Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, October 23, 2014, 21:34 (3471 days ago) @ dhw
edited by Balance_Maintained, Thursday, October 23, 2014, 21:41

TONY: Some of your challenges I have answered repeatedly. 
> -Yes, there ARE people out there that do good without being Christian. (Not sure how many times I have to say this)
> 
> But that was not my point. You specifically attacked evolutionists on the grounds that their belief was a “self-delusion fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God” etc. Such generalizations do not help your case one iota. -
No, I did not 'specifically attack evolutionist. You took that entirely out of context and drew a conclusion that did not exist.-"Instead of the illusion of evolution, I prefer to consider it (the illusion) as the assumption of evolution; a self-delusion fueled by an desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God and bypass the influence that religion has/had on the political sphere.-(And completely ignored the next paragraph.)-And no, I am not saying that people are thinking to themselves "I'm going to go defame God and destroy religion today." .. We want to be able to explain everything without God. We want to be the head honchos of our own fate. We don't want to be answerable for the shitty things we do in this life."-Now, where is the word 'evolutionist' used in these paragraphs? Science, by definition "want(s) to be able to explain everything without God." That is, they want a 'naturalistic' explanation for everything. It is 'naturalistic' in nature. That is not me telling tales, that is their own definition. -Now that being said, no, science and religion are not incompatible, neither are parts of evolution and religion. If taken in its entirety then yes, evolution is anti-religious. The bible actually encourages the use of science, but not with the goal of removing God. --
> TonySo you are telling me, that this is not a clear cut case of people trying to use science and evolution as a means of escaping the accountability for their actions? You think this is an isolated event?
> 
> DHW: Of course it isn't. You frequently complain about cherry-picking, but that is what you are doing here. You have picked on one area of science that links up with the highly contentious issue of free will (concerning which we have had long discussions on this forum). Throughout history some people have used the bible as an excuse to rob, enslave, murder their fellow humans. Does that mean the bible is to blame? Some people use science as a means of escaping accountability. Other scientists will oppose their view. So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions? There's no consistency here. If science and the bible are used to justify human actions, it is the humans that are responsible, not the science or the bible.
> -So do you blame science or the scientists for their subjective conclusions?-When they are presented as objective facts, yes, yes I do. That is kind of the rules of science, right. Facts are facts and everything else isn't. You can't present opinions as fact in the scientific sphere. "Evolution is a fact" is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. The lack of free will is an opinion, not a fact. So do I blame scientist, and more critically writers of scientific literature at all levels, for their subjective opinions? Certainly, when they are presented as fact. How can we hold scientist to such a standard? Because that is their damn job. They signed up for it, they were trained for it, they knew and agreed to the consequences.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.