me that most religious people and most atheists don't understand much about the proposed fundamental tenants of the Theory of Evolution.

Your thought experiment while a good philosophical question in and of itself pushing one to think critically, assumes too much about either religious thoughts (in all their diversities) and the Theory of Evolution.

I'm Christian and the biological Theory of Evolution provides more evidence for a God philosophically called "First Cause" by Christians, for me. A single human body is more complex than the entire rationally structured city of Chicago with all its urban planning and skyscrapers.

Imagine an alien that arrived on a lifeless planet earth and found the City of Chicago standing with its gleaming towers with stairs, elevates, electrical wiring, everything that goes into constructing a building, and all the streets, bridges, highways, elevated trains, street light, fire hydrants and so on.

And that alien concluded that no intelligent life form(s) created that City of Chicago but that it simply occurred through evolutionary algorithmic processes. You would have essentially a version of our atheists here on earth.

Biology says all life on earth is traced back to a single original cell. This cell is different than Adam and Eve because analogous wise it would be hermaphroditic. It would be analogous to the offspring of Adam and Even called Cain except Cain could self reproduce. So, both the Theory of Evolution and the Bible all trace back to their own version of "Cain" who populated the earth.

For Christians and Jews only humans were begotten from Cain.

For atheists and/or the Theory of Evolution they have been forced to write an imaginative story about all species of life from fish to roses to bananas to dogs to humans all begotten by cellular "Cain."

But imagine that a single adult human body of age 35 began as a single fertilized cell in a woman's body. From that cell (void of intelligent design, from an intelligent designer, but merely algorithmic chances according to atheists) which divides so many times over, cellular differentiation and cellular specialization occurs. Eventually you have an infant girl or boy, which looks nothing like a 14 year old boy or girl and nothing like a 35 year old woman or man.

The consider all the symbiotic relations between different species of life on earth. Consider that when deep lakes freeze over the ice acts as an insulator protecting the aquatic life beneath.

Humans are intelligent designers (philosophically in the philosophy of biology) and if a God exists then God is an intelligent designer. The things is that everything humans have created--like the City of Chicago--is far less complex than just one human body, let alone all life systems on planet earth.

But for the record... the Theory of Evolution is not entirely worked out but rather it remains a developing doctrine. Someone that is atheist working within that doctrine logically for imagine ways they can explain certain things confined through both their militant, fundamentalist atheism and that doctrine of Theory of Evolution. It's like imagining ways to explain homosexuality if you are mentally confined to the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, Christ as God, and sex being meant confined to between two married people of the opposite sex. You come up with logical ways to explain it.


Note on logic: Logic is a branch of philosophy and within logic something does not have to exist in reality, it merely is the way to reason what rationally follows from what if you propose the world is x way.

 

[SuperCloud]

Violent reactions to blasphemy will largely disappear. Terrorism, whether of abortion clinics by Christianists or Western targets by Islamists, will decrease, but probably only slightly. Terrorism will become identified (probably correctly) as being more cultural or political in nature, rather than religious.

Abolitionists against slavery in the USA were referred to as terrorists too.

More interesting is reading the self righteous, holier than thou, emotional appeals to freedom members of the slave owning South would preach in wrath against abolitionist and the South.

Your own American courts have comes up with the term fetal homicides. And men have been charged with it. Since abortion is legal then logic dictates it is fetal homicide but justifiable fetal homicide by the laws of the USA. (The same nation that made enslavement justifiable by law.)

In terms of the biological science human life begins at conception. How could it not if one subscribes to the Theory of Evolution and places any weight on genetics as a taxonomical indicator as to what species a life an organism belongs too. You can't logically argue homosexuality as a behavioral trait is genetically inherited/caused, not environmentally influenced, and then turn around and utterly dismiss the very genesis of that life at an unseen genetic level merely because it was not yet birth (seen) into the environment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Maybe it's better to ask what groups such as the "new atheism" movement hope to achieve...?

There isn't really a 'new atheist' movement.

The term comes from a Wired article from 2006, and it lumped together three high profile atheists (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) who don't really have all that much in common. For my part, Sam Harris can take a long walk on a short pier, Dawkins should stick to science, and Dennett is my spirit animal.

 

[TheImmortalJellyfish]

There isn't really a 'new atheist' movement.

The term comes from a Wired article from 2006, and it lumped together three high profile atheists (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) who don't really have all that much in common. For my part, Sam Harris can take a long walk on a short pier, Dawkins should stick to science, and Dennett is my spirit animal.

I see...interesting. Thanks for that link.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess I was trying to create a scenario in which the all of the questions regarding creationism vs evolution were answered and all of it pointed to evolution.
In other words - what sort of science would progress unhampered by religious influence from any source?

I suppose that if evolution were proven true to such a degree in the eyes of the world, then it would have as much impact as Heliocentrism being proven true to such a degree in the eyes of the world.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

IMHO, 100 years from now the creationists will look as silly as Cardinal Bellarmine did for thinking that Heliocentrism proved the Bible false.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There isn't really a 'new atheist' movement.

True, they are more like many mini-movements.

The term comes from a Wired article from 2006, and it lumped together three high profile atheists (Dennett, Dawkins, Harris) who don't really have all that much in common.

I knew that, but I didn't know specifically which article it was. Thanks.

For my part, Sam Harris can take a long walk on a short pier, Dawkins should stick to science, and Dennett is my spirit animal.

Yeah, I'm not really a "fan" of any of them, though I don't mind that they are speaking out with their views. Still, I think that they are more anti-theist than I would like.


eudaimonia,

Mark