Replies

A lot of the arguments here are based on an unsupported first theory, i.e. that only science is true, and that science is TRUTH. Therefore, all other belief systems are FALSE and therefore all other belief systems should be rooted out and destroyed.

Actually, the only people here asserting such things are religionist creationists imputing it as strawman arguments.

I'm an atheist and therefore don't believe in any god, yet I've never asserted that science proves or disproves the existance of god. On the other hand creationists routinely claim that Darwin is inconsistent with there being a god. So it is a creationist claim, not an evolutionist claim.

I'll jump in here. Certainly there are some evolutionists who claim that evolution (and/or other scientific theories, conclusions or insights) provide postive grounds for denying the existence of God. (Richard Dawkins springs to mind as a prominent example.) Jlogajan, however, is absolutely correct in noting that the assertion that evolution somehow implies atheism is much, much, MUCH more commonly made by opponents of evolution than by its proponents.

In fact I have NEVER ONCE seen an evolutionist freeper flatly claim in any manner that evolution implies atheism. Furthermore many evolutionist freepers have explicitly denied that such an inference is valid (including some who are atheists and might otherwise be expected to further such arguments).

Notice, however, even in this very thread, all the complaints from creationists about freepers using evolution to promote atheism. This is largely a phenomena of "projection". It is the creationists much more than the evolutionists who have it in their heads that evolution = atheism -- in fact they are the ONLY ONES here on FreeRepublic making such assertions -- and they are doing doing much more to further the popular currency of this false (or at least highly questionable) "scientistic" equation than we evolutionists are (assuming we were even trying to advance such fallacies).

I once offered (I think it was something like a year ago) to donate something like 10 or 20 dollars up to a total of something like several hundred dollars to FreeRepublic for each instance from FR's extensive archives of an evolutionist freeper making any kind of clear argument or assertion that evolution implies atheism. Even though I made this offer repeatedly across two or three long threads, I never got a single taker. OTOH read back just through this thread and see how many instances you can find of creationists asserting that evolution implies atheism! Like I said... projection.

In fact I have NEVER ONCE seen an evolutionist freeper flatly claim in any manner that evolution implies atheism. Furthermore many evolutionist freepers have explicitly denied that such an inference is valid (including some who are atheists and might otherwise be expected to further such arguments).

I've been hanging out in these threads longer than you have, and I agree totally with what you say. All the alleged "linkage" or even "congruence" of evolution with atheism comes solely from claims made by the creationists, who are always complaining that their religion is under attack. The evolution side always denies these charges, and always denies any assault on Christianity. Yet the claims of "evolution = atheism" never stop coming -- from the creationists. I think some of them just enjoy the notion that they are involved in a great satanic struggle. But it's a struggle invented by them and waged only by them. Evolution seeks only to go on being a science, and has no religious ambitions at all.

You are correct in that one would need to first establish what one claims to be the driving force; nature or an intelligence beyond man. ID does not claim to know who the driving force is, but evolution ‘can’ say that it is definitely nature.

But it can also be pointed out here, evolutionists ‘can’ claim that ID is definitely Creationism.

Anyway, I believe we a saying the same thing from different points…

I should also point out that atheism ‘needs’ evolution for validation, Christians do not.

Beyond that (because I think you make a good point) what I am saying is that when someone claims to ‘know’ what the cause of our existence is, it becomes a religion for that person. (Unless someone can provide evidence – which will always be refuted)

It does give merit to free will.

Again: “When its empirical resources are exhausted, science itself closes the door to naturalistic explanation. -William A. Dembski

I once offered (I think it was something like a year ago) to donate something like 10 or 20 dollars up to a total of something like several hundred dollars to FreeRepublic for each instance from FR's extensive archives of an evolutionist freeper making any kind of clear argument or assertion that evolution implies atheism. Even though I made this offer repeatedly across two or three long threads, I never got a single taker. OTOH read back just through this thread and see how many instances you can find of creationists asserting that evolution implies atheism! Like I said... projection.

Worth repeating. I think that "atheist" is probably the creationist's attempt at a descriptive curse word.

Re: evolutionists who debunk religion.

Of course you are right that evolution does not say anything about religion.

However, Darwin's ideas inspired a bunch of leftist ideologues who used his ideas to debunk religion. This was especially true of the social Darwinism movement, and the Eugenics movement of the turn of the century. Darwin's ideas, that life is "only chance" and that "the fittest" survive, inspired many to take the next step: since life is only chance, there is no God. Since the fittest survive, and there is no God given right to life, we have the right to kill or sterilize untermensch.

The result is Hitler, and Peter Singer.

That is why my argument insists the problem is the RELIGION of scientism, the church of Dawinian evolution, not in evolution per se, nor in science per se.