Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, October 26, 2014, 19:41 (3679 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW (re evolution): 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: Since my own words have failed to express the concept, I will rely on the words of others.-You have not told me which part of the theory is anti-religious, but have quoted a number of scientists who adopt an atheistic stance. As I said above, there are theistic and atheistic interpretations, and you have cherry-picked atheistic ones. I'll reproduce one, and your summary, just for the flavour:-“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” 
(“Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) -In short, theories, including evolution, are created and perpetuated by scientist, and their own words mark them as doing so in order to shut out even the possibility of God. " ..materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-Here are some more cherry-picked quotes for you:-“I certainly think that it's an over-statement of our scientific knowledge and understanding to argue that science in general or evolutionary biology in particular, proves in any way that there is no God.” Kenneth R. Miller, cell biologist and Prof. of Biology at Brown University, Today, BBC 29 April 2009-“I am a Christian biologist, as well as a passionate Darwinian. So what puzzles me is the assumption that teaching evolution should undermine religion anyway.” Denis Alexander. The Guardian, 12 September 2008-“Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway. We are indeed dealing with unfinished business. God's funeral? I don't think so. Please join me beside the coffin marked Atheism. I fear, however, there will be very few mourners.” Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, Cambridge Univ., The Guardian , 12 Sept. 2008-The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006) - a book by Francis Collins, physician and geneticist, leader of the Human Genome Project-“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species-“I see no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species-TONY: Science, as a process, is neutral. Theories are developed by scientist, are not. Evolution is a non-neutral theory. It is not a fact (as we have repeatedly discussed here), it is an opinion, an interpretation of facts and opinions, that survives even when the facts disagree with it by ignoring those facts.-Yes, science is neutral. Many scientists are not neutral. Many are atheists. Some are theists. Evolution is neither theistic nor atheistic. Yes, it is a theory not a fact. It is still known as the theory of evolution, but some scientists express their opinions as if they were facts. That does not mean that “Science by definition wants to be able to explain everything without God.” Some scientists do. Some scientists don't. Perhaps you should read a book called THE ATHEIST DELUSION - Science IS Finding God. The author is one David J. Turell, M.D.