A new crackpot theory Christians are preaching

61


Discussion by: hueman0un

 That god created the building blocks of life..or matter itself..THEN evolution occured…the fact of the matter is evolution has been strongly proven..rather than look even more foolish than debate evolution which many christians do they have decided to change tactics and preach this new creationist theory..

one of these christians tried to tell me that evolution explains creation…then stone walled me when I debated that evolution DISPROVES creation…that evolution teaches that life is a naturally occuring phenominon not somthing a designer or god created..but they acted like i didnt say a word and went on preaching their delusional nonsense.

61 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by Okeydoke:

      Theistic evolution isn’t something new, ask the Catholics.

      And it scares the evangelicals. I remember hearing about it being one step from hell’s door back in the 90s or so.

  1. Typically, and I suspect more often than not, people want to just share their (closed-minded) position and are not interested in hearing or considering anything that is different or refutes that. When you see that they really aren’t interested in a dialog, try challenging them with a different creation myth “Bah! Everyone knows that the first man was the clay plaything of a titan. When he gave man fire, the Olympians got angry and made their own cuter, curvier version” This was the original intent of the CFSM.

    As organized religions have lost their place as the go to source for philosophical knowledge, they’re still trying to retain their current niche, which takes advantage of the human instincts for convention and authority. Creation didn’t happen because it makes sense, but because daddy says so. And that is against what you are debating.

  2. The problem with theistic evolution is it’s basically saying that God used magic as often as you can get away with saying he did without your specific examples being refutable (to their satisfaction, anyway) with the facts we already have. Not only is this completely unjustified but, if extra examples get refuted, they just say, “well OK, not those ones, but the rest anyway”. This is exactly what “God of the Gaps” logic is. I know they like to pretend only those foolish unsophisticated creationists are doing that, but theistic evolution is guilty of it too. That shouldn’t be surprising, considering it is creationism. It’s the exact same “God must have done that because evolution couldn’t have” argument; the only difference is they use human ethics rather than the bacterial flagellum as their example. It’s no good praising them for technically conceding evolution does happen. They concede more of it than creationists do, but even creationists say, “oh, a little bit, yeah, but not “macro””. Basically what that means is they concede what little they feel they absolutely must because of evidence, then draw the line at going any further. Theistic evolution does the same thing; it’s a continuum of creationism.

    • Basically what that means is they concede what little they feel they absolutely must because of evidence, then draw the line at going any further. Theistic evolution does the same thing; it’s a continuum of creationism.

      It absolutely is. They are playing the fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden game the same as always and piggybacking their fairies off of hard-won evidence.

      This is as epistemologically dishonest as any creation argument, but it makes them feel, and in too many cases sound, as if they are being reasonable.

      I’m more offended (not that I have a right to not be offended) by this than I am by crazy evangelicals choosing and defending a world view that is based on “faith”. At least the crazy evangelicals don’t pretend that they care about evidence.

      On the infinitesimally outside chance that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, it’s not their fairies.

      You can’t use science to defend Yahweh and therefore Jesus. It’s dishonest, misleading and insane.

      They are unable to imagine that maybe they were wrong all along and it’s time to take that idea seriously, considering the evidence.

      • In reply to #5 by susanlatimer:

        This is as epistemologically dishonest as any creation argument, but it makes them feel, and in too many cases sound, as if they are being reasonable.

        It is the posturing of the ignorant and self deluding!

        There is no “moderate, middle position”, between scientific evidence and fanciful dogmatic rubbish!

        This is just the smug, posturing, pseudo-reasoning, of the ignorant, compromising, fudgist, to impress an uneducated audience! Contradictions smothered in vague obfuscation.

        • In reply to #9 by Alan4discussion:

          In reply to #5 by susanlatimer:

          There is no “moderate, middle position”, between scientific evidence and fanciful dogmatic rubbish!

          Logically, you’re correct. Practically, you’re wrong. Many people do not have a considered position. They lack some mix of the time, the inclination, the education or the upbringing for it. Even those who do are limited in their considerations. There are degrees of departure of action and worldview from the best models available. These differences have real consequences.

          • In reply to #16 by PERSON:

            In reply to #9 by Alan4discussion:

            There is no “moderate, middle position”, between scientific evidence and fanciful dogmatic rubbish!

            Logically, you’re correct. Practically, you’re wrong. Many people do not have a considered position. They lack some mix of the time, the inclination, the education or the upbringing for it.

            I’ m not sure what you mean by this. The evidenced practicality and logic of reality is not subject to “poser in the middle” fudge.
            There is no “saucer-shaped-Earth” as a compromise position between “Flat-Earthism” and astronomers’ planetary globes. A “saucer shaped compromise claim” is just as much ignorant rubbish as a “Flat Earth claim”.

            Even those who do are limited in their considerations. There are degrees of departure of action and worldview from the best models available.

            There can be limited differences of view where there are uncertainties in scientific models, but no compromises with refuted nonsense.

            These differences have real consequences.

            I was not talking about slight differences of scientific opinion on detail. I was talking about differences between scientific evidence and fanciful dogmatic (refuted) rubbish, such as ID.

            Many people do not have a considered position.

            Those who have not studied sufficiently to have “a considered opinion”, should not be posturing as having an opinion on the subject at all, and certainly not taking on airs as “moderates” in some contrived false dichotomy.

      • There’s no good reason to believe that. It’s really that simple. Ask them how he did it, and for some drawings or something. Why shouldn’t they have drawings? There’s nothing weird or silly about a request for drawings.

        —-//—-

        susanlatimer

        Yay, an avatar. :-)

    • In reply to #4 by Jos Gibbons:

      I kind of agree with you, but there are important functional differences between a believer in theistic evolution and in fundamentalist creationism. The Dali Lama reputedly said “If my religion and science disagree, we change it” the catholic position has very often been (for a few centuries) “if religion and science disagree, we make a convoluted argument as to why they don’t and act as if we always had beliefs practically consistent with the new finding” there are exceptions, of course, but post-Gallileo the church has tried quite hard to have a position that appears founded on reason. That’s lessened with the rise of the fundagelicals, and the tacit alliance with their political masters that the Catholic hierarchy has been making. That is quite recent, however. It should be contrasted with the fundamentalist position, which is “if religion and science disagree, science is wrong”. It’s a difference that has real-world implications, even if it’s logically equivalent, because most people most of the time do not consider things logically, rather they copy what others say as well as they can understand it, provided it seems intuitively accurate to them.

  3. In industrialized societies, most theist believe in evolution.Most people who believe in evolution are theists. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

    Your argument does not address their premise, and so your argument is invalid. Why does matter tend to create life? There are ways to invalidate your opponents argument, but you are doing it wrong. Dawkins has an interesting argument (not sure if it is originally his) which invokes the terms of complexity, that a creator is necessarily complex and thus must be designed or evolved. I like that argument because it is the theists’ argument followed to its logical conclusion.

    • In reply to #6 by This Is Not A Meme:

      In industrialized societies, most theist believe in evolution.Most people who believe in evolution are theists. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

      I disagree with this. Most people who believe in evolution have only encountered it in school, where its material and philosophical consequences are not discussed well, if at all, with reference to deities.

      The random nature of evolution and the consequences of it for free will in biology have many ramifications for both religious assertions about the nature of being and any Gods relation with the material world as well as more theological philosophical claims about the nature and relationship of any God.

      I can make up a religion that sits alongside evolution reasonably well. It would only sit alongside it as well as if it wasn’t real, but that is by the by. It is easy to create Gods that are equal to their non-existence. The real question is whether the authors of the big religions thousands of years ago made assertions about their beliefs that contradict in some important material or philosophical way with proven science, like evolution. With regard to evolution I think the Abrahamic religions do, and so it does disprove the Abrahamic God in fundamental and important ways.

      • In reply to #14 by gryphaea:

        I agree with your correction of my point. Perhaps I should say “belief in evolution has nothing to do with atheism”, as that belief does not have to be well thought-out or complete. I’ve often wondered if this is how theism gradually dies, or preserves itself through adaptation.

    • In reply to #6 by This Is Not A Meme:

      Dawkins has an interesting argument (not sure if it is originally his) which invokes the terms of complexity, that a creator is necessarily complex and thus must be designed or evolved. I like that argument because it is the theists’ argument followed to its logical conclusion.

      Infinite regress. Aristotelian ‘unmoved mover’ and the first cause ‘cosmological’ dilemma.

      Any Universe creating entity would have to be more complex than the Universe it creates, that it would require an even more complex entity to create that Universe creating entity, and so on, ad infinitum. Ergo, complexity must, by necessity, come from simplicity, ruling out a Universe creating ‘god’. Simples.

      • In reply to #41 by Ignorant Amos:

        Any Universe creating entity would have to be more complex than the Universe it creates..

        Yep, that’s me. My Universe (that I perceive myself inhabiting) is a creation of my own mind. Therefore my mind is more complex than my universe. And the universe that contains me must be more complex than my mind. For the mathematically inclined, that would be:

        Universe > Me > MyUniverse

        Which clearly puts limits on my (or anyone’s) knowledge. Actually, “>” should really be “contains”, as in set notation. Can’t find the right symbol for that.

    • In reply to #6 by This Is Not A Meme:

      In industrialized societies, most theist believe in evolution.Most people who believe in evolution are theists. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

      Your argument does not address their premise, and so your argument is invalid. Why does matter tend to create life? There are ways to invalidate your opponents argument, but you are doing it wrong. Dawkins has an interesting argument (not sure if it is originally his) which invokes the terms of complexity, that a creator is necessarily complex and thus must be designed or evolved. I like that argument because it is the theists’ argument followed to its logical conclusion.

      evolution has a lot to do with athiesm as i said it disproves creation and explains that life was not designed by some intelligent creator but rather happens as a natural phenominon. it offers an explination for how things like the eye come to be without relying on the theory that it was designed by a god..rather somthing that happened over generations naturally as an adaptation

  4. Theistic evolution is an unscientific fudged version of god-did-it-evolution, often including the physical evolution of the universe after the big-bang. The Catholics with their dogmatic pronouncements, are probably clearest on this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic-Church-and-evolution

    This link covers the evolution of Catholic dogma, from total denial of science and reason, by the “infallible” Pope Pius IX, to the present theistic fudge which claims (falsely), that their is no conflict between evolutionary science and Catholic dogma!

    The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

    According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]

    The Church’s stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. Commentators tend to interpret the Church’s position in the way most favorable to their own arguments.

    Many people who claim to “believe in evolution”, are very ignorant of the details of the biology and palaeontology, so it is literally a “belief”, rather than an understanding.

  5. Coincidentally while searching for something else tonight I stumbled across this analysis of the Adam and Eve story by that learned Irish theologian Dave Allen. He has an excellent final punch line. Usual warnings about not having food in mouth near computer screens apply.

  6. The actual creation of life from non-living matter is abiogenesis – this is not evolution. Evolution describes what happened afterwards and how humanity became what it is from simple beginnings. Many theists conflate the two which leads to some rather pointless arguments. It’s already been shown how amino acids are created through chemical reactions, I’m waiting eagerly for the day when science connects the rest of the dots and we have a complete understanding of abiogensis. Of course then the theists will attempt to move the goal-posts yet again.

    • In reply to #12 by Mister T:

      The actual creation of life from non-living matter is abiogenesis – this is not evolution. Evolution describes what happened afterwards and how humanity became what it is from simple beginnings. Many theists conflate the two which leads to some rather pointless arguments. It’s already been shown how amino acids are created through chemical reactions, I’m waiting eagerly for the day when science connects the rest of the dots and we have a complete understanding of abiogensis. Of course then the theists will attempt to move the goal-posts yet again.

      I beg to differ

      maybe if we’re strictly debating the meaning of Darwin’s work, but I for one would be more than happy to bet the farm that when abiogenisis is fully understood, it will be described in terms of evolution thorugh natural selection

      • In reply to #15 by SaganTheCat:

        In reply to #12 by Mister T:

        The actual creation of life from non-living matter is abiogenesis – this is not evolution. Evolution describes what happened afterwards and how humanity became what it is from simple beginnings. Many theists conflate the two which leads to some rather pointless arguments. It’s already been shown how amino acids are created through chemical reactions, I’m waiting eagerly for the day when science connects the rest of the dots and we have a complete understanding of abiogensis. Of course then the theists will attempt to move the goal-posts yet again.

        I beg to differ

        maybe if we’re strictly debating the meaning of Darwin’s work, but I for one would be more than happy to bet the farm that when abiogenisis is fully understood, it will be described in terms of evolution thorugh natural selection

        Based on what? The current scientific understanding doesn’t include abiogenesis as evolutionary theory, so for the time being it is counter-productive and unsubstantiated to conflate the two when debating creationists.

        • In reply to #17 by Mister T:

          Based on what? The current scientific understanding doesn’t include abiogenesis as evolutionary theory, so for the time being it is counter-productive and unsubstantiated to conflate the two when debating creationists.

          based on existing knowledge. recent discoveries and a sense of continuity. OECs might accept some theistic version of evolution but will always insist that there was some “spark” that startred life as though non-living matter had to somehown be changed into living stuff.

          in general when creationists discuss life they mean sentient life anyway, but for natural events in the past this planet might well be happily continuing along with single-celled organisms, to me the move to multicellular is quite awe inspiring but the same factors existed whatever started that branch of evolution.

          whatever existed before what scientists, in general, call “life” (incidentlaly I must recomend Astrobiology of Earth by Joseph Gale if you haven’t already read it. good section on how to define “life”), wasn’t that much different. it almost certainly involved the same chemistry as life, would have been capable of self-replication like life (e.g. crystals) and the natural environment which it existed in, and partly made up, selected which “non-living” molecules were the most successful in terms of numbers.

          to seperate abiogenesis from evolution is to submit to discontinuous thinking. it gives a gap for creationists to stick their holy crowbar into. the term “life”, like “species” is a point for scientific discussion. some say a virus is not alive because it doesnt metabolize, but it does replicate. then again so do crystals, but mules don’t.

          “life” is a vague description of a particular manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. if what we call life came about through any other method than natural selection we need to give serious consideration to intelligent design

          • In reply to #18 by SaganTheCat:

            In reply to #17 by Mister T:

            Based on what? The current scientific understanding doesn’t include abiogenesis as evolutionary theory, so for the time being it is counter-productive and unsubstantiated to conflate the two when debating creationists.

            … to seperate abiogenesis from evolution is to submit to discontinuous thinking. it gives a gap for creationists to stick their holy crowbar into. the term “life”, like “species” is a point for scientific discussion. some say a virus is not alive because it doesnt metabolize, but it does replicate. then again so do crystals, but mules don’t.

            Not necessarily, to separate the two is to openly admit a gap in scientific knowledge. At the point where the link between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is sufficiently backed by evidence rather than hypotheses and speculation, only then will it merit inclusion into evolutionary theory. Before that happens it’s not scientifically sound to declare it so. Whether theists want to exploit gaps is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If we jump the gun and make conclusions before the facts are in, then it only gives the theists more ammo. I believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence.

          • In reply to #23 by Mister T:

            Not necessarily, to separate the two is to openly admit a gap in scientific knowledge. At the point where the link between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is sufficiently backed by evidence rather than hypotheses and speculation, only then will it merit inclusion into evolutionary theory.

            I agree that the distinction needs to be made between Darwinian evolution, which is a validated scientific theory, and abiogenesis which is still a hypothesis.

            I think LUCA is a good point at which to split the two, leaving the more speculative abiogenesis and RNA World as hypotheses.

            Before that happens it’s not scientifically sound to declare it so. Whether theists want to exploit gaps is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If we jump the gun and make conclusions before the facts are in, then it only gives the theists more ammo. I believe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of evidence.

            Agreed.

          • In reply to #18 by SaganTheCat:

            a gap for creationists to stick their holy crowbar into

            Holy Crowbars, Sagan!!!

            Now, where did I put those screen-wipes?

        • In reply to #17 by Mister T:

          In reply to #15 by SaganTheCat:

          I beg to differ

          maybe if we’re strictly debating the meaning of Darwin’s work, but I for one would be more than happy to bet the farm that when abiogenisis is fully understood, it will be described in terms of evolution thorugh natural selection

          Based on what? The current scientific understanding doesn’t include abiogenesis as evolutionary theory, so for the time being it is counter-productive and unsubstantiated to conflate the two when debating creationists.

          Darwin’s theory does not include abiogenesis, but the experiments on abiogenesis and the subsequent progression to LUCA postulate natural selection as a mechanism, so evolution would be part of the process in stabilising the life forms generated.

          There is also physical evolution of the Universe , so it is important to define exactly which of these three processes is being discussed.

          (That of course, is not saying that when creationists claim the incomplete work on abiogenesis disproves Darwin, they are not talking rubbish. – There are also multiple forms of creationist rubbish so even more clarification is needed!)

  7. yep! god just started it off and let it all happen knowing his design was so perfect it’d pan out exactly as he wanted it to. praise be! if you want, or not. makes no difference. certainly no point in praying for anything this late into the scheme. or telling others how to behave. in fact going to church is a bit pointless isn’t it? i mean no point in thanking jebus for dying (for a bit) since it was bound to happen. or apologising for original sin, that must have been a forseen consequence of the plan.

    that’s it i’m converted. i’m a christian. and it’s exactly the same as being an atheist. praise god! fuck god! who gives a shit? amen

  8. The evolution don’t need God. And God don’t need evolution. Evolution need only a lot of time, natural selection and a little bit luck. God only needs 6 days. I know this very good. So I have a problem, because I’m creationist, and interested in sience. But you are right: its stupid to make a mix between evolution and creation. Say to those “Christians”: The evolution don’t need God and God don’t need evolution.

  9. Seems an awful waste of time. Why spark it off and wait billions of years if we were the end purpose? If he knows exactly where it will lead why this vast universe just for us. Unless you are going to expand your view and diminish humans to just a mote of dust as Sagan put it. This hasn’t been my experience of the religious they often claim humility while demanding that to give them meaning they need to be the central reason for it all.

    Evolution is pretty horrid for most creatures the amount of suffering caused by natural selection guarantees very few organisms ever get to die of old age, rather they usually are consumed from within or without in writhing agony. So God couldn’t think of a better method than this? Seems to say more about god than they might like if they think him to be merciful.

  10. This view has been going on for many decades or longer. I was raised Catholic and evolution was accepted. God basically worked through the “creation” molding it over time like an artist changes and adapts a design or concept. (Adam and Eve were symbolic stories.) Many deists also believe that God set the ball in motion and then stepped out of the picture allowing Evolution to take place in whatever way or form it may.

    I have heard some really far fetched views of Evolution. Here are a few:

    Evolution follows because lower life forms have lower levels of Consciousness. Humans, for instance, have a higher level of Consciousness than a dog and a dog has a higher level of Consciousness than a bird who has a higher level of Consciousness than a worm… Buddhists and New Agers are big on this. Reincarnation/Hinduism follows this view. As a side note, many New Agers believe in Indigo children – highly evolved individuals born to change the level of Consciousness in the world.

    To better understand these views, recognize that the idea of God shifts from man God in the sky to panentheism (not pantheism.) Basically the position is that God is within All and All is within God. Essentially you have a Higher Consciousness that is interconnected with all that there is. We may seem as if we are individuals, but at a higher level of Consciousness we are One. Consciousness with a capital “C” is essentially the ghost in the machine which is interconnected to all that there is.

    Another view—We (acting in separation) of God created ourselves and the “illusion” of this physical world. Evolution, physics, the sciences, etc. are true because they follow the (rules, laws, principles, etc.) that are applicable to this universe. We are living in the matrix.

    A slightly different version of this view is quite baffling. It holds a symbolic/metaphysical view of the Garden of Eden. We being rebellious “teens” rejected God and all the goodness of the garden and left the nest. Hence, we created this universe. The question is – Did we decide to be part of the primordial soup or did we jump in at neanderthal or something? The answer should be primordial soup because if it were at a later more advance time, God would need to be “separate” from Us or if we are All God, God would be a bit confused. (Are you confused yet?) So if we began as part of the primordial soup, this poses a problem because the level of Consciousness of soup is pretty low. Then again, others say that is why Evolution took so long. Something within the primordial soup would need shift in a slightly higher level of Consciousness and form would change. (Mind precedes form. Form is the result of changes in thought) That would mean that fish had a shift in the level of Consciousness and then started to form legs from their fins so that they would walk on land. The connection all life has to Divine Mind (all is one, within God, God within blah blah blah) enables the Evolution of life and form.

    If you really want to look into another view, check out “spiral dynamics” or spiral evolution. Google this and check out the images and utube videos. I have watched videos on this (many years ago) of this model being taught in churches. It follows the view that our Consciousness is expanding into higher levels over time through evolution ( of civilization.) If you want me to hunt some more info on this let me know. (By the way, check out the usage of meme!)

    …and if you really want a shocker, read the Urantia book.

  11. “Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory”~somebody smart

  12. Hi hueman0un,

    Sounds like your christian friend do not understand creationist theory either. Why? because, if they believe that evolution happened after the creation, then there is NO NEED for BAPTISM. Then there is NO NEED JESUS to sacrifice and save the world from sins.

    MIND this:

    -The ONLY reason why your Christian friend get baptized, is because they believe that they carried the sin of Adam and baptism function is to cleanse this original sin.

    -The ONLY reason why Jesus is sacrificed is to take the believer’s sins and put everything in Jesus “shoulder”, with the symbol of carrying the cross before the death. And later resurrect to show that Jesus win by conquering the death.

    NOW:
    If the Christians believe that there is evolution after the creation, then Adam didn’t do any original sin, because evolution show the evidence that we are from fish, and the fish from bacteria size living things. And using the Christian standard, Fish and all other animals also have sins.

    Conclusion, since you don’t need to be baptized since there is no Adam’s original sin if they believe in Evolution, then why the hell you need Christianity to start with. Mind as well tell them to believe in Buddhism, which many of them do NOT believe in God either, yet seeing the Buddhism as a way of life.

    WHY Buddhism?
    Because the ONLY reason the Christians believe Jesus is God is because Jesus resurrect from the death. Tell them that if resurrection is the standard of a man being classified as the God, then in Buddhism, there are several Buddha that also resurrect from the death and go to heaven.

  13. I struggled with my faith while taking a zoology course. I proposed to the professor, “Maybe evolution is how God did it.” He said, “Well, you’ll have to prove that.” That really wrinkled my brow.

  14. “evolution DISPROVES creation”

    What? Evolution disproves the sudden creation of complex life. I don’t think you can say it explains the initial appearance of life. Evolution disproves religious beliefs on the origin of life, but only that, it doesn’t explain its actual origin. I would have disagreed with you too.

  15. I have a suspicion that the motivation behind the so-called ‘Intelligent Design’ movement, and its wish for ID to be taught in science classes, is that they recognise the problem of god-of-the-gaps. In a nutshell, they see “God” as occupying an ever-shrinking gap, and if they don’t do something about that, the gap will vanish altogether, along with “God”.

  16. Poor things, they’re caught in a pincer movement:

    As we find out about the age and size of the universe, it becomes increasingly unconvincing to suggest that something so powerful it could do all that would take a petty interest in the detailed behavior and beliefs of any of the inhabitants of any particular planet.

    So, their god (as the absolute one-and-only) can’t be expected to be bothered with us.

    That leaves another option – that their god exists, and is interested in a prurient way in everything people do and don’t, but he’s only a local god, and only slightly more powerful than the people whose faith he requires. A few conjuring tricks, maybe some hypnotism, nothing beyond the limits of physics….

    Now, that kind of small scale petty jealous god could be the one the xtian fundies are following. Maybe soon they’ll stop trying to give him credit for making everything.

  17. That god created the building blocks of life..or matter itself..

    That god-delusions created the building bollocks of life..or matter itself.. abracadabra!!

    .. Much easier than studying cosmology, astronomy, biology or palaeontology.

  18. Nobody kicks a dead dog. Why attack Christianity so much. This confirms people are not trying to debate for the purpose of reason and science but for a power struggle among competing worldviews. If Christianity is so outrageous and stupid then why discuss something so irrelevant to science and reason? Anyone have an alternate theory on how life started based on “science” other than the creationists point of view? Also keep in mind Creationists hold different views on creationism. I see you averted to what evolution is by definition instead of saying god in general had nothing to do with life coming into existence. Also insert some evidence instead of rambling about what people said to you. People are imperfect representations of what there religion tells them to be so look at doctrine and not people solely. Evolution does not explain how life started. You can do good science without using the religion of atheism and evolution.

    • Why attack Christianity so much.

      It’s not an attack. It’s an analysis of specific ideas and a rejection of the claims that result from them.

      This confirms people are not trying to debate for the purpose of reason and science but for a power struggle among competing worldviews.

      These are claims about the origins of life and fall well inside the territory of discussions of “reason and science”. Unless by “worldview”, you mean people should just be able to make stuff up and not be challenged on the subject.

      If Christianity is so outrageous and stupid then why discuss something so irrelevant to science and reason?

      Again, this is not a subject that is irrelevant to science and reason. We are not talking about christianity. We are talking about the story of life on this planet. All claims of this sort need to be evaluated on their merit. Christians don’t get a free pass if they want to get in on the discussion. These ideas are up for criticism along with everyone else’s. They are subject to the same scrutiny. Simple.

      Anyone have an alternate theory on how life started based on “science” other than the creationists point of view?

      Creationists don’t have a theory. They have made up stories. They have no evidence.

      You could look up abiogenesis. An awful lot of work has been and is being done in this field, much progress has been made, and it looks much more promising than the old “goddiddit… I don’t have to explain how ’cause… goddiddit…. not those other gods but my god….”.

      Evolution does not explain how life started.

      No. It doesn’t, nor is it supposed to.

      You can do good science without using the religion of atheism and evolution.

      I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Can you explain that?

      Also, why put science in quotations? I can never tell whether the implication is that bad science is being done or that science is bad. It’s vague and seems cheap. What did you mean by it?

      • Creationists don’t have a theory. They have made up stories. They have no evidence.
        Evolutionists have some pretty cool stories…(cough) I mean theories using an assumption oif materiliasm

        • In reply to #54 by Roger Guptas:

          Creationists don’t have a theory. They have made up stories. They have no evidence.

          Evolutionists have some pretty cool stories…(cough) I mean theories using an assumption oif materiliasm

          Perhaps that’s because the Earth, life, and the universe are made of matter, and described by laws of science, while creation stories are totally “immaterial”, and made of semantic fantasies!

    • In reply to #38 by Unbiased Bias:

      Nobody kicks a dead dog. Why attack Christianity so much. This confirms people are not trying to debate for the purpose of reason and science but for a power struggle among competing worldviews.

      The competing “world-views” in this OP topic are the unscientific “theistic evolution”, and the science of biological evolution. This comment seems to confirm your confirmation biases. The fake theist evolution is damaging science teaching for large populations.

      If Christianity is so outrageous and stupid then why discuss something so irrelevant to science and reason?

      Interference in education and legislation by the stupid, the anti-science, anti reason preachers, should be everyone’s concern.

      Anyone have an alternate theory on how life started based on “science” other than the creationists point of view?

      No they can’t! – Not until they do the research and produce the evidence. Some scientific work has produced evidence and hypotheses on abiogenesis, but nobody has confirmed this to levels and the status of a scientific theory. It was discussed in more detail in this other discussion. – http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2013/1/22/practically-valid#

      Also keep in mind Creationists hold different views on creationism.

      There are numerous contradictory simplistic versions of magical creations!

      I see you averted to what evolution is by definition instead of saying god in general had nothing to do with life coming into existence.

      Abiogenesis is not part of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. There are university libraries full of information on “what biological evolution is”. Evolution has been discussed in numerous places on this site: – most recently here – http://www.richarddawkins.net/discussions/2013/1/31/macro-evolution# – with plenty of links to evidence.

      Also insert some evidence instead of rambling about what people said to you. People are imperfect representations of what there religion tells them to be so look at doctrine and not people solely.

      see Alan4discussion – post 8 of this discussion, for a typical example of “theistic evolution” – with sources quoted on the link!

      Evolution does not explain how life started.

      How life started is the hypothesis of abiogenesis. Evolution does not claim to explain it.

      You can do good science without using the religion of atheism and evolution.

      There is masses of good science quoted and linked on this site.
      Atheism is not a religion – it is an absence of gods and an understanding of the absence of evidence for gods.
      Science should be objective following the evidence without preconceived religious notions or myths being erroneously forced into its conclusions.

      Science does however debunk numerous religious myths and claims.

  19. So how would the supporters of this “new theory” explain who or how their god was created? Was there another god who created their god? If so who created that god…. It’s a simple question that no creationist can answer without invoking magic but evolutionary theory does provide the answer….

  20. Whilst old earth creationists are more honest in that they accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution, young earth creationists recognise that their faith and evolution are not easy bed-fellows. Which is why they reject evolution. At least they are honest about that, crazy as they are. After all, even though evolution doesn’t discount the possibility of a god(s) it does make the Abrahamic religions problematic, particularly Christianity, as it shows there was no Adam and Eve and therefore makes the concept of original sin rather redundant. Without that there is no need for Jesus.

  21. Ex-fundie preacher here. Theistic evolution has been around for ages – I had fought against it since a child, my father fought against it, and so on. It is the step of the devil in the church in baptist/associated gospel churches. It was seen from my (previous) point of view as the liberal churches way of being more ‘worldly’ and leaving the ‘true’ gospel teachings. Please be aware that this argument will come up more and more frequently as theistic evolution eventually warps itself into the standard Christian doctrines.

    What nonsense theologians can come up with. It is really a sign of a cult when its leaders say “We don’t believe in your point of view, but on an unrelated topic, we now hold our modified view of your view.” They couldn’t deal with fact, so they incorporate fact into their untruth so it is harder to decipher – typical pseudo-scientific garbage that psychics and new-agers use – it is the only way to shore up a sinking ship and take in the less scientifically literate (or scientifically hostile) people.

    • J
    • What nonsense theologians can come up with. It is really a sign of a cult when its leaders say “We don’t believe in your point of view, but on an unrelated topic, we now hold our modified view of your view.”

      Well put.

    • In reply to #44 by Jogre:

      What nonsense theologians can come up with. It is really a sign of a cult when its leaders say “We don’t believe in your point of view, but on an unrelated topic, we now hold our modified view of your view.” They couldn’t deal with fact, so they incorporate fact into their untruth so it is harder to decipher – typical pseudo-scientific garbage that psychics and new-agers use – it is the only way to shore up a sinking ship and take in the less scientifically literate (or scientifically hostile) people.

      You have a good understanding of this.

      When: -after a long rear-guard action – they lose an argument, they just move the goal-posts and do a mental re-set, denying their previous position. ( As the RCC history of theistic evolution on my link @8 shows.)

      • In reply to #46 by Alan4discussion:

        When: -after a long rear-guard action – they lose an argument, they just move the goal-posts and do a mental re-set, denying their previous position. ( As the RCC history of theistic evolution on my link @8 shows.)

        It reminds me of another deceitful tactic used in the church, also cult-like, that goes a little something like this: Jesus says faith can throw a mountain into the sea. I tried, it didn’t work. Rather than seeing this as a point negatory for the original statement, the church has twisted logic. The twist = GOD didn’t want it to happen, he was teaching you faith how not to test him.

        What a devious thing to do! Not only are positives EXTREME positives, the negatives are seen as POSITIVE! This is the reason people stay in the church from my own experience. Every proof, or lack thereof, is seen as positive reinforcement. This is why the scientific method must absolutely clash with religion. They are diametrically opposed.

        I see this same tactic here. Evolution is against god, but THEISTIC evolution is not, therefore the negative (evolutionary thought/influence) is twisted into gods own design. It’s a wonder that people don’t go mental from this kind of logical cavorting about.

        -J

        • In reply to #48 by Jogre:

          It reminds me of another deceitful tactic used in the church, also cult-like, that goes a little something like this: Jesus says faith can throw a mountain into the sea. I tried, it didn’t work. Rather than seeing this as a point negatory for the original statement, the church has twisted logic. The twist = GOD didn’t want it to happen, he was teaching you faith how not to test him.

          This is why the scientific method must absolutely clash with religion. They are diametrically opposed.

          Scientists, doctors, and engineers have extensive documents written about the use of “faith” in place of evidenced science, and the practice of substituting mental “revelations” for logical reasoning based on scientific evidence.

          The documents are called: “ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS” or “TRACING THE SOURCE OF THE ……….. INFECTION”!

  22. Not very scriptural a view. Tell them to read Genesis !
    The word ‘create’ is interesting when examined in context and in the original Hebrew!
    But I don’t want to bore you.
    Just to say, this is utter tripe .

  23. Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. It does not prove or disprove the existence of god. Treating science and religion as mutually exclusive really just serves to discourage people from listening to and understanding good science.

    • In reply to #50 by Chipmunk:

      Evolution explains the diversity of life on earth. It does not prove or disprove the existence of god.

      That depends of which god and which properties its followers claim for it. The god of YEC is clearly disproved by science.

      Treating science and religion as mutually exclusive really just serves to discourage people from listening to and understanding good science.

      That depends on the religion. Some religions discourage people from listening to good science as a matter of dogma and active contradiction.

  24. I watched yet another Dawkins interview recently, and he addressed this. Basically, Creation does not explain evolution. There are mistakes in our make-up that stem from evolution. If there is a perfect creator, why would “he” make us evolve with all of these flaws? It is basically a version of the problem of evil.

  25. what evolution does do…is it explains that human beings evolved from apes and are not creations of a god…creation preaches that man was created in god’s image…evolution disproves this

  26. ” Is the God hypothesis testable? No. Saying “God did it” renders no specific predictions for us to test, because God is all powerful and he could be responsible for anything. And theologians are very insistent on this because if they started to make the God hypothesis more specific and he would render specific predictions, it usually turns out that he fails the test. So they’ve been very careful to make God this mysterious, all-powerful thing and we don’t understand his purposes and he could be doing just about anything and we wouldn’t understand why. So there are no specific predictions that come out of the God hypothesis; there’s no way to test it. And it doesn’t make sense to say God is the best hypothesis if there’s no way to test whether or not that hypothesis is true.

    What about the second criterion? Is the God hypothesis consistent with our background knowledge? Not at all. God is an extreme violation of our background knowledge about how things work. God is a person but he doesn’t have a body. God thinks, but without the passage of time. He knows everything, but he doesn’t have a brain. God is a terrible violation of our background knowledge in many serious ways.

    Is the God hypothesis simple? If you’re talking about the God of the Bible, definitely not. The God of the Bible is an extraordinarily complex person; a being with thoughts and emotions who loves and hates and condemns and forgives; a being who turns a staff into a snake and a woman into salt; a being who changes his mind; a being who starts fires and throws rocks from the sky; a being who kills and resurrects; a being who takes part in personal relationships and political struggles; and a being who incarnates himself as a complex biological organism known as Jesus of Nazareth. The God of the Bible is far from simple.

    And even if you’re talking about a more generic kind of God, God is not simple. Christian philosopher C. Stephen Layman lists four ways that a hypothesis can simple, and in all 4 ways he admits that the God hypothesis is more complex than the atheistic hypothesis. But I don’t have time to go into that here.

    What about explanatory scope? Does the God hypothesis have good explanatory scope? Again, no. I’ll give just one example. If you invoke God as the explanation for apparent design in the universe, you immediately run into the problem of all the incompetent and evil “design” in the universe.2

    So why is “God did it” a bad explanation? It’s because “God did it” lacks all the virtues we look for in successful explanations, and instead has many of the qualities that appear in terrible explanations, like explanations from pseudoscience and superstition.

    So how do you defeat all religious arguments in one easy step? When someone gives an argument for God, pick out the part where they’re saying God is the best explanation for something and ask: “How is ‘God did it’ a good explanation for that? How does ‘Poof! Magic’ explain anything? Please tell me exactly how magic is a good explanation for that.”

    And when you do that, it becomes immediately clear what’s really going on here. Believers aren’t really offering a ‘best explanation’ for anything, what they’re offering is a good-old argument from ignorance.

    “Woah! Lightning! I don’t know how that happens, so… it must be an angry magical being in the sky throwing down lightning bolts!”

    “I can’t explain the bacterial flagellar motor, so… it must be the work of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, non-physical, timeless, spaceless, personal magical being!”

    These are arguments from ignorance and they’re really bad. When you say “We don’t know,” you don’t say, “… it must be… anything!” When you say “I don’t know,” that’s where your sentence should stop.

    So when you ask people to explain “How is ‘poof! Magic’ the best explanation for this?” it becomes clear that believers are just offering arguments from ignorance and dressing them up with the language of ‘best explanation.’

    How do you defeat all religious arguments in one easy step? You pick out the part of the argument that posits God as the best explanation for something, and you ask: “How is God the best explanation for that? How is ‘poof! Magic’ the best explanation?”

    ~Luke Muehlhauser

  27. There are always too many comments to read through them all. I’m not even half way through. Maybe I’ll come back and dive in real deep later. I’ll say this: my view is panentheistic, and I believe some kind of divine being is evolving and everything else is evolving along with it. It is not creationist, and I can’t argue that such a god is perfect. However, I have given up any pretense that science and evidence supports this belief. Call it an untestable hypothesis, outside the scope of science. I still believe it, and I still acknowledge scientific principles.

  28. Hi, recently I became a believer and was institutionalized and labelled as bipolar. I think creationism is silly, but I think Intelligent Design is important to understand… Especially for psychiatrists. Communication needs to exist between believer and non-believer, especially if non-believers are medicating the believers. All this mumbo-jumbo with proving God just seems ridiculous and the possibility of a correlation between belief in God, mental illness, and genetics is frightening to me.

    I ask the question, “If religion is a mental illness, could hatred for atheists stem from mistreatment in psychiatric facilities?” I tried creating a discussion of this but I don’t think it was approved or perhaps it is pending approval. [Link to personal blog removed by moderator]

    • Hey Bud,
      I just want to encourage you to trust God. The Christian pursuit of debunking evolution can be a waste of time. If God wanted to use evolution or simply create the earth in 6 days, it is His prerogative, yes? (I wonder if the “God Particle” is the point at which God created everything in whatever manner He did, and the rested, sending everything into the reality we experience now) I don’t think Jesus got involved in the debate, although Paul and Peter make allusion to evolution being a precursor to God’s abandonment of a nation in Romans and one of Peters Epistles. Even there I don’t think we were called to battle the million infinitesimal arguments that evolutionists bring up. By paying attention to so many small things we can lose sight of the big picture: Redemption. That is the whole purpose of creation. That God loves us so much, in spite of our love of sin, that he would die for us in a gruesome manner. Because of that He says that others will recognise and thus be attracted to the fact that christians unconditionally love each other, even over the internet. I love you, my friend. I will lift you up in prayer.

      In reply to #60 by BipolarAltruist:

      Hi, recently I became a believer and was institutionalized and labelled as bipolar. I think creationism is silly, but I think Intelligent Design is important to understand… Especially for psychiatrists. Communication needs to exist between believer and non-believer, especially if non-believers are…

Leave a Reply