Untangling Evolution (A *MUST* Read)

First Things ^ | Stephen M. Barr

[Exnihilo]

Yet another nail in the coffin of atheism. In a few days I'll post another work on the facade that is materialism, demonstrating yet again how one must embrace the most absurd theories and ad hoc conclusions in order to be an atheist.

[Exnihilo]

bump!

[Exnihilo]

The real question is whether man is more than a mere arrangement of atoms. If he is, then it would seem to matter little how those atoms came to be arranged as they are, whether by natural processes of evolution or reproduction, or by supernatural intervention. Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have indicated the essential point: As long as we maintain the scriptural and philosophical truth that man has a spiritual nature, there can be nothing to fear in merely biological facts.

It is otherwise for the atheist. It is his faith that is at stake in this controversy, not ours. His faith requires that chance and natural law must be adequate to explain the facts of evolution. If they do not appear to be adequate, he must nevertheless insist that they are. It is for him, then, to dogmatize about strictly scientific matters, not for us. We can be content, and should be content, to be guided only by the evidence.

I hope we all remember this. It is the atheists who are on the defensive. Those of us who are theistic have nothing to concern ourselves with, other than destroying materialism, which is of course, all but done at this point.

[Bogey78O]

will this thread be pulled like the Creatism v. Evolution thread?

[KirklandJunction]

"Evolution has been harmful to religious faith"?

...and nails have been harmful to carpentry

[spycatcher]

The irreligious left is being split by The Wedge Of Truth

[Exnihilo]

You know, I have to wonder if you read the entire article when your response involves something so tangential to the central theme of the work.

[gulliver]

Try this.

Give the above applet a try. Watch spontaneous, life-like order emerge from some very, very simple rules.

It doesn't mean there is no God to say that we don't know everything about how life came about or what it means.

[Exnihilo]

Watch spontaneous, life-like order emerge from some very, very simple rules.

Rules created by whom? ;)

[KirklandJunction]

Yes, although quickly.

The very first sentence "There's no denying..." is a very strong assumption (and a grammatical style) that I find argumentative.

His opinion, his use of free press, so be it.

He's trying to persuade, and apparently between the two of us, he hit .500.

Life is full of choices.

[balrog666]

It is otherwise for the atheist. It is his faith that is at stake in this controversy, not ours. His faith requires that chance and natural law must be adequate to explain the facts of evolution.

While this entire article is so biased as to be practically unreadable to anyone with half a brain, it is this blind statement that annoys me most. To assume that non-believers in your particular faith are necessarily atheists is ludicrous at best. To assume that atheists must somehow justify their "faith" while you blindly seize upon your own is even more stupid. Need I go on?

[Tom D.]

The existance of evolution and the existance of God are not mutually exclusive concepts. All we have to do is to look at germs that develop immunity to varius antibiotics to see evolution at work, no matter how evil immunity of germs to antibiotics is.

We are called upon to have faith. To have faith, we must belive and understand that the world is more complex than we may be able to understand.

We must be careful to remember that God created man in the image of God; man did not create God in the image of man.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Interesting

[Exnihilo]

While this entire article is so biased as to be practically unreadable to anyone with half a brain, it is this blind statement that annoys me most.

It may annoy you, but it's true. Materialism *must* be true for the atheist. There is no other alternative. And, the article isn't biased. The author readily agrees that evolution is most likely a fact! If you can explain why this statement that annoys you is false, please do so. By the way, what "faith" of mine do you refer to? I'm a theist, nothing more and nothing less.

[Exnihilo]

To assume that non-believers in your particular faith are necessarily atheists is ludicrous at best.

This is not ludicrous. The faith he refers to is theism- a belief in God. What is a non-theist? An atheist! Duh! If you take the time to read anything at First Things, the first thing you'll notice is that they do not take sides between religions. They merely espouse a theistic philosophy.

[jennyp]

The real question is whether man is more than a mere arrangement of atoms. If he is, then it would seem to matter little how those atoms came to be arranged as they are, whether by natural processes of evolution or reproduction, or by supernatural intervention. Pope John Paul II and Pope Pius XII have indicated the essential point: As long as we maintain the scriptural and philosophical truth that man has a spiritual nature, there can be nothing to fear in merely biological facts.

This is a remarkable concession! Oh, but if only he had stopped at this paragraph. If you take it seriously, then you should be the one on the defensive. Why spend your time trying to fight the consensus view of modern biological science? Why fear that accepting the truth of evolution will throw society into a nihilistic abyss, as, say, Phillip Johnson does?

Once you accept this paragraph's argument (as I, an Objectivist, have argued here for some time now), then the real debate is: Can what you call "spirituality" be created by a natural process, or is some kind of "supernatural" designer required? I think there's no reason to believe a supernatural person is required, and apparently you do. But we both agree that humans have a "spiritual" capacity! (I'd say humans have rational minds with the ability for abstract thought. Same thing, IMO.)

Vast areas of practical agreement flow from our shared starting point: The necessity for a morality based on individualism instead of collectivism, the necessity for the non-initiation of force or fraud, yet the acceptibility (or even necessity) for retaliatory force & fraud against violators. So again: Why fear evolution?

[gcruse]

Yet another nail in the coffin of atheism.

You can post all the antiscientific vanities
you wish.  None, however, will give the
impetus needed for me to begin worshipping
an invisible man in the sky dreamed up by
a band of  desert dwellers thousands of
years ago.

[ppaul]

Bookmarked and BUMPED!

[jlogajan]

Yet another nail in the coffin of atheism.

Reports of the death of atheism are greatly exaggerated. :-)

[Sophie]

I highly recommend a book I'm reading right now and wish I had read earlier. A Case for Faith by Lee Strobel is s-o-o-o excellent. In it Strobel interviews great scholars and cites numerous others on each subject covered in the book. His chapter on evolution is fascinating.

Evolution is biting the dust. More and more scientists and scholars are opting for intelligent design.

I am very impressed with this book. It is being used by the Lord to bring thousands of teenagers to Christ. My son-in-law, who is a sleuth in his own right, is finishing up his doctoral work in criminology. He is reading it and agrees it is fantastic. He is not yet a Christian.

Strobel has also written another great book entitled The Case for Christ. This book covers the historical evidence for the existence of Christ and His ministry. Also a winner.