Does Darwinism Attempt to Replace God?

11-30-2004 | W.T. Stewart

[Dimensio]

The logical implication of the statement is that if you believe Darwin, you don't believe God is truthful if you believe in him at all.

Er, no. It means that you don't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. There are those who believe that Genesis was a metaphor, those who believe that Genesis was authored by lowly humans and not the divine God and those who believe that Genesis is a myth from someone else's religion, and not at all inspired by the God that they worship, who has an entirely different holy text to call His own.

Once again, you fall to the fallacy of assuming that your religious beliefs are the only possible religious beliefs.

. Either God picked up the dust of the earth and from it crafted man as scripture says, or man evolved at long last from a puddle of goo that somehow spontaniously turned into life where none previously existed,

Evolution doesn't say this. Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the means by which the first life forms came to exist.

then shapeshifted and changed to become a monkey one day, then turned magically into a man

And this is certainly not what evolution says either.

[Havoc]

I'm an atheist. To me, your "god" is no more capable of lying than it is riding a bicycle.

I am an anti-you-ist. I don't believe you exist. Your response must just be some kind of random creation of chance. So If I call you a liar, it doesn't matter because I don't believe in you right? Oh, wait, that isn't exactly how it works is it.

I'm full aware that others believe any number of things. People delude themselves with all manner of religious club rites intended at making themselves feel better about unanswerably doing whatever they please without any real guilt or responsibility. I understand, I just don't care that others believe other things. If 2+2=4, I'm not going to sit and worry that others believe it equals 5,6, 10, or a million. Dispelling ignorance requires that they either come to know that 4 is the sum, or that they have access to that knowledge if I'm around to share it. Beyond that, they're responsible for themselves to answer to God for their actions and beliefs. The issue at hand is whether Darwinism or scripture are mutually exclusive and you're way off the beaten path trying to handwring.

[Junior]

If you're talking about transitional fossils, there are literally scores of them (something you won't hear from creationist sources). And, if you actually give it any thought, the elephant's DNA should bear very little resemblance to the ant's (though there will be some very small portions in common).

[cainin04]

Great post, thanks for the info.

You know, I never imagined that I would get such opposition about what "Darwinism" is. Modern-day Darwinism is a theory used in the Unitarian church and by atheists to provide reasons for God not existing--I didn't even think this would be up to debate among FR members--but I guess I was wrong. Some members of this board apparently thought I was talking about "Darwinian Theory" and I was not. I have no big problem with Charles Darwin other than that I disagree with macro-evolution. I was not saying that Charles Darwin was some evil person trying to take God out of our schools! I said that liberals are using "Darwinism" as a means to eliminate God.

It is the same as when people say that the Islam-o-fascists have taken "Islam" and are using it to teach terrorism. My agrument is not with Islam, it is with how it is currently beging taught. The same holds true with modern-day Darwinism. I can't believe that this concept is so hard to grasp.

[Havoc]

Once again, you fall to the fallacy of assuming that your religious beliefs are the only possible religious beliefs.

No, I have fallen to no fallacy. I've watched broken limbs be healed. I've seen people I'd known for years to be blind see for the first time. I know what I follow. And I don't care what anyone thinks about it. Again, other beliefs are beliefs. Hundreds if not thousands of people had theories about flight, in the end, it was a pair of brothers that got it right to the exclusion of all else. The belief of the crowd is more important - right. The Wright brothers must be quacks because they could do it because they were the few when everyone else believed something better and different, nevermind nobody else could fly, many even died or just got all wet in the trying, but, those tedious little quacks that actually know something are so danged bothersome..

You want to question the scriptures, that's a whole lot different than arguing God and Darwinism. Now you're arguing, instead, Concepts of God vs. Darwin. Different subject. Watch out folks, argument sunk, time to move the goalposts. Yep, this is an evolution thread afterall..

[Dimensio]

I am an anti-you-ist. I don't believe you exist.

What do you mean when you say "you"?

Your response must just be some kind of random creation of chance.

Okay. You have an observed phenomenon for producing posts on FR, but you'd rather assume that some other phenomenon that has never been observed is responsible. That's bizarre, but if you want to believe it, then so be it.

So If I call you a liar, it doesn't matter because I don't believe in you right?

No, it doesn't matter because you're clearly delusional and more than happy to push strawman arguments rather than rational arguments.

Oh, wait, that isn't exactly how it works is it.

No, that isn't. That's why what you presented was a "faulty analogy".

I understand, I just don't care that others believe other things.

In other words, the fact that you are wrong doesn't change your proclamation that you are right.

You assert absolute knowledge that you are right and that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of reality in the slightest is completely and utterly wrong. To me, that's the height of arrogance.

[Junior]

Like I said, you have no leg to stand on and that was self-evident in your nonsensical response. God is perfect and does everything perfectly. Yes the humans are imperfect, but God's inspiration to write the Chapters of the Bible was perfectly done.

Don't take this the wrong way, but your assertion, above, is what is known as "unfounded." Because you do not question the assumptions in your statement, you've completely cut off entire lines of research. Needless to say, science cannot operate with such blinders on. This is probably why science and religion come into conflict so often -- religion assumes some things are beyond question and science doesn't.

[cainin04]

Havoc, you are exactly right. I made this point earlier. If people want to disagree with me about liberals attempting to take God out of the public square, that is fine, challenge me on that issue.

But, I was quite suprised to see FR members arguing like a bunch of liberals. When they don't like what you are saying, and they realize they are losing the debate they like to change the subject or move the goalposts!

I was accused of being a Dan Rather and citing sources that were "Fake"--I proved that wrong when I showed them my sopurces. Then someone bet me a million dollars that no high-school in the US used a text book that quoted what what I said in my article. So I showed them where it was taught. Guess what, soon as you destroy that argument they are already building the next straw man.

It then becomes an attack on your beliefs. I am telling you--this has been one heck of a learning experience. I never imagined that a group of conservatives and libertarians would debate like a bunch of crybaby liberals.

I bet it is mostly the libertarians--the wing of that party that agrees with legalizing drugs--that is putting up the liberal fight. But, that is just a guess.

[Dimensio]

I've watched broken limbs be healed. I've seen people I'd known for years to be blind see for the first time.

You see, the problem with this is that it doesn't advance your argument. It's not only anecdotal evidence, it's anecdotal evidence that doesn't actually support your earlier claims even if this really did happen.

Again, other beliefs are beliefs.

Just like your beliefs are beliefs.

Hundreds if not thousands of people had theories about flight, in the end, it was a pair of brothers that got it right to the exclusion of all else.

Which is why there are no man-made devices that fly that don't use the principles that they used.

Well, except helicopters.

And harriers can hover. Ever seen that? It's really neat.

Of course, this is a red herring that you toss in, so airplanes, helicopters and hovering crafts don't really matter here.

You want to question the scriptures, that's a whole lot different than arguing God and Darwinism. Now you're arguing, instead, Concepts of God vs. Darwin. Different subject. Watch out folks, argument sunk, time to move the goalposts. Yep, this is an evolution thread afterall..

Hey, you're the one who asserted that evolution calls "God" a liar. I merely pointed out that not everyone believes in the same "God" that you do, so you toss up bizarre (and logically flawed) analogies regarding the Wright brothers. You're the one who decided to make this "The God of the Bible", then "The God of the Bible, as I interpret it, because I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong, because God has given me absolute, perfect knowledge".

[Right Wing Professor]

Modern-day Darwinism is a theory used in the Unitarian church and by atheists to provide reasons for God not existing

Darwinism n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others. It states that species of plants and animals develop through natural selection of variations that increase the organism's ability to survive and reporduce

American Heritage Dictionary, College Edition, 1976

If you decide to make up your own definitions for terms, don't be surprised or upset when people who use the standard definitions argue with you.

[Junior]

Many people believe that God throws a red herring once in a while, just to test our faith.

So God is a trickster?

[Right Wing Professor]

You're feeding the trolliest of all trolls placemarker.

[Junior]

Darwinism suggests that man evolved from apes. Scripture says that man was made by God after his own image. The two are mutually exclusive.

Only if you are talking about God's physical image -- and anyone looking around can see that would be a false assumption.

[cainin04]

The argument is with how Darwin's theory is being applied, not with Charles Darwin. I think everyone on this board knows the theory and knows the def. of the word.

If you want to disagree with what Darwinism is to most people, that is fine. Take a trip to your local Unitarian church and locate their Darwin Room! I think you will see exactly what I am talking about.

[Right Wing Professor]

Our local Unitarian church doesn't have a Darwin room, as far as I know. I'm as fond of Unitarian jokes as the next guy, and indeed the local church's website is somewhat of a UU stereotype, but they're much more into meditation, Yoga, and comparative Eastern religion stuff than evolution.

[Junior]

...(designed to test you faith)

Me faith untestable. Me no like possessive pronouns either.

[VadeRetro]

So you falsify ID by removing a part from a irreducibly complex biological structure, and having it continue to function. And what makes it an irreducibly complex biological structure? Well, the fact that you can't remove a part from it and have it continue to function!

Looks like the crickets have been chirping for four hours now on this one. Too bad! The reply would have been very informative, I'm sure.

[Right Wing Professor]

Looks like the crickets have been chirping for four hours now on this one.

Too bad. I was kinda proud of it.

[Junior]

Well, except helicopters.

With all due respect, helicopters still use the Bernoulli Principle to fly. You're on stronger ground with the Harrier which uses ducted jets to hover.

[longshadow]

"Festival of Trolls Suffering Delusions of Adequacy" placemarker