Evolution and atheism (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Saturday, February 16, 2013, 15:17 (4299 days ago)
One can study and accept evolution and also believe in God:-http://www.thestate.com/2013/02/14/2633087/hughes-stop-treating-evolution.html-It is called theistic evolution and the idea makes sense.
Evolution and atheism
DAVID: One can study and accept evolution and also believe in God:-http://www.thestate.com/2013/02/14/2633087/hughes-stop-treating-evolution.html-It is called theistic evolution and the idea makes sense.-Charles Darwin: "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one." (Origin of Species, 'Recapitulation and Conclusion', p. 497 my edition). The Rev. Charles Kingsley wrote: "...it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws." (quoted by Darwin on page 498). -I must have cited these comments a dozen times, and I could offer a dozen more from Darwin himself to the same effect. Of course theistic evolution makes sense, and although I remain agnostic on the subject, while you, David, consider evolution to have had a God-given goal, neither of us has ever questioned the compatibility of evolution and belief in a god. Unless someone comes up with proof that the mechanisms for life, evolution and consciousness were able to assemble themselves by accident, the question of origins has to remain wide open. For me, this is a dead horse undergoing another flogging, and Coyne, Dawkins and all their ilk are simply wearing its blinkers.
Evolution and atheism
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Sunday, February 17, 2013, 20:46 (4298 days ago) @ dhw
The conflict between evolution and deism is simply that it renders the idea of a creator god redundant, and moreover since human consciousness has evolved, raises the question of where the deity evolved from, but all that could indeed be considered a metaphysical argument. -The real conflict between evolution and chistianity lies in the Adam and Eve story - the Y-chromosome Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve lived ages apart. Francis Collins and his colleagues at BioLogos get round this by postulating that a pair of humans, Homo Divinis, were somehow 'ensouled' by the deity, though when this happened is still to be determined, and can only be reconciled with the Genesis story with a good deal of poetic licence.
--
GPJ
Evolution and atheism
GEORGE: The conflict between evolution and deism is simply that it renders the idea of a creator god redundant, and moreover since human consciousness has evolved, raises the question of where the deity evolved from, but all that could indeed be considered a metaphysical argument.-I see these as two separate arguments. Evolution explains how the earliest forms of life developed into a vast variety of species by means of heritable adaptations and innovations. However, it does NOT explain how life itself and the mechanisms for heredity, adaptation and innovation first came into being. These are so complex ... even in the simplest forms of life ... that it requires a quasi-religious faith to believe they could be assembled by sheer luck, which is why some people believe in a creator god who must have designed them. If you argue that faith in chance makes a creator god redundant, you can just as well argue that faith in a creator god makes chance redundant. Both faiths, however, relate to the mechanisms that enable evolution to occur. No conflict between evolution itself and belief in a god.-The second argument ... where did the deity come from? - elicits the same answer as where did the mechanisms come from? Nobody knows. And since there is no more evidence for this unknown, eternal, self-made, self-aware creative power than there is for the creative power of chance, it requires the same degree of faith. However, setting aside creationist dogmatism, that still doesn't lead to any conflict between evolution and belief in a god. Evolution cannot happen until there are living things to evolve; and so if I may repeat myself for the umpteenth time, evolution is Chapter 2 in the history of life. Chapter 1 is about origins, and THAT is the subject of the conflict.
Evolution and atheism
by David Turell , Monday, February 18, 2013, 20:28 (4297 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Evolution cannot happen until there are living things to evolve; and so if I may repeat myself for the umpteenth time, evolution is Chapter 2 in the history of life. Chapter 1 is about origins, and THAT is the subject of the conflict.-Beautifully put. Origins are the huge questionmark
Evolution and atheism
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 00:01 (4297 days ago) @ dhw
Have you been following 'Wonders of Life' by Brian Cox? He takes a physicist's look at the mechanisms of origin of life. It doesn't take 'faith in chance' to understand how molecules could form selfreplicating systems given sources of energy such as at the undersea vents. Even theists have to believe in chance, it is just basic mathematics.-Not quite on the same topic, but here is a piece about the Cambrian Explosion: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/18/weird-youth-animal-kingdom/ that I thought might be of interest.
--
GPJ
Evolution and atheism
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 01:13 (4297 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: Not quite on the same topic, but here is a piece about > the Cambrian Explosion: > http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/18/weird-youth-animal-kingdom/ ... that I thought might be of interest.-Wonderfl pictures. Thanks.
Evolution and atheism
GEORGE: Have you been following 'Wonders of Life' by Brian Cox? He takes a physicist's look at the mechanisms of origin of life. It doesn't take 'faith in chance' to understand how molecules could form selfreplicating systems given sources of energy such as at the undersea vents. -I don't understand why sources of energy should enable molecules to form selfreplicating systems, let alone systems capable of adapting and innovating. If it's that simple, how come our scientists still can't fathom it out? Brian Cox is an atheist, and it suits him to oversimplify. GEORGE: Even theists have to believe in chance, it is just basic mathematics.-What theists have to believe in is a self-aware, self-made, eternal, infinite being that creates universes and bacteria, keeps itself hidden, and provides no direct evidence for its existence. I'd have thought that was enough to justify scepticism! What are you referring to as basic mathematics? The origin of life? Then why can't mathematicians figure it out?-GEORGE: Not quite on the same topic, but here is a piece about the Cambrian Explosion:-http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/18/weird-youth-animal-kingdom/-that I thought might be of interest.-It is indeed. Thank you, George. -QUOTE: "The so-called Cambrian Explosion probably had many fuses. Erwin and Valentine explain how the Earth was undergoing drastic changes in the millions of years leading up to the flowering of the animal kingdom, with global ice ages and a burst of oxygen flooding the oceans. The stage was set for big, active creatures to evolve. [...] As the environment changed, new kinds of animals evolved that could occupy new niches. The animal kingdom became both physically and ecologically complex. But the diversity of the Cambrian had another source: the DNA of the animals themselves. Animals evolved genetic programs for turning a single egg into a complex body. These programs turned out to be supremely evolvable...with relatively minor mutations, they could give rise to new forms."-Drastic changes in the environment, accompanied by drastic changes in the animal kingdom and changes in the DNA that gave rise to new forms. How and why? Yet again, a prime example of what we have been calling the "intelligent cell/genome" at work ... the new environment not only demanded adaptation (microevolution) but also offered opportunities for innovation (macroevolution). Forget random mutations and forget gradualism, and it becomes clear how evolution works. What remains is the mystery of how the intelligence got into the genome in the first place. Our panentheist David thinks he knows the answer. So, presumably, does the atheist Brian Cox.
Evolution and atheism
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 22:02 (4296 days ago) @ dhw
dhw:What remains is the mystery of how the intelligence got into the genome in the first place. Our panentheist David thinks he knows the answer. So, presumably, does the atheist Brian Cox.-Cox does not have the answer. He assumes it is chance. Information and intelligence have to come from intelligence. There is no other source. Look at the entry about Dr. Tour who doubts Darwin.
Evolution and atheism
dhw: What remains is the mystery of how the intelligence got into the genome in the first place. Our panentheist David thinks he knows the answer. So, presumably, does the atheist Brian Cox.-DAVID: Cox does not have the answer. He assumes it is chance. -No-one has the answer. My post means that Brian Cox, just like you, THINKS he knows the answer.-DAVID: Information and intelligence have to come from intelligence. There is no other source. Look at the entry about Dr. Tour who doubts Darwin.-I have looked at Dr Tour, have commented very favourably on his article (see my post of 19 Feb. at 19.58 under "7 Nobel Anti-Darwin"), and have quoted his complimentary remarks about Darwin. When someone expresses doubts about aspects of Darwin's theory, I do wish people would not label it "anti-Darwin". This suggests total opposition to the whole of evolution, whereas Tour is quite explicit about the area of his doubts: "Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." He accepts microevolution, and I have found nothing to indicate that he rejects common descent, but: "I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened." And I do wish, just as he does, that people would not assume his doubts put him on the side of ID - a ploy often used by theists and atheists alike when anyone raises a single objection to Darwin's theory:-"I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion."-You think the answer is ID. Cox thinks the answer is chance. Tour doesn't offer an answer. He is simply bewildered. And clearly he has not allowed the fact that he is a practising Christian to cloud his scientific judgement.
Evolution and atheism
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 21:59 (4295 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: You think the answer is ID. Cox thinks the answer is chance. Tour doesn't offer an answer. He is simply bewildered. And clearly he has not allowed the fact that he is a practising Christian to cloud his scientific judgement.-And Nagel, the atheist, shares his bewilderment. We must conclude that evolution happened, but Why and How?