emotional

There are two layers to the creationist argumentation: the scientific layer and the theological layer. The former is about making the scientific case for or against evolution, and the latter is about the scriptural case. Like all the scientifically literate, I disagree with the creationists completely about the scientific case. Their "research" involves quoting out of context and other nitpicking, and outright deception, and the case for evolution is not even so much as dented by their ploys. Creation, like the theory of demon possession for explaining madness, is a discredited theory, and evolution, like brain disorder for explaining said madness, is the only acceptable explanation.

That being said, I have to make clear that in the theological scheme of things I agree with the creationists. I agree with them that creation is not a peripheral issue, but an important component of theism in general and Christianity in particular. I agree with them that evolution is incompatible with their religion, and that the god of evolution by natural selection is a sadistic monster, not a loving being (not that the Biblical creationary god is much better, but let's leave that for another discussion...). I agree with them that evolution, when taken to its conclusion, teaches a materialistic worldview where there is no design nor purpose nor any divinely-controlled ordaining of fates. I agree with them that theistic religion just crumbles in the face of the materialistic theory of evolution.

In short, considering the three alternatives:

1. Creation is scientifically true, and evolution is incompatible with theism

2. Evolution is scientifically true, and compatible with theism

3. Evolution is scientifically true, and incompatible with theism

the creationists choose option 1, and I choose option 3. I disagree with them only on the opinion that creation is scientifically sound. But I agree with them completely on that evolution and theism are incompatible, and like them I feel like taking to task those who say otherwise.

No, evolution and theism are NOT compatible. Evolution does not require God, and if it incorporates God then it is the puppet-king of a constitutional monarchy, not the sovereign monarch who decrees everything. The god of evolution is a sadistic monster that enjoys standing aloof and watching as the lion devours the lamb. Evolution is a materialistic theory, not supporting any metaphysical worldview other than materialism. I wish people would stop saying evolution and theism are compatible, because they're not. Evolution is the naturalistic creation story, the materialistic Genesis, that replaces the Genesis myth of the Bible. And with the Bibical creation account, there goes away the Biblical god also.

bluefugue

Evolution, if you accept the whole kit-and-kaboodle of it (no God jimmying the chromosomes, or creating the first primordial goo, etc.), renders God superfluous with regard to the creation of life. But there are other gaps into which He can slither, no? I.e. -- he set the universe in motion in a deistic fashion, knowing in his infinite wisdom that it would develop along such-and-such lines, etc. Or we can still relegate him to the sphere of emotional need (he is there because I fear death; he is there because we need morality). While the idea of a God allowing evolution to take its course naturally, then beaming morality into our brains and providing a nice Heaven for us to go to, seems absurd and needlessly complex -- it's not actually contradictory, is it?

I haven't read Finding Darwin's God but I am not sure how Kenneth Miller (everyone's favorite evolutionist theist -- as opposed to theistic evolutionist) reconciles his beliefs. I suppose he would say something along the lines of, God is so elegant and subtle in his ways, that the engine of his creation is buried in the most basic physical laws. (I imagine Miller wouldn't propose anything so coarse as Yahweh shifting alleles one by one.) Where, for Dr. Miller, does his God finally intersect with his science? In a fine-tuned universe whose natural laws are too "improbable" to come about by chance? Or is Dr. Miller's acceptance of God confined to a purely "other" realm -- is Miller a believer in Non Overlapping Magisteria? (Which Dawkins considers a cop-out...)

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: bluefugue ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Of course, as creationism is Biblical literalism, then it fails even without considering evolution at all: the Bible is riddled with contradictions, it cannot possibly be true.

So the inerrantists are already excluded from the frame. Now you're dealing with theists who have a somewhat wooly and flexible interpretation of the basic tenets of Christianity.

So maybe they can simply decide that God is not omnipotent? Perhaps God lacks the power to achieve the desired result by "cleaner" means.

emotional

People of the first faction (creationists) say evolution is just a naturalistic philosophy, not a scientific theory. People of the second faction say evolution is just a scientific theory, not a naturalistic philosophy. I, together with the likes of Richard Dawkins, belong to a third faction that says evolution is both a scientific theory and a naturalistic philosophy. Evolution is both a truly scientific account and the basis for materialism, humanism and atheism. And I think science and philosophy do mix, whatever may be the objections to the contrary.

Evolution does not leave a person the freedom of saying, "you know what? Maybe you share a common ancestry with apes, but I'm descended from Adam and Eve". No! Evolution says everyone shares a common ancestry with the apes and no-one is descended from Adam and Eve. Therefore, to say evolution is religiously neutral is quite disingenious. The doctrine of creationism is a vital one for theism in general and Christianity in particular, and to undermine it is to undermine theism. Creationism is important because, like geocentrism, it places mankind at the centre, the pinnacle, of God's plan. Take away creationism and substitute evolution, in which framework mankind is no more important than a mayfly, and the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/anthropocentrism.htm"" target="_blank">anthropocentric basis</a> of theism topples like a house of cards.

I see no way of reconciliation between evolution and theism, or between science and religion in general. They are in contradiction, and falsehood (creation, theism) must necessarily give in to truth (evolution, atheism). Naturalism is absolutely true, and all supernatural views of the world, including theism, are absolutely false. On this I stand fast.

Quetzal

The alternative of course is that a deity-like being does exist, and It created all of the necessities at time 1x10^-30 seconds around 14 gya, and hasn't paid attention to this corner of creation since. (IMO, it's been mucking about with the g*rtz!kl interstellar energy web spinners in NGC1586 - a MUCH more interesting species - for the last few billion years, and doesn't even know that a rather pitiable organism arose on Earth entirely by accident and without any interference simply as an emergent property of the laws It built into the universe at the beginning). No theist alive can prove this isn't the case. My hypothesis has at least as much going for it as the theistic one - and maybe more since it is in accord with the history of life on Earth - the only history we know.

OTOH, devnet, I understand and agree with your point. IF evolution is the only valid explanation for Life, the Universe, and Everything, then there can be no modus vivendi - no "non-overlapping magisteria" - possible.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

Boro Nut

You've fallen into your own trap. Since god has been around the longest of all, isn't it more reasonable to assume he is not nonexistent, but over the eons of time has simply evolved into something else, like a whale or something?

Boro Nut

Albion

As I remember, he thinks God works through quantum uncertainty.

emotional

I am of the opinion evolution is naturalistic philosophy as well as scientific fact and theory.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/whyevolution.htm" target="_blank">So Why Should Evolution Be Taught At Schools?</a>

bluefugue

But that would go for all science, not just biology, wouldn't it? It's just that evolution happens to come up most strongly against people's cherished beliefs. (Though obviously there was a time when astronomy was the battleground, Copernicus etc...)

As to your argument that evolution should be taught anyway -- despite being expressly anti-theistic in nature -- that might fly in Israel, but over here in the States we got something called the First Amendment, thank you very much.

emotional

But that would go for all science, not just biology, wouldn't it? It's just that evolution happens to come up most strongly against people's cherished beliefs. (Though obviously there was a time when astronomy was the battleground, Copernicus etc...)

Yes. As I say on that linked article, it's not that science is against religion... science simply finds the truth, and the truth is, well, anti-religion. Science only contradicts those religions that happen to be untrue... I would also count neuroscience as a big number among those oppressors of people's cherished beliefs. Telling people they don't have a soul and aren't going to survive death is a bit heady. So let's also ban antidepressants from medical centres, because they give people the heretical idea that mind and body are the same, that there's no soul, and all that anti-theistic stuff.

As to your argument that evolution should be taught anyway -- despite being expressly anti-theistic in nature -- that might fly in Israel, but over here in the States we got something called the First Amendment, thank you very much.

But evolution is still science, even if it inevitably carries godless materialism with it. There's simply no scientific alternative to evolution, so that's what should be taught. Anyone who wants to prevent his children from being taught evolution should have them homeschooled.