Atheistic Evolution

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Atheistic Evolution is what I was taught in school, primarily to re-emphasise that there was no guiding hand in creation, as opposed to (for example) Theistic Evolution, which states that a god used evolution to create.

 

Uh, so, apparently, there's something called "atheistic evolution". What the hell is it?

 

kthxbai

[Kaftan Barlast]

Ordinary, non relious-cook, evolution.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Oh.

 

. . . but that one doesn't make statements about potential involvement of any deific beings, does it? It's not even concerned about it.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Some Christian churches accept that evolution took place. I think that the Catholic Church is one, though I'm not certain about that.

 

The idea is that evolution is the process by which God created life and man. This would be 'theistic evolution' I suppose, though I don't know if that's a term in common use. Some believe that God created the laws of physics, then set the universe in motion and allowed evolution to operate by its own laws. This is the 'watchmaker' idea. Others would argue that God was more directly involved in guiding the development of creatures to his liking, but with evolution still as the process by which this happened.

 

However, evolution works fine without the intervention of a supernatural being, and since such a being is not necessary to explain the world, most scientists don't see a role for God in evolution.

[random evil guy]

i think the catholic churc has pretty much accepted evolution. at least they've not ruled it out...

[Darth Flatus]

the catholic church? really? not that i keep up with what they do and don't accept.

 

So if its true does it mean that catholics the world over suddenly accpted it too?

 

 

"Aw wud ye luk at dat, as it toorns out de evalooshun ting was roite aafter all!"

[random evil guy]

if i remember correctly, the pope(previous one) said so. he said evolution didn't contradict the christian beliefs. or something like that...

[WITHTEETH]

if i remember correctly, the pope(previous one) said so. he said evolution didn't contradict the christian beliefs. or something like that...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard the same.

 

Heres a website Pope And Evolution

[SteveThaiBinh]

This is part of the reason why many people in Europe (and maybe in parts of the US) are gobsmacked that creationism is now being pushed again as a serious idea. The major churches that we know accept evolution as at least possible, and not contradictory to church teachings. Creationism seems to be the preserve of a small number of very extreme Christian conservative sects, not in the mainstream of global Christianity.

[Cantousent]

I've wondered about these things myself. I first remember going over evolution in detail as an undergrad. I'd been exposed to the theory beforehand, but I hadn't really cared one way or another. I've been more involved in my religion over the past ten years or so, but I don't recall hearing much from the pulpit about evolution.

 

However, I will make one observation: the theory of evolution does not explain the the existence of matter, which is equally significant. Nor does it explain creation of life, which is a much more important matter. So it really only answers one thing from the bible, creationism.

 

As a battle, creationism is a touchy thing. You might find it surprising that Christians often don't want creationism taught in school. Creationism is much worse than an atheist vs. Christian debate. There simply aren't enough atheists to make the confrontation ugly. Creationism now is a sectarian debate, and the only thing keeping Christians from attacking each other is the perceived threat of atheists in a Godless society. If that weren't the case, then the creationism vs evolution debate would be a lot more hostile than it is.

 

I'm for teaching evolution because, while we all try to come to grips with what we believe or don't believe regarding God, we must still live in the world and understand the rules by which we live. Inasmuchas evolution appears to be a sound theory, I'm for accepting it. It isn't proven, but that's not the point. We must find a reasonable place to begin and hope that we can discern the truth one way or the other.

[WITHTEETH]

It doesn't explain how the ball got rolling or why it does roll either.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Evolution explains only one thing, how the different species evolved and continue to evolve. If you want an answer to the origins of matter, then Im sorry, but we're not there yet.

[metadigital]

... I'm for teaching evolution ... Inasmuchas evolution appears to be a sound theory, I'm for accepting it.  It isn't proven, but that's not the point.  We must find a reasonable place to begin and hope that we can discern the truth one way or the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are so many different areas of science that corroborate the tenets of evolution that to call the evidence circumstantial is pedantic in the extreme. There is no disputing the general tenets of evolution. all that may happen is the hypothesis may have more detail added over time.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It doesn't explain how the ball got rolling or why it does roll either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, but it doesn't seek to. As it is, it's a remarkably successful theory, explain things that were previously explainable only through divine intervention.

 

How the ball got rolling is still where there's a missing link. As I understand it (and my knowledge could be a few years out of date) we know how you go from the big bang, star and planet formation, to an Earth with all the necessary ingredients for life. Then there's a gap, and we can explain how you go from the simplest life form all the way to human beings.

 

In other words, science has explained nearly the entire process. It's possible that the lack of explanation of how the spark of life began can be interpreted as supporting the existance of God. More likely, though, it will be explained, and replicated, in the coming years. That's not 'faith' in science, rather it's belief that since we've explained nearly everything else the last little bit of the puzzle will soon be found.

[Drakron]

...

However, I will make one observation:  the theory of evolution does not explain the the existence of matter, which is equally significant.  Nor does it explain creation of life, which is a much more important matter....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps because its called "Theory of Evolution" and not "Theory of Evolution and The Creation of Biological Matter"?

[Cantousent]

... I'm for teaching evolution ... Inasmuchas evolution appears to be a sound theory, I'm for accepting it.  It isn't proven, but that's not the point.  We must find a reasonable place to begin and hope that we can discern the truth one way or the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are so many different areas of science that corroborate the tenets of evolution that to call the evidence circumstantial is pedantic in the extreme. There is no disputing the general tenets of evolution. all that may happen is the hypothesis may have more detail added over time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Accepted. I'm perfectly happy to call it a law, but then I get it from the other side. Since, technically, it is a theory, I'm going to stick with that because it is the area on which most folks can agree.

 

Since it really doesn't hurt me if it's a theory or a law, though, I have no ulterior motives in calling it a theory. Really. :cool:

[WITHTEETH]

Evolution explains only one thing, how the different species evolved and continue to evolve. If you want an answer to the origins of matter, then Im sorry, but we're not there yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Richard Dawkins gets into it with his book The Selfish Gene

[Cantousent]

...

However, I will make one observation:  the theory of evolution does not explain the the existence of matter, which is equally significant.  Nor does it explain creation of life, which is a much more important matter....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps because its called "Theory of Evolution" and not "Theory of Evolution and The Creation of Biological Matter"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's true, and I hope not to have confused the issue.

 

You may take my comments to concur with comments earlier in the thread in which Steve, along WITHTEETH and other, pointed out that this isn't an evolution versus religious debate. The debate over evolution can be an evolution versus creationism issue or even different ideas about evolution. As a Christian, however, I often find that folks who use evolution as the stick with which to beat on Christians take for granted that proving the theory of evolution entails disproving religion altogether. Perhaps, in my zeal, I didn't convey the idea very well.

[Drakron]

Evolution can be a stick to beat most religions since they have a creation myth that is disproved by Darwin's theory.

[Cantousent]

Evolution can be a stick to beat most religions since they have a creation myth that is disproved by Darwin's theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take it then you're beating on me with this particular stick?

 

I can tell you now that there are very likely more religious folks who take evolution for granted than atheists. There are simply far more religious folks in the world than atheist. Turning the debate into an atheist versus believer struggle only cheapens the discourse.

[FaramirK]

Evolution can be a stick to beat most religions since they have a creation myth that is disproved by Darwin's theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I believe almost all the religions have creation stories that can either be taken as an allegory or generalised enough to make evolution possible.

[WITHTEETH]

Evolution can be a stick to beat most religions since they have a creation myth that is disproved by Darwin's theory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I take it then you're beating on me with this particular stick?

 

I can tell you now that there are very likely more religious folks who take evolution for granted than atheists. There are simply far more religious folks in the world than atheist. Turning the debate into an atheist versus believer struggle only cheapens the discourse.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bet there are more sheep then shepards in the world also.

[Drakron]

There are a lot of theories that disprove Genesis and a lot of the Old Testement, we take the Ice Age for granted and yet there are no references to the one that humans experienced.

 

The issue is with the fanatics that want to see the Bible (or whatever) as the ultimate reference to science and history and in the case of evolution vs creationism its the christians that are taking the front seat.

 

If Genesis is the foundation of your faith ... well its not much of a faith.

[FaramirK]

If Genesis is the foundation of your faith ... well its not much of a faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Without Genesis, my faith is meaningless, so I'll keep it thanks...and I find my faith is more inspiring to me than yours. Its a matter of personal choice.

 

EDIT: Changed it to sound less critical.

[WITHTEETH]

If Genesis is the foundation of your faith ... well its not much of a faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Without Genesis, my faith is meaningless, so I'll keep it thanks...and I find my faith my more inspiring than yours. Its a matter of personal choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I respect your attitude towards all the criticism you have receieved. thanks for the oppertunity to let us understanding eachother clearer.