Why does evolution threaten God?

[Wiccan_Child]

But never proven.

Well, no, but it offers a great deal more substantiation than religion does.

Well, this may be true of some theological 'theories'. But science cannot explain miracles.

Which makes one wonder if miracles actually happen. And, yes, science can explain miracles: there is a great deal of literature on the fallacy of human thinking, from the logical (Gambler's paradox, etc) to the psychological (Hawthorn effect, placebo effect, etc), such that I'm not aware of any alleged miracle for which a supernatural explanation is better than the scientific one (or, indeed, in those cases where science doesn't comment either way, the default "We don't know" response).

 

[AV1611VET]

In the mean time, creationists should stop making like this somehow trumps empiricism.

Scientists trump their own empiricism --- and even look forward to doing so.

Even if they have to rig a vote.

 

[Cabal]

Scientists trump their own empiricism --- and even look forward to doing so.

We don't trump it with faith, that's for darn sure.

Even if they have to rig a vote.

Thank goodness that doesn't happen.

Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about Pluto, again?

Terminology =/= empiricism, remember?

I'm sure it'll sink in eventually.

 

[sandwiches]

Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking about Pluto, again?

Terminology =/= empiricism, remember?

I'm sure it'll sink in eventually.

Don't count on it.

 

[Cabal]

Don't count on it.

I'm not.

Pointed remark was pointed.

 

[Vatis]

God can't be threatened by evolution.
God can't really be threatened by anything since he is either omnipotent or nonexistent.
However what evolution can do is threaten peoples faiths in the bible and ultimately in God.
For people who understand the bible literally, evolution can be quite uncomfortable, because it contradicts what is written on the first page of the bible, this would mean of course that the whole bible is nothing more than a 2'000 year old compendium of myths, legends and crazy stories.
But I think the main reason that some Christians defend creationism so heavily is because it creates a common foe. Some opportunists have seen a chance in the whole creation vs evolution affair, and spread hatred against evolution.
I think this can be observed quite easily, as evolution is called "Evilution", "Devilution" etc.
It has been shown several times in history (best example being Hitler) that a common enemy can really unite and motivate the masses.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I think this need is asymmetric. Scientific theories don't need to compromise in order to satisfy what theologians extract from religious texts, since the veracity of theories can be independently and objectively verified. On the other hand, a theological 'theory' (YEC, millennialism, etc) can be judged according to its compatibility with science: YEC is rejected by virtually all non-US Christians, and a large chunk of US Christians, because it conflicts with science.

Quite... if what we believe to be true clashes with what we can plainly see to be true, then we need the humility to reassess our beliefs.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Our job, in the meantime, is to walk by faith -- not sight.

but not to walk by faith in spite of sight, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

but not to walk by faith in spite of sight, correct?

Incorrect:

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Vatis:

“God can't be threatened by evolution.”

You begin by admitting the believers are correct.

“God can't really be threatened by anything since he is either omnipotent or nonexistent.”

However, your qualification of that comment falls a bit short. If God is omnipotent then he could have created the evolutionary process, a process which could lead to those of his creation questioning the existence of that very creator. God then faces the option of denying free will or becoming irrelevant. Either way, God still exist.

“However what evolution can do is threaten peoples faiths in the bible and ultimately in God.”

So can alcoholism, or sexual addiction, or belief in faries or ghost, or any number or human distractions. But christians do not have faith in “the bible”. They find strength in the teachings of the Bible to reinforce their faith in God.

But I don’t believe that you exist as Vatis. I believe you exist as Overseer. Prove me wrong.

“For people who understand the bible literally“

Can you make this claim?

“evolution can be quite uncomfortable”

I disagree. I have studied this subject and followed the debate for years, and I have found nothing within the theory of evolution which would cause me to question my belief in God. The typical rebuttal here from strict evolutionist is along the lines of simple name-calling to accusations of idiocy to a paragraphs worth of venomous hatred. But whatever…

Many believers may find themselves at different times uncomfortable with some aspect of their belief, or in how others treat them because of their belief. Evolution does not stand out in its power to influence the mindless god-person and free them from their bondage. Many different influences can corrupt.

“because it contradicts what is written on the first page of the bible“

Does it?

“this would mean of course that the whole bible is nothing more than a 2'000 year old compendium of myths, legends and crazy stories.”

No, this is simply how you want the Bible to be categorized.

“But I think the main reason that some Christians defend creationism so heavily is because it creates a common foe.”

Here it comes, the Nazi comparison………..

“Some opportunists have seen a chance in the whole creation vs evolution affair, and spread hatred against evolution.”

Oh yes, the haters! Those Christians just hate hate hate hate hate!

“I think this can be observed quite easily, as evolution is called "Evilution", "Devilution" etc.”

Paid much attention to what the atheist and evolutionist call creationist? The language which is used when the topic of creationism is discussed? Look around, but take the two-by-four out of your eye first.

“It has been shown several times in history (best example being Hitler) that a common enemy can really unite and motivate the masses.”

Especially if that common enemy is creationist or creationism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Quite... if what we believe to be true clashes with what we can plainly see to be true, then we need the humility to reassess our beliefs.

And therein lies the heart of science

 

[Doveaman]

And therein lies the heart of science

Then why can't scientists just get along? Do some of them have better eyesight than others and more humility than others?

 

[Gawron]

Scientist are in competion, not only with each other but for funding.

Scientist would have us believe that this never influences how they conduct science.

And the Tooth Fairy left 300,000 dollars under my pillow last night.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why can't scientists just get along? Do some of them have better eyesight than others and more humility than others?

Hey, we're only human

 

[The Lady Kate]

Do some of them have better eyesight than others and more humility than others?

You think they don't?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Scientist are in competion, not only with each other but for funding.

Quite... and nothing gets funding quite like getting results.

Scientist would have us believe that this never influences how they conduct science.

Would they now?

And the Tooth Fairy left 300,000 dollars under my pillow last night.

Good for you... you've expressed disagreement with a point nobody else agreed with anyway

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientist are in competion, not only with each other but for funding.

Scientist would have us believe that this never influences how they conduct science.

Like I said, we're only human. Scientists are, by and large, genuinely interested in science for science's sake: the LHC has no obvious practical applications. The technologies that come out of it are by-products, commercial adaptations (e.g., the Internet). Scientists compete for funding, sure, but so what? Science is objective, and personal bias comes out. Peer review uses this competitive nature to improve science: by pitting scientists against one another, scientists have both an academic and a financial incentive to refute their opponents claims. Since it's therefore in their interest to demonstrate flaws in scientific research, peer review is even stronger.

So, yea, we have to compete for funding. Does that negate the validity of science?

 

[Split Rock]

Scientist are in competion, not only with each other but for funding.

Scientist would have us believe that this never influences how they conduct science.

And the Tooth Fairy left 300,000 dollars under my pillow last night.

This actually means that we have to produce results. If scientists sat around philosophising about different parts of Genesis and didn't actually do experiments or propose testable hypotheses (like say.. "Creation Scientists"), then neither industry nor politicians would give us any money. Funny then that some politicians demand "equal time" for creation scientist ideas in science classes...

 

[sandwiches]

This actually means that we have to produce results. If scientists sat around philosophising about different parts of Genesis and didn't actually do experiments or propose testable hypotheses (like say.. "Creation Scientists"), then neither industry nor politicians would give us any money. Funny then that some politicians demand "equal time" for creation scientist ideas in science classes...

Well, let's not kid ourselves. Scientists, just like any other human, can be corrupt and unethical, and many are I'm sure. HOWEVER, regardless of scientists' corruption, the undeniable fact remains that science produces measurable results. Its simply works.

Religion on the other hand also has corrupt and unethical people but they can't produce any knowledge about nature that helps us in any measurable way.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, let's not kid ourselves. Scientists, just like any other human, can be corrupt and unethical, and many are I'm sure. HOWEVER, regardless of scientists' corruption, the undeniable fact remains that science produces measurable results. Its simply works.

Religion on the other hand also has corrupt and unethical people but they can't produce any knowledge about nature that helps us in any measurable way.

There is also a difference between how such people are treated in science, vs creationism. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in science, your career is ruined. If you are found to be corrupt or unethical in creationism, you are acclaimed for defending God against evilution. If you go to prison, God sent you there to save souls and spread His Word among the other prisoners. If you are caught lying, your lies will be quted as "Truth" among a myriad of Creation Ministry websites. That is why Professional Creationsts lie so much... they are encouraged to do so by their followers.