Agnostic.com

16 8

In my opinion, evolution is the greatest stumbling block for a theistic worldview, especially when the God of the Theists is understood as a "loving Father".
A favored strategy of theists to neutralize this stumbling block is expressed in the following sentences:

"God could have snapped the divine fingers and brought into being a ready-made world, but it had turned out that God had chosen to do something cleverer than that, for in bringing into being an evolving world God had made a creation in which “creatures could make themselves.

First of all: organisms do not "make themselves", they neither control their development nor their evolution. The features of organisms are the result of chance (mainly mutations or genetic drift) and necessity (laws of nature, biological constraints etc..) - but certainly no choice is involved.

Secondly, the author of the above statement assumes that an evolving world is better than a "ready-made world". This assumption is not justified. If I had to choose, I'd prefer ( and I am sure that the vast majority of organisms would agree) a static and perfect world without predators and nasty parasites. That is exactly how people of all times have imagined a "paradise".

For millenia human thinkers associated change with degradation (A Golden Age at the origin, then a Silver Age... till the current Iron Age, shortly before the whole world collapses, the whole process viewed as decline, deterioration). it is a specifically modern (!) idea that change is a positive force, that new is good and that evolution is a movement from simple to complex (the latter being better), from low to high.

Matias 8 Nov 3
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

16 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Scientists have calculated that 95% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. If God made all the animals one has to wonder why he allowed so many creatures of his creation to go extinct? It makes no sense. But if you consider Evolution, survival of the fittest, it makes sense that species that could not adapt to world changes, were replaced by new species that were more fit to survive. Stronger species replaced unfit species in various life niches on our planet.

0

The author actually believes in evolution, but what he is doing is reconciling it with his religious belief.

I do believe wholeheartedly in evolution but struggle with the idea of living things evolving from non-living matter. This struggle can lead to you to conclude that God was the catalyst for this happening.

This also applies to the Big Bang theory, which can be proven down to 1 second after it happened. However, the equations fail to explain before that second. Again, this ambiguity can lead to attributing God as the catalyst.

I don't actually think God is responsible, but can definitely understand how he came to his conclusions.

0

I think there is more than 1 God thingie concept. It seems to me that those (atheist) that opposes anything of a God thingie concept like to stereotype and/or put all God thingies into one. I think It makes for a monotheism strawman.

Word Level 8 Nov 3, 2019

Blah blah blah blah blah

@Cutiebeauty Amazing that a lot can be said with just using one word. Makes me think of the scientific myth that says everything was created from the word BANG.

@blahblah you're kinda just revealing how little you know about cosmology and current theories about the evolution of the universe, Mr. Blah.

@MrBeelzeebubbles really just playing with words in that post. Now, I was just looking for the Carl Sagan video of him talking about the 'modern scientific creation myth". But no time. Otherwise, if some New theory has evolved into explination recently, then no, i would say no i do not have anything current.

0

i don’t think there’s a single greatest “stumbling block” because individual theists will find different things harder to reconcile. it probably is evolution for some. for me, it was the problem of evil that first shook me out of blind faith. i’ve heard that’s the weakest argument against god, but i’d probably still be a christian without it.

1

To put it kind of very simply, Evolutionary Processes are somewhat akin to a 'pot-luck' stew, i.e. things get chucked in in a kind of random manner, let simmer for a while and IF the stew comes out okay at the end, Well it gets made again, IF not and it comes out like something even a half-starved feral dog would pass up on, then evolution simply makes a change, or even 2 or more, to the recipe and goes through the process once again.

2

If there is an all intelligent god, it's an oxymoron. lol

1

I see no conflict with theism and evolution.

2

I was raised to believe that Darwin was a tool of Satan and that evolution is a lie and used to cause people to question the Biblical account of creation--and, therefore, original sin and the need for salvation through Jesus.

In these circles, you will see that evolution of a very minor scale (micro-evolution) is accepted--but speciation is absolutely denied. This is why fundamentalists have to cling to a young earth belief--they cannot allow the time that evolution (macro-evolution) needs.

1

I doesn’t matter.
You can not change someone’s mind.
Too much time is wasted on these types of conversations.

It doesn’t matter what any of here think as we have fairly similar beliefs.

I disagree. I was once a believer in a young earth and thought the theory of evolution was a giant, anti-god, conspiracy. You never know what might cause someone's mind to open just enough to get the ball rolling.

And, yes, we here are of similar beliefs; but, having come from such lines of thinking, I understand a person's need to talk about such things in a place where they feel free to fully express themselves.

@darthfaja You took time (you could have used better) to say it doesn’t matter. So it mattered.

@yvilletom
Illogical correlation

0

Don't know enough about any non Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion to comment on their creation myths but according tothe Old Testamnt, we'd be evolving from fallen creatures-doesn't soundlike something any "god" would support. Then again, Genesis has so many fallacies in it that it is a really bad place to start from.
At the risk of offending any Big bangers here, in my (admittedly feeble) mind, the big bang theory is as crazy as Genesis, at least for the first nano-second. After that, evolution and cosmology wins hands down.

The Big Bang is as crazy as Genesis.
Georges LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, used an early hypothesis by Edwin Hubble and mathematics, not science, to support the Vatican’s Genesis story. Xian fundamentalists needed a creation and used LeMaitre’s Primeval Atom. Many astronomers disagreed but wanted to do astronomy; not a political battle with fundamental xianity. A later hypothesis by Hubble corrected his early hypothesis and supports a universe unlimited in space and time. At www.newtoeu.com you can get a free PDF file with much more.

0

Of the fundamentalist I interacted with on a Yahoo group concerning evolution and creationism, the creationist seemed to believe that evolution was the greatest threat to their beliefs (even though most of them didn't actually understand evolution well if at all). I became aware that some very staunch defenders of evoluton were also religious. Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University comes to mind. Miller defended evolutionary theory back in the 1990's and 2000's when the Discovery Institute was causing a stir with their Intelligent Design movement and their irreducible complexity theories. Attorney and UC Berkeley Law Professor Phillip E. Johnson was one of Millers primary opponents at the time. Miller is a practicing Catholic who also completely accepted evolution. I don't recall, however, if Miller ever described how he reconciled the two concepts.

2

I do agree with your interpretation of the quote. Most people do not understand how evolution operates. This either by choice (ignorance is bliss), or because they've never done the personal research to find out how it works.

Darwin's, original idea has been around for almost 200 years. There are literally thousands of scientific research studies that have looked into how evolution works in given populations. This in turn gives us literally trillions of data points pointing in the same direction.

Not all principles operate at the same time from one study, one population, or one circumstance, but the principles are consistent and work the same way when they are present.

In science we do not escalate a hypotheses to the level of a theory until the evidence is so overwhelmingly pointing in one direction as to become the best answer. It becomes the closest thing to an absolute scientific fact that anything can be, given that science by definition is dynamic as technology and research allows us better understand the phenomenon.

Unfortunately, the concept of the "theory" has been bastardized so much by popular media, and even practioners themselves, as to render the idea almost irrelevant. 99% of what people call a theory is nothing more than a hypothesis.

1

I personally do not favor a theistic point of view. That kind of god idea might spring from a desire to be a baby again—to have an easy and plush existence where all one’s needs are met by the parents.

At the same time, I can not accept that the universe with its consciously aware creatures came about through blind, random chance occurrences. That concept seems like a non-answer, raising more questions than it answers. It would be just as reasonable to say that God did it—neither response is meaningful.

What I lean toward thinking is that we are the creator—not our organic bodies but We collectively as conscious awareness itself, and that creation occurs continuously, moment by moment. That idea makes more sense in view of the findings of modern physics where time is said by some to be a non-existing illusion

We are only pitiful victims from the perspective of individual organisms. From a universal perspective, this is the best of all possible worlds.

1

This and a lot of other things are said by theists to defend their beliefs...it doesn’t add up to any more than their own rationalisation because they see the clear contradiction between the scientific evolutionary evidence and the scripture story of creation. They then need to attribute reasons why god must have “invented” evolution...which as we know is not how evolution works. It’s how many Christians are able to say they believe in science and god at the same time...god being in control of science along with everything else!

@Matias Of course not...they are nothing if not adaptable!

0

Ohferpetessake..........just No.

4

This might raise a smile:

‘… the philosopher Leibniz famously maintains that, since the world was created by God, and since the mind of God is the most benevolent and capable mind imaginable, the world must be the best world imaginable. Under such a system, humans perceive evil only because they do not understand the force governing the world and thus do not know that every ill exists only for a greater good’.
[sparknotes.com]

It was generally accepted that Leibnitz, who in all fairness was a genius, was being mocked by Voltaire in his book Candide. ‘All is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds’ was the mantra of Pangloss, Candide’s ever-optimistic tutor and philosopher.

I came across this first in, of all places, an episode of Sharpe’s Rifles.

Voltaire was a clever and witty guy, full of sarcasm, but I wonder if he truly understood the meaning of it’s being the best of all possible worlds. I think some of those imagined better worlds would get to be very boring and could not last. I sometimes wish there were no fire ants, yet ants play a vital role in the ecosystem. There are reasons why things are the way they are.

Whether or not this is the best of all possible worlds, this is the world we have, and I prefer to look upon it and see beauty and perfection rather than ugliness. It also seems arrogant and irrational to come into this marvelous mysterious world and start making negative and harsh judgments.

Here I am however making negative judgments against those who make negative judgements. What is likely is that a certain number of such people are necessary for society to thrive and move forward. I am very happy for them to shoulder that burden so that I don’t have to, and can live in joy.

The idea of "the best of all possible worlds" must necessarily be viewed in terms of the requirements of the organisms in question. When I took Biology in college and the class covered the metabolism, we learned that life on earth was anaerobic because oxygen was a reactive molecule and was bound up in compounds like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, and other oxidized compounds. The biproduct of anaerobic metabolism is O2 and before earth's organisms adapted to metabolize using oxygen (becoming aerobic), it was a poison. Anaerobic life on earth was threatened by the very chemical we as humans rely on for our survival. To be completely disgusting, our single celled ancestors thrived on the waste product from the dominant form of life at the time. So, the best possible world for any particular organism depends on the needs of that life form.

I haven't read Candide but I always thought the laugh lay in Pangloss repeating his mantra in the face of more and more disastrous circumstances.I don't think Voltaire was thinking about either biology or the pros and cons of the cosmos when he wrote the story. Nonetheless, I can't be sure.

@RussRAB Yes, and the irony is that though we, the aerobic life-forms, need oxygen to live and thrive it IS also that the very same radicals of this oxygen that are slowly but surely, destroying us.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:421686
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.