Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 25, 2014, 18:02 (3680 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

dhw: 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. -TONY: No, I did not 'specifically attack evolutionist. You took that entirely out of context and drew a conclusion that did not exist.-These posts are now so dense that it's easy to forget what has been written. You wrote this on Sunday 19 October at 19.51, and I replied to it on Monday 20 October at 15.17 quoting the paragraph you say I ignored. Yes, I took it to include all evolutionists, since in your next paragraph you wrote: “Science needed a good cover story. Something they could get away with not proving while still claiming to be true because they can claim that one day they will have all the answers. Ta Da, evolution. The resultant bastard offspring of several modes of thought colluding to create something for the masses to have faith in that doesn't require God.” I stand by my claim that there are lots and lots of good folk, including many Christians, who believe in the theory of evolution and are not fuelled by a desire to defame/eliminate the knowledge of God, and that the theory itself is a genuine attempt to understand how life has developed on this planet, perfectly compatible with belief in God, and not the result of collusion to persuade the masses that there is no God. I repeat, such generalizations do not help your case. 
 
TONY: 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.-I don't know what you mean by “in its entirety”. There are theistic and atheistic interpretations, but the basis of the whole theory is common descent, which you rightly point out contradicts the biblical version of life's development. However, not every religious person believes that every word of the bible is meant to be taken literally, and religion is not confined to creationists. So what part of the theory is anti-religious? -TONY: 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.-I have never seen such a godless definition in any dictionary. I presume the quote is from an atheist scientist, which hardly makes it a valid definition. It is this equation of science with scientists, evolution with evolutionists that I am campaigning against. You are right that science is confined to studying the ‘natural' or material world, and many scientists are atheists who believe there is nothing outside the material world, but that is no reason for attacking science. I wrote: 
Dhw: 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? -TONY: 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...-My question presented a choice, but again you equate the two when you say: “That is kind of the rules of science.” Presenting opinion as fact is not one of the rules of science. The rest of your paragraph is spot on. Criticize the scientists, not the science. In precisely the same way, the responsibility for using the theory of evolution to dispense with God lies with the scientists and not the theory (which let me repeat is perfectly compatible with religion), and the responsibility for bigotry, persecution, oppression etc. lies with the interpreters of the bible and not with the bible.