"Darwinism"

[CP489]

I recieved this private message on another board:

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it. To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Now I'll stand by that.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right.

Even if what one believes is demonstrably false and/or absurd? Some people end up in asylums for what they believe. Some end up in prisons for actions that were prompted by their beliefs.

But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.

Really? How then did atheism manage to historically precede Darwinism?

To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

At least we can agree on this point - I am assuming here that "evolution" is used in the usual naïve religionists' mode to include "origin of life" rather than in its strict biological meaning. However, I doubt we'll agree on how to resolve the dilemma that it poses.

Now I'll stand by that.

No doubt the author will do just that, regardless of any logical or factual objections.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist.

Despite any number of evolutionists who are contented synagogue- or churchgoers, having found a modus vivendi by according scripture a less literal meaning. Are they effectively atheists too?

'Luthon64

 

[CFLarsen]

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

I don't believe in Evolution. I know.

Do You Believe in Evolution?, by Bob Riggins

 

[UndercoverElephant]

We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.

Absolute and complete nonsense. Humanism is based upon the idea that we should make existential moral decisions rather than anything religious. Secularism is based on the idea that state and science should be kept away from religion and vice versa and atheism is as old as the hills.

To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, every word in the Bible is true.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist.

That is a non-sequitor. No further comment is needed.

 

[hammegk]

I don't believe in Evolution. I know.

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.

 

[blutoski]

I recieved this private message on another board:

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

One problem with this claim is that humanism, secularism, and atheism all predated Darwin by (respectively) at least a century, at least thousands of years, and at least two centuries. It can't therefore be a foundational belief of these things that obviously came before it.

To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe, but not according to the majority of Christians, or, for that matter, the majority of biologists who accept evolution and are also religious.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.

What is "hard atheism"?

 

[brodski]

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.

not at all, it is possible to believe in a supreme creator of life whilst accepting that the creator had no further hand in the shape which that life took.

 

[Admiral]

I'm a firm supporter of evolution and religious.

How can I believe in evolution? Because there's evidence in support of it. It happened, whatever the Bible said.

I think the general fallacy that this falls into is believing the converse.

It's a valid argument that if creationism is true, then God must exist. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to believe in creationism but not God (some God, Christian or not.)

However, it is not true that if God exists, creationism must be true. Therefore, there's no contradiction in believing in God, but not in Creationism.

The same is true of ID, though people that come up with that are just intellectually dishonest- it's not an attempt to harmonize science and religion, but an attempt to twist and distort science in favor of religion.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The SkepticWiki article [swiki]Evolution is an atheist theory[/swiki] has zillions of links and quotes from clergy, theologians and Christian scientists saying the contrary.

Hey, someone remind me what religion Pope John Paul II was?

 

[blutoski]

The SkepticWiki article [swiki]Evolution is an atheist theory[/swiki] has zillions of links and quotes from clergy, theologians and Christian scientists saying the contrary.

Hey, someone remind me what religion Pope John Paul II was?

Two problems, though:
1. Catholicism allows people to believe in evolution with certain provisions, and permits people to believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible. Unfortunately, this is why hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian, and it's OK by the church.

2. Christian biblical literalists are rare in the grand scheme of things, but they are very well represented in the US. I would say that the majority of American Christians believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible.

3. Furthermore, to many biblical literalists, the mere fact that other Christian denominations believe evolution and the bible are compatible does not cut any ice: this confirms their belief that these other Christian denominations are heretical.

 

[hammegk]

not at all, it is possible to believe in a supreme creator of life whilst accepting that the creator had no further hand in the shape which that life took.

Sure you can, if you a dualist of some type, or an idealist of some type. As a physicalist, that doesn't work sfaik.

And yes, we can split hairs all day defining atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic. Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.

 

[Admiral]

Sure you can, if you a dualist of some type, or an idealist of some type.

The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.

As a physicalist, that doesn't work sfaik.And yes, we can split hairs all day defining atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic. Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.

No- one can believe that the universe is goverened purely by physical law, but still had a creator. Look up the "clockmaker hypothesis":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis]

What's more, physicalist and evolutionist are VERY different things. For that matter, physicalist and skeptic are very different terms as well- I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it. To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Now I'll stand by that.

This person:

a) cannot discern the differences between humanism, secularim and atheism
b) thinks Darwin predates these concepts
c) equates Darwinism with evolution

I'm guessing this person thinks along the lines of humanism = secularism = atheism = Darwinism = evolution = Satan. Hence, if it doesn't harmonize with the Bible, its the devil.

Satan is using Darwinism to spread unGodliness (atheism), making men think we don't need God (evolution), taking God out of schools and government (secularism), and tricking men into thinking men can make his own rules against God's rules (humanism).

This person is warning you, CP489, not to fall under Satan's spell.

Now I'll stand by that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Christian biblical literalists are rare in the grand scheme of things, but they are very well represented in the US. I would say that the majority of American Christians believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible.

And 10,000 clergy say they're wrong.

Furthermore, to many biblical literalists, the mere fact that other Christian denominations believe evolution and the bible are compatible does not cut any ice: this confirms their belief that these other Christian denominations are heretical.

Well, backing evolution we've got Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, Presbyterians ... can you, in fact, name one mainstream denomination which makes denying evolution a matter of faith?

 

[Admiral]

Whether a denomination backs a particular doctrine doesn't have that much effect on whether members of that denomination believe it. As evidence, there's a 2001 Gallup poll that shows 45% of Americans agreed with the statement "God created humans in pretty much their present form within the last 10,000 years or so." (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm) That's not intelligent design- that's hardcore creationism, and almost half of America believes it simply because they believe it's their duty to their religion. (Check out that poll, it's got a lot of interesting information about beliefs on evolution.)

 

[Jorghnassen]

Two problems, though:
1. Catholicism allows people to believe in evolution with certain provisions, and permits people to believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible. Unfortunately, this is why hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian, and it's OK by the church.

Evidence for this claim that hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian?

Be careful with hasty generalizations. Whichever sample of Catholics you have observed directly or indirectly is not a random sample from the catholic population...

 

[blutoski]

And 10,000 clergy say they're wrong.

Well, backing evolution we've got Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, Presbyterians ... can you, in fact, name one mainstream denomination which makes denying evolution a matter of faith?

Well, I already explained that Catholicism does not say one way or another. Their decision at this point is that regardless of what you believe about evolution, you will not be excommunicated at this time. My observation is that in Canada and the US, probably the majority of anti-evolutionists are Catholics. Their faith doesn't tell them to believe in evolution - just that if they do, it's not a sin. Many prominent antievolutionists are Catholic clergy or laity.

For example, in this province, a Catholic highschool biology teacher sustained a lawsuit against the government (his employer) for over a decade, because he argued that teaching evolution in his own biology class violated his rights. (Well, that and sex ed - he had a lot of grievances, apparently.)

Anglicans are the same way, for obvious reasons.

I'm not completely versed in the others, except for Baptists, as my wife is one. Baptists do not have an authority (aside from the bible) - they are ministry-focused - so it is impossible to say what 'Baptists' should believe regarding evolution. My observation, though, is that they are mostly creationists. Something like 95%.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest association of Baptists in the US, and it is extremely hostile to evolution. The largest Baptist ministry in the world is led by Jerry Falwell, and joined the SBC after years of criticism, when it was completely taken over by biblical literalists a few years ago.

The other two largest ministries in the SBC are Billy Graham and Pat Roberston.

I'm really reluctant to call this organization "evolution-friendly".

 

[blutoski]

Evidence for this claim that hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian?

Be careful with hasty generalizations. Whichever sample of Catholics you have observed directly or indirectly is not a random sample from the catholic population...

Possibly. I'll try to recover the stats. The source was a Vatican report, republished in the BC Catholic. I figure they'd be in the best place to say.

Something like 5% of Catholics globally accept evolution. This is not surprising, since probably only about 30% get any sort of education whatsoever, and considering that Catholics are disproportionately elderly. They grew up in a world where only maybe ten countries have had evolution on the gradeschool curriculum, and even then, only since the '60s.

 

[hammegk]

The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.

Why yes. Dualism.

No- one can believe that the universe is goverened purely by physical law, but still had a creator. Look up the "clockmaker hypothesis":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis

I fixed your url; no charge.

And more dualism nonsense.

What's more, physicalist and evolutionist are VERY different things. For that matter, physicalist and skeptic are very different terms as well...

Most prefer to believe that.

- I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.

Apparently not.