Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

The personal attacks and sniping stop now.

This topic can be discussed in a civilized manner.

Adherence to this simple request is expected.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


It's almost like I had a religious 'virus'.lol.
But, for 'hatred', see this;

This is like debating somebody out of bizarro world .

Dawkins said religious people have a brain virus and as an atheist and evolution spokesman, I guess he proves the OP!

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Clearskies]

One last thing then I'm done with this thread . . . it was a noble attempt by the OP, by the way. Too bad it became a playground for ignorance.

The reason you have Atheists bring up evolution when debating creationists or people of faith, is the same reason I bring up emptiness when debating my son about monsters in his closet. Simple premise really . . . If he sees a monster in his closet and then I open it to show nothing, yet he continues to cling to the fear of a monster in the closet . . . I say "but, what about the emptiness?" "Emptiness . . . ", he says. "I guess there is no monster in the closet then, Daddy."

So . . . you (general) cling to the belief that the bible is word. Bible says God created man in his own image, just a man . . . then a woman . . . in one day. Everything was created in 6. "But, what about evolution then?" "What about dinosaurs?"

The difference in these scenarios is that MOST christians don't say "Oh yeah, maybe I'll rethink" . . . The just say "The bible says . . ." and then fit those neatly into two catagories "The devil . . . " or "All things and strata fits into the 6000 years" . . . Ignoring provable data and mountains of evidence. Why do they need to bring up anything else . . . you've been stumped at the first angle . . . why leave until you can explain the first. If you (general) would learn more about the scientific method and the actual data at hand . . . maybe you (general) could debate past one subject . . . but it's not a debate. It's "what about evolution" . . . countered by "that's not true" and various propaganda like it causes genocide. Atheists didn't hijack evolution, it is used as argument . . . they try to argue on the superstition of religion . . . the religious can't see the difference because they take the superstition to be word, in the face of opposing data (time tested and mother approved) . . . without actually providing any data of their own.

reply to post by AshleyD


I have to admit, I did read 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins (and giggled several times while I did it) and can see where someone of little faith to begin with would feel that way. The one thing that he and other atheists have never been able to answer for me is what happened before the Big Bang? Like I said, science should not be used as a weapon against theology. I think that for some atheists they just don't want to admit that their real problem with religion is what some misguided practioners have done in it's name. Save Islam, there is no religion on Earth that advocates violence for any reason, and yet some seem to think that they are doing 'God's work' when they do things like kill people who work at abortion clinics etc. So instead of dealing with that issue, they try to debunk religion in general, which is impossible to do with science.

reply to post by solomons path


So, they try to DESTROY faith in God in the thoughts of people(Believer and atheist, not physically kill people like stalin) and that's not wrong, because you KNOW there is no God and the ONLY way to advance science is to have no 'sky fairy' and anyone who killed in the name of 'no God' was 'misguided' and no Darwin or Lysenco was a foundation for killing?

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by AshleyD

 

I have to admit, I did read 'The God Delusion' by Dawkins (and giggled several times while I did it) and can see where someone of little faith to begin with would feel that way. The one thing that he and other atheists have never been able to answer for me is what happened before the Big Bang? Like I said, science should not be used as a weapon against theology. I think that for some atheists they just don't want to admit that their real problem with religion is what some misguided practioners have done in it's name. Save Islam, there is no religion on Earth that advocates violence for any reason, and yet some seem to think that they are doing 'God's work' when they do things like kill people who work at abortion clinics etc. So instead of dealing with that issue, they try to debunk religion in general, which is impossible to do with science.

I was wrong . . . just wanted to respond to this. Trust me . . . that's something that all scientists realize. Many are trying, but no scientist will claim to know all about everything yet . . . Science is ever changing and even established ideas are shown to be wrong all the time, not unlike evolution. It's a matter faith vs. what is observable, in my opinion. Where atheists are relying on observations and the data those provide to point the way to the most rational explination of the manner of things, the faithful rely on an antiquated collection of morality plays and the interpretation given to those by men. Men that history has shown to be fallable. Mathematics either adds up or it doesn't . . . when it does reasonable expectations can be attributed to them.

Dawkins is also a man . . . pompus as he is, he certainly is no different from the people of faith that act the same way to those that dissent. Just as the pedofile priest is not a representation of the faith . . . Dawkins doesn't symbolize all of atheism or what is scientific truth.

EDIT - spelling and to say to clearskies . . . no one is telling you not to believe. You are free to believe in what ever you want . . . just stop confusing theology with science and just stop spreading blatent fallacies about what science does and does not prove. Science never once said that God doesn't exist . . . because there is no way to measure the acuracy of that statement. It seems a bit tad insecure to me that you would be adamant about the dangers of science and the advancement of it.


[edit on 4-10-2008 by solomons path]

reply to post by solomons path


Morality is not 'mathematics'.
It doesn't even make sense to many stupid professors and judges.
I guess that's where they fail at 'common sense'.

People are moral by nature . . . you are free to "google" the studies. If YOU, personally, are only moral, compassionate, and humane because of an antiquated book and your belief in the supernatural . . . then I'm glad you are faithful.

Most people live a moral life because it's the right thing to do, regardless. and it goes along with the sanctity life and preserving what a beautiful thing it is. Plus . . . it just feels good.

EDIT - spelling

[edit on 4-10-2008 by solomons path]

reply to post by solomons path


No, I am not ONLY moral, because of my faith, but, I am better at it because of my faith.
Wouldn't many 'scientists' say that morality is relative and there are NO absolute truths?
hmmm, I've heard it said somewhere by atheists.........

reply to post by jakyll


Just to set the record strait, and possibly get back on topic:

1) It is not Darwin's Evolution. It's a concept put forth, and later proved by Charles Darwin. Others, after him, continued the work, some for purely scientific reasons, others for political gains...

2) Why would Atheists hijack anything? There are more religious people studying and working in evolution of species, then there are Atheists. "We" are not organized, "we" do not have a leader, "we" do not have an agenda...

3) I know a lot of people in the evolution area, most of them catholic or moderate protestants, some atheist; not one of them sees any conflict between their beliefs and evolution. That question seems to only be present within radical theocratic movements, very few followers, but very noisy bunch, in America.

4) Why would anybody try to disprove the existence of god? Any person, with an IQ above 50, which I presume the scientists that study evolution have, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative. In other words, they wouldn't spend a second doing that, it is up to the claimers that something exists to prove it's existence, if they wish to.

5) He was a Christian, not to be confuse with fanatical new born American evangelical, so what? I'm an Atheist, and have taught Contemporary Christianity and Comparative Religions, in a Catholic University. Looks to me that it is just, again, among the fanatics that the question of one's religion even comes up.

6) He had no major arguments against god, or a god. Again, I think you are confounding god, the supposed creator of the universe, with the Bible, a compilation of some texts written by various people, which Darwin did have a hard time swallowing, disproving most of it's outrageous claims. This fact had nothing to do with his belief in god, it had everything to do with men's interpretations of what god was, what he wanted and what he had, or hadn't done...

7) Even if he didn't believe in a god he would have said those same words, you have to put yourself in the context of his time, very different from today. A person that outrightly spoke against the existence of god would suffer unimaginable consequences. Not only that, his families name would be tarnished for decades, they would loose all their rights, properties and riches...
Many people, at the time, that didn't believe in god, or even in a bishop or the pope, generally kept their beliefs to themselves; a lot like communists and gays did in the America of Senator McCarthy. They, didn't want to end up like Giordano Bruno, did they?

8) "So,if the creator of the evolution theory did not use it as a weapon against religion,is it right that others do so??
If he believed that evolution was real and a Creator existed too,is it not the duty of all Darwinists to share this information with people,less they become like some ignorant religious believers who pick and choose parts of their faith??"

* Each person uses the weapons at hand to further a cause, their are fanatics in every discipline. I, as an Atheist and a teacher, have never used evolution, or any other field of knowledge to attack another's beliefs, of course the bible is a whole different subject...

You must put yourself in the context of the period. If there was not a combined attack on the church, and it's dogmas, by the Enlightenment, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, today we would be living under a "Sharia" law; the whole social, economical, and technological evolution of western societies would have never existed, nor would have your Civil Liberties.

To sum it off, I will leave the bible for another post, Darwin's theories haven't been hijacked by the Atheist, or any other group that I know of.
- Most Atheists, it's not an organized religion, we don't all think alike, are not out to disprove the existence of god; why would we be, when we already know he doesn't exist? Of course, there are fanatics...
- Most Christians do not see "On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection" as an attack on their faith, nothing in it proves, or disproves the existence of a creator. Of course, there are fanatics...

P.S. Again I must stress that any intelligent human being knows it is impossible to prove a negative. There are, however, stupid people all around, in fact stupidity is prospering. That applies to people who believe in a creator, and to people who don't believe in a creator...
Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the existence, or non existence, of a creator...

The problem, with most American Evangelicals, is that they confound God with the Bible and with Jesus...

Great Post

Originally posted by solomons path
Science never once said that God doesn't exist . . . because there is no way to measure the acuracy of that statement.

I do not believe this is the issue at hand. Of course science does not say God doesn't exist. I absolutely agree with you there. 'The God concept' is outside the scope of science at this time. However, the topic concerns those who abuse science by claiming science and scientific knowledge negates God's existence and it is foolishness to believe in a God. The topic is about using evolution as a weapon against theism- and this does indeed happen quite often. It shouldn't but it does in fact happen.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by solomons path
Science never once said that God doesn't exist . . . because there is no way to measure the acuracy of that statement.

I do not believe this is the issue at hand. Of course science does not say God doesn't exist. I absolutely agree with you there. 'The God concept' is outside the scope of science at this time. However, the topic concerns those who abuse science by claiming science and scientific knowledge negates God's existence and it is foolishness to believe in a God. The topic is about using evolution as a weapon against theism- and this does indeed happen quite often. It shouldn't but it does in fact happen.

While I don't employ the same tactics, I certainly don't condemn them for it either. Those are their beliefs and they are expressing them and are willing to engage in debate over it. They see scientific discoveries as exposing tremendous flaws of reasoning in the traditions of faith. Faith's which have a history of supressing such thought. However, I don't begrudge the Church leader that employs the same tactics. It's unfortunate on both counts, but completely understandable in the conditions they operate under.

EDIT

[edit on 4-10-2008 by solomons path]

Clearskies.

Hitler's views on evolution dictated that there were inferior races, who were threatening to interbreed with the higher races and 'taint' them.

Yes,its called Eugenics,not Evolution.




Jay-in-AR.

There was a reason I used the term "darwinism"... I'll paraphrase your comment and if you choose to chase me, I'll post again, against YOUR wishes. "Charles Darwin was a theist and ATHEISTS use his observations to argue against HIS worldview."

Darwin called himself an Agnostic,not a Theist.There's a big difference.

In the SAME POST, you stated (and I believe i can QUOTE this one without going back): What if Genesis is just a story.

A valid question put only to those who believe in creation or a creator,just like Darwin did.

AshleyD

Hi there.

I often see many atheistic evolutionists speaking out both sides of their mouth when it comes to this issue. Not all, not most, but many. They claim science makes no claims when it comes to spirituality and that science and religion should not mix but at the same time, I often see evolutionary theory being used as a weapon against theism and spirituality.

In reply to those who try and seperate science and religion i quote Einstein,

Science without religion is blind,Religion without science is lame.

Clearskies.

It's 'ATHEIST', but, the way you try to discredit 'the divine creation of Earth', I would have thought you were, in fact, an 'atheist'.

Atheism cannot be summed up simply as,

the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

It is one of the hardest things to classify because there is no set doctrine.

Dawkins said religious people have a brain virus and as an atheist and evolution spokesman, I guess he proves the OP!

This reply about Dawkins isn't just for you btw.
I've read his book and apart from the more modern things like evolution,his arguments have been around for centuries,some even go right back to the birth of Christianity.He has nothing new to say,he's just out to make money,and in the process he is using evolution as a weapon.




solomons path.

One last thing then I'm done with this thread . . . it was a noble attempt by the OP, by the way. Too bad it became a playground for ignorance.

Thanks,and i hope you stick around.

It's "what about evolution" . . . countered by "that's not true" and various propaganda like it causes genocide. Atheists didn't hijack evolution, it is used as argument . . . they try to argue on the superstition of religion . .

Put that down a) to me using a provocative title to get people's attention and b) the view that some atheists stole evolution to use against religion is there for all to see.

I'm sure Darwin,if he saw how things were now would say something similar to what Einstein said about,'if he'd known what would happen he would've took up gardening.'

And i started another thread to try,in my own small way,to clear up the misunderstanding of evolution=genocide,because that belief is just gross ignorance.

Science is ever changing and even established ideas are shown to be wrong all the time, not unlike evolution.

Yup,and when a dogmatic faith faces such a thing as ever flowing science madness ensues.I believe that a religion should be adaptable;this is possible while keeping the core doctrine constant.




NorthWolfe CND

It is not Darwin's Evolution. It's a concept put forth, and later proved by Charles Darwin. Others, after him, continued the work, some for purely scientific reasons, others for political gains...

True.But for the sake of this debate,it is,because he's the poster child.

Why would Atheists hijack anything? There are more religious people studying and working in evolution of species, then there are Atheists. "We" are not organized, "we" do not have a leader, "we" do not have an agenda...

Read my other posts,i did apologize for lumping you all together.

Why would anybody try to disprove the existence of god? Any person, with an IQ above 50, which I presume the scientists that study evolution have, knows that it is impossible to prove a negative. In other words, they wouldn't spend a second doing that, it is up to the claimers that something exists to prove it's existence, if they wish to.

To validate their beliefs and to prove that they are right.I agree,that it is impossible to do,but people still try.

He was a Christian, not to be confuse with fanatical new born American evangelical, so what? I'm an Atheist, and have taught Contemporary Christianity and Comparative Religions, in a Catholic University. Looks to me that it is just, again, among the fanatics that the question of one's religion even comes up.

I don't believe i confused the 2,my reason for mentioning it was it gives people information on Darwin's background,which many people ignore.

Even if he didn't believe in a god he would have said those same words, you have to put yourself in the context of his time, very different from today. A person that outrightly spoke against the existence of god would suffer unimaginable consequences. Not only that, his families name would be tarnished for decades, they would loose all their rights, properties and riches...

He lived in the 19th century,people had freedom to deny the existence of God without fear of their families being tarnished for life and without suffering 'unimaginable consequences.'



Off topic,

You must put yourself in the context of the period. If there was not a combined attack on the church, and it's dogmas, by the Enlightenment, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, today we would be living under a "Sharia" law; the whole social, economical, and technological evolution of western societies would have never existed, nor would have your Civil Liberties.

As with evolution and religion there are fanatics who follow Sharia Law.What people see it as today is that which is used by the extremists and has little in common with the truth of the law.For example;there is no such thing as an honor killing in Islam,it is pure lies and manipulation.








[edit on 4-10-2008 by jakyll]

Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

Have religious zealots tried to hijack science and create psudo-science for creationism?

I honestly don't think atheists have tried to "hijack" Darwinism but I do know that creationists pretend they are science based which is confusing children to believe silly things like dinosaurs were on noah's ark Can you imagine how well that would work? "Oh Oh...Noah??? uh, one of the raptors got out again and....well.... remember those 2 unicorns? well... uh.... looks like they're now extinct"

[edit on 4-10-2008 by jfj123]

Yes I'd say they have, but other factors have greatly influenced the atheist mentality in a fair few people as well.
Addressing the issues of Darwin.
As far as I know:
He never stated humans evolved.
Was a religious man.
He was greatly reluctant to even publish his 'theories' on evolution, it was only when he passed away that it was I believe. One strong possibility was he knew it could be hijacked, which it has been.
Just a few rebuttals of the 'Darwin Factor'

jfj123

Have religious zealots tried to hijack science and create psudo-science for creationism?

Yes,they have,but this thread isn't about that.

I honestly don't think atheists have tried to "hijack" Darwinism

Darwin was trying to understand the world around him,he had no ulterior motive.Some atheists have taken his search for knowledge and understanding and have twisted it into a shadow of its former self.




WatchRider.

He was greatly reluctant to even publish his 'theories' on evolution, it was only when he passed away that it was I believe.

It was published during his lifetime.Posthumous publications include only his letters and his autobiography.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

what happened before the big bang

we may be getting close to an answer . Your best to watch from part 1




[edit on 4-10-2008 by yeti101]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Wabbit
Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

That's like saying squirrels have hijacked the NFL.

well....

No atheists havn't hijacked evolution.

Atheists have been forced into defending evolution because creaionists keep putting evolution and a disbelief in god together. Creationists keep saying that evolution must be wrong because it goes against the bible. They conflate the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution all in one sentence. This is what has drawn atheists out into this battle.

I started a thread on this a little while back.

Darwin's Theories are being abused


Evolution does not disprove a god, abiogenesis wouldn't even disprove a god. If the extreme religious people wuld understand this, then maybe the world owuld be more peaceful, progress faster and generally be better off.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]