Will evolution finally prove that god doesn't exist?

[AIM]

Their was a enormous discovery in the field of evolution just two weeks ago, and the archeologists working down in Africa found the skull of a man or ape that predates that of an earlier finding 50 years ago by about several million years. I'm sure that mostly everyone here has read about the findings, as they were quite shocking. With that finding, we are getting awefuly close to finding the orgins of man, and putting to rest that god is a myth, just like santa clause, the easter bunnie and witches are in our society.

With the acceleration of scientific data and the the fact that this is the year 2002, how can you not believe in the theory of evolution. Just look at some of the reasons why evolution is the only answer:

1) We used to believe in many gods. Any time that their was an aweful storm or lighting struck primative man believed that it was an act of god. We'll their fears have been proven wrong, as we now know that it's electrical charges in the atmosphere and a change or drop in the atmosphere that causes these violent storms. Or that the tuetonic plates are moving under us that caused the earthquake, not god. Now in our society, we pray to only one god. Eventhough we haven't figured out the answers to this yet, evolution may answer this in due time.

2) How was god born? C'mon does everybody here believe that a god was floating around in the air and said let their be light? haha Very doubtful... Evolution holds the big bang theory and I bet that this is the only true answer. Then the first life organism formed in the Ocean from the suns heat and then life crawled to the shore line and then we orginated in Africa. Then we just evolved so we could survive in our environment, etc.... I'm sure most everyone here would recognize that this might be the only possible answer.

3) Religion has caused extreme bloodshed. Just look at history. The Christians and Muslims have killed each other because of their religious beliefs. Europeans have killed countless American Indians because it's was god's will. If their was a god, do you really think that he would approve of this? People who believe in evolution would never have killed American Indian children because it was god's will. That's just pathetic.

4) Read the bible. What did god suspossedly do? In the bible it states that god was displeased with his people's debauchery so he suspossedly commanded a giant wave, the oceans rose up and wiped everyone out. And they included children, pregnant wives etc... Do you really want to pray to a god that kills innocent children and pregnant women? I'm sure that everyone wasn't a sinner. Sounds to me that myth belongs right up their with the boogie man. :D

With this post I don't mean to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs on this message board, as I just wanted to start up a conservation on why I believe that evolution may be the only answer.

[James Galimo]

I don't subscribe to any major (or minor) religion. I just hate how they "know so much" from a measly skull.

"While digging through the hot sands of Africa we toiled relentlessly and dicovered this link to our past. From this aged skull, we can tell that this man was obviously a Liberal fellow. Notice the jaw broken in three places here? From that we can surmise that not long before his death he was in an altercation with his brother, who had stolen his favorite shiny rock. Beyond that, he was an outspoken member of his society, had two children, named Steve and Rupert, and thoroughly disliked his mother-in-law."

Okay, that's obviously an exaggeration of the things these anthropologists say, but not by much.

[chet]

So God setup evolution to eventually get to people. Ignoring the born again wackos - it doesn't really threaten religions.

I went to a catholic high school and learned evolution made sense and creationism didn't add up. That and nuns can be real bitches when your first name isn't a saints name.

Chet

[chet]

Religion has caused extreme bloodshed. Just look at history

Also on this. Everything causes extreme bloodshed. From Oil to the way someone dresses to what soccer team they like. People just need a reason to go crazy sometimes, don't blame religion, religion is often just used as an excuse to rally the regular folk. It is a manipulation of religion - it is not the religion itself (yes if you go back the crusades yadda yadda yadda).

Chet

[JeffL]

LOL! Well, as a practicing scientist who went to school for far too many years, I can tell you that if you want to be an atheist based on this skull, go for it. It makes as much sense as any other reason.

I do believe in God, but my problem with evolution has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with my scientific training. Realize that adaptation does not equal evolution: adaptation is a proven fact (the horse-like animals with the longer necks survived because they could reach more food, thus perpetuating longer necked children, etc. that resulted in giraffes), evolution (a rat had some driving force to grow bumps on his back that eventually became hollow bones that eventually turned into wings) is a theory that many of my scientists friends, including atheists, have problems with.

As for the archeological discoveries, we learn new truths that change the evolution story every few years. Now, that's the nature of science. But the fundamentals of evolutionary theory constantly have to be changed to fit the facts as they are discovered (remember the posters that showed us evolving from Neanthradal man?) One of the major problems is that which was articulated by Darwin in his Origin: if evolution is a fact, it will be incontravertably (sp) demonstrated by the fossil records. With all of the fossil records that are available from so much of history (I did a lot of archeology on the side in school, just because I was/am fascinated with history, even went on a dig) we should be able to simply lay out the evolutionary path in fossiles. Lots of excuses as to why we can't (remember - evolution, not adaptation, which is a subset.) One of the reasons that the theory has had to be changed radically.

That's a real simplified version of some of the problems, there are others that are much more entropic and thermodynamic based. Again - I have NO religious problem at all with evolution, I believed it as the fact that it was taught until I got into grad school and started doing hundreds of hours of studying it from a scientists POV.

Hawking has described some of the problems with the Big Bang theory and the concept that physicists struggle so with: the t=0 issue, or where did anything originate from, was there ever a time = 0 at which the first "thing" became real, and from whence did it come? There are lots and lots of physics papers on this issue, most of which I am not a good enough mathematician (advanced calculus just lets you read the introductions! :) ) Einstein and Hawking (recently) have both said the same thing: there comes a point where you just have to let go and say "we cannot understand or explain before this point."

We as people are really funny. Every generation is, by definition, the most advanced, smartest, people in history. And each generation is taken with just how smart we are and how we have explained everything and can explain everything. When the world was flat, it was not a theory - it was a fact. When the atom was the smallest particle and by definition indivisible, it was not a theory, it was a fact. People are going to look back at our scientific facts a hundred years from now and laugh at how naive we were, just as every generation looks back and smirks. I had a friend (dual Ph.D., BioChem and Physics) I went through grad school with who told me over a few beers that he thought most people he went through school with, who weren't hung up on themselves. went through a phase where they learned enough that they thought they knew (or could know) everything, and then finally came to a stage of understanding where they were blown away by how little we really can understand at the most fundamental levels.

IOW - who knows? Evolution in some form may finally be proven, but the data is real shaky today (which is why whenever we find a jawbone somewhere we NOW have REAL evidence, as much of the previous REAL evidence has fallen under the weight of further learning.)

[Jason McCullough]

IOW - who knows? Evolution in some form may finally be proven, but the data is real shaky today (which is why whenever we find a jawbone somewhere we NOW have REAL evidence, as much of the previous REAL evidence has fallen under the weight of further learning.)

Someone's been reading too much Gould.

[JeffL]

Someone's been reading too much Gould.

LOL! Nah, but I will (and happily have) buy the drinks all night for someone who has studied evolution in depth and likes to debate the other side. My first hint of problems with evolution popped up in my first grad level biochem course - just a hint, as it never occurred to me to question it before then. Being an obsessive kinda guy, that led to a few years of reading everything I could get my hands on to test the hypothesis, and it came back with more negatives than positives in my mind. Which is cool - it's acknowledged as a theory.

[Erik]

It is a manipulation of religion - it is not the religion itself.

Exactly. Just because food supplies are often misused as a political tool, I won't be joining the anti-food lobby anytime soon.

[Rob de los Reyes]

Jeff, I'm a bit mystified, and maybe it's just because it's difficult to be precise in the truncated discourse of a message board. While I'm quite sure that no reasonable scientist believes that Darwin's Origin of the Species accurately describes the entire mechanism of evolutionary theory, I'm also not aware of reputable scientists who dismisss evolution, as such. The particulars are another matter. Whether evolution is smooth or marked by punctuated equilibrium, or whether selection is individual or influenced by family or group selection, etc. are open points. That's not the same thing as saying "The theory of evolution might not be true." If you're proposing intelligent design theory as an equal counterweight to evolution, then all becomes clear (and the discussion needfully ends). The origin of humans is also fraught with questions, but, again, getting the story of humanity wrong is a far cry from dismissing "evolution" as a concept.

I concede that I'm on shakier ground from an expertise point of view on this next part, but what in the world makes you think we should be able to lay out a complete fossil record? In light of all the world's geological processes to say nothing of the effect of different soils on bones, I would think it singularly unlikely that anything purporting to be a "complete" fossil record could ever exist, even given infinite time to dig around all over the world. Again, pardon if I'm just misconstruing you here.

I'll pass on the theological implications.

[Jason McCullough]

Someone's been reading too much Gould.

LOL! Nah, but I will (and happily have) buy the drinks all night for someone who has studied evolution in depth and likes to debate the other side. My first hint of problems with evolution popped up in my first grad level biochem course - just a hint, as it never occurred to me to question it before then. Being an obsessive kinda guy, that led to a few years of reading everything I could get my hands on to test the hypothesis, and it came back with more negatives than positives in my mind. Which is cool - it's acknowledged as a theory.

Well, what are they? Don't tease us, we can easily get a 100 post flamewar out of this. ;0

[JeffL]

Hi Rob,

First, no, this has nothing to do with religion. Nor is it due to postulating an alternate theory.

Yeah, I'm really oversimplifying the point on the fossil record, just due to the constraints of a web forum and trying to keep things short. Basically, it comes down to there being far more gaps in what we expected to find and what we did find in the time periods covered in existing digs and fossil records. Even those I know (pros in the field) who hold fast to evolution tell me that it's problematic.

I certainly don't dismiss all aspects and components in the overall theories of evolution - as I said, certainly adaptation is undeniably valid, amongst other concepts. But - in my opinion, in my reading, as a trained scientist (and hopefully reputable amongst my peers) many of the theories of the drivers of transformation from one species to another species (sorry for the imprecise terminology there) have major flaws.

As for the theological implications: I just think God laughs at our arguments. :wink:

[Desslock]

Well, as long as evolution doesn't disprove God's friend, the Easter Bunny, I guess it's o.k.

[Jason McCullough]

Hi Rob,

First, no, this has nothing to do with religion. Nor is it due to postulating an alternate theory.

Yeah, I'm really oversimplifying the point on the fossil record, just due to the constraints of a web forum and trying to keep things short. Basically, it comes down to there being far more gaps in what we expected to find and what we did find in the time periods covered in existing digs and fossil records. Even those I know (pros in the field) who hold fast to evolution tell me that it's problematic.

I certainly don't dismiss all aspects and components in the overall theories of evolution - as I said, certainly adaptation is undeniably valid, amongst other concepts. But - in my opinion, in my reading, as a trained scientist (and hopefully reputable amongst my peers) many of the theories of the drivers of transformation from one species to another species (sorry for the imprecise terminology there) have major flaws.

As for the theological implications: I just think God laughs at our arguments. :wink:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

'Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.'

[Mark Asher]

"As for the theological implications: I just think God laughs at our arguments."

That's an anthropomorphic view of the Creator.

[Chris Floyd]

I ain't no scientist, but as I understand it there are also new microbiological reasons to question evolution as we currently envision it. Who can explain how cells "evolved" toward a system of specialization, to give just one example? The fact is, evolution has been based on morphology -- the study of how fossils *appear* -- instead of any real genetic understanding of their similarities. Obviously, this is because genetics is a new science which has and will affect how scientists think about evolution both positively and negatively.

I think chances are good that evolution will turn out to be recognized as the first stepping stone in understanding the origins and development of life. But we're going to find out that it's a much more elaborate, elegant, mind-bogglingly amazing thing than Darwin could ever hypothesize.

And, because I must take the conversation a step too far, the question we all should have is: Does something that elaborate, elegant, and mind-bogglingly amazing happen as an accident?

[Jim F.]

Evolution can never prove that God doesn't exist. The closest it can do is to show that the bible was written by Man for Man and does not necessarily have the backing of God.

That being said, I'm agnostic. Both Evolution and God have holes in them that I can't resolve within myself. Some of it is lack of education, since I can't possibly learn everything I need to learn to make a completely informed descision. The rest is lack of knowledge as a race. We just don't know all the facts, and some of the "facts" that we do know still have to be classified as loosely supported theories.

Agnostic may be called the cop-out belief system, but I have to disagree. Anyone that can look at the evidence and say "Yes, this is the way it is, without a doubt" is being closed minded. An atheist needs to show how the universe was created and how the rules were set out before they can convince me that there is no God. And any religion has to explain the same thing to me, with supporting evidence that can't be contradicted, before I can say beyond a doubt that there is a God.

On an emotional level, it's hard being agnostic. The doubts can eat away at you. Is there an afterlife? Where did we come from? WHY are we here? Is it just an accident of probablity that created the universe, or is there a driving force behind it? If there is a God, who created God? Does he have a personality as humans do, or is he just a force driven to create.

[milo]

Jeff, it might help if you could provide a more precise definition or description for "evolution" and then explained what part of the description you have problems with. Your example of a rat growing wings was too confusing for me to follow (as I was under the impression that birds evolved from reptilian precursors, not from modern mammals).

Curtis and Barnes define evolution as follows:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

You seem to use the word "adaptation" to mean what I think of as "evolution." Which then begs the question: what do you mean by evolution if you see it as something different than adaptation?

On the other hand, if all you are trying to say is that our understanding of the mechanisms that govern evolution is imperfect and full of holes and that there could be some big surprises lurking in the future, then that is a statement that I don't think anyone could argue with.

To the original poster, I don't think that very many people who truly believe in any particular religion are likely to have their faith swayed by arguments from mundane evidence.

--milo

[Bub, Andrew]

That's an anthropomorphic view of the Creator.

Yeah? Well, so is calling Her "The Creator".

[James Gutierrez]

Also on this. Everything causes extreme bloodshed. From Oil to the way someone dresses to what soccer team they like. People just need a reason to go crazy sometimes, don't blame religion, religion is often just used as an excuse to rally the regular folk. It is a manipulation of religion - it is not the religion itself (yes if you go back the crusades yadda yadda yadda).
Chet

Chet,

While I agree with you to a certain extent, I do think that an argument can be made that religion is a unique, and uniquely dangerous, case when it comes to inciting violence or "rallying the regular folk". Power in an institutional context is brought to bear on enemies through a 'lens' of ideology, whether that is simple self interest (despotism,predatory capitalism), a political ideology (fascism, communism), or religion. Of these, I think that there are a couple of factors unique to religion that place it head and shoulders above the rest in its ability to focus hatred and intolerance.

First of all, religion has an advantage over more worldly ideologies as far as encouraging extreme behavior. Religion is by definition an irrational concept. I don't mean that as a slam against religion, just an observation that it is based on faith instead of logic (Pascal notwithstanding) and is unverifiable/untestable. The basic motivating aspect of religion is the carrot/stick of the afterlife, something which is completely unknowable to human beings. Proponents of a religion are completely free to promise eternal rewards or threaten eternal punishments limited only by their imaginations. Not only that, but religion never has to come through on its promises since dead men don't talk. Which is why religions, and their attendant wars, have a much longer shelf life than political or economic ideologies. The longest running conflicts around the world are not political or economic, but religious. Ok, yes, it's not black and white and all conflicts have political aspects to them but I'm talking about those whose primary rationalization (the 'lens' through which the conflict is viewed) is religious. To see how powerful a motivator religion is, just look at how long it took various civilizations to move past the concept of rule by divine authority. In contrast, look at the relatively short lifetimes of absolutist political models (eg fascism,communism) since then.

My second point is that religion is the ideology which most severely and absolutely divides the world into 'us' vs 'them'. By their very nature religions are exclusionary, separating the world into the enlightened and the damned with no allowance for any other 'truth'. (cf. John 14:6) A despot may be cruel and oppressive, but to the extent that he is motivated by self-interest there is hope of modifying his behavior by threat or bringing him to peaceful compromise. Compromise is abhorrent to a religious zealot. The zealot has everything he needs in his faith and is much more resistant to external incentives or threats. Nobody worried about Stalin walking into Yalta with a bomb strapped to his waist.

For evidence, consider that most of the words that have evolved to describe extreme behavior, martyr, sacrifice, fanatic, zealot, etc., have religious etymologies.

[Sean Tudor]

I just Thank God that I have a game like Grand Theft Auto III to play with !

[James Gutierrez]

As far as evolution goes, I don't think it disproves the existence of God anymore than heliocentrism does.

Jeff, I'm curious. You've obviously given this a lot of thought and I'd like to hear more about your objections to evolution. You keep mentioning major flaws and yet you're being pretty coy about the details.

[JeffL]

OK, let me pull out my musty old books out of the basement so that I can provide actual references that people can look up themselves. Most of the things that struck me were at the genetic level, but I'm old and can't accurately quote the references sitting here in my lazy boy (accurately named. :wink: ) It won't be tonight (I'm trying to finish writing a couple of articles, made much more difficult by my inability to leave this forum for the evening... :roll: )

[Anonymous]

evolution (a rat had some driving force to grow bumps on his back that eventually became hollow bones that eventually turned into wings) is a theory that many of my scientists friends, including atheists, have problems with.

Well, I certainly hope they would have problems with that theory in particular. Where are these rats with four legs in addition to hollow-boned wings?

[wumpus]

Most. Boring. Thread. Ever.

I know, I don't have to read it. Hint: neither do you guys.

[Jason McCullough]

Most. Boring. Thread. Ever.

I know, I don't have to read it. Hint: neither do you guys.

Alright, let's all talk about reflex based, permanent death, highly realistic MMORPGs instead.

[milo]

Most. Boring. Thread. Ever.

Yeah, we should talk about how all life originated in the primordial photon milk instead.

[Murph]

The basic motivating aspect of religion is the carrot/stick of the afterlife, something which is completely unknowable to human beings.

Well, yes and no. Not to turn this debate too much on its ear, but in truth, at the heart of Christianity (real Christianity, not the kind that 85% of Americans profess), "the afterlife" is really just the icing on the cake. But, maybe that's for another time and another place.

Proponents of a religion are completely free to promise eternal rewards or threaten eternal punishments limited only by their imaginations. Not only that, but religion never has to come through on its promises since dead men don't talk.

Tell that to Lazarus and all of Jesus' disciples. (Since Jesus was dead, y'know.)

[chet]

JamesG,

I think there is a difference between reason for going to war and motivation for going to war. Relgion has always been a great motivator to do something evil, but the original reason for the conflict is rarely religion. It is normally an earthly political reason, we want more land, we need more resources, they have better looking women, that other king looked at me funny, we don't know who they are so we better kill them etc.

Once that gets started, the leader starts looking around on how to seperate his people from "THEM" - slanty eyes, turbans on their heads etc. Demonizing your enemy is always the best part of war, and what better way then religion?

This is all a reason why I have a problem with formal religion, too much stuff was done, changed, added, taught to fit the problems or issues of the day. And once you read enough history, you can see if more christians knew about zoroasterism they might be doubtlful on their exact brand - and zoroasters everywhere kicking themselves for the whole virgin birth by tiger instead of man.

I think of religion like sports - in sports your strenuous exercise eventually brings you to a certain place in you body and mind - doesn't make a difference what sport. You can be running long distance, swimming laps, or just playing soccer, you can get to that place. Religion seems to fill that same function but in a spirtual sense. So whatever works for whoever needs it is fine with me.

Chet

[Brad Grenz]

This is all a reason why I have a problem with formal religion, too much stuff was done, changed, added, taught to fit the problems or issues of the day.

I'll agree with you there. I was watching Politically Incorrect once a few years ago and Jeneane Garafolo was on talking about how the Catholic church should contemporize. I was like, wait a minute, If you're a practicing Catholic, or any Judeo-Christian religion for that matter, that assumes you buy into the rap. You beleive in God and that he has rules for you. If that's the case these rules aren't up for debate. They're God's and he probably doesn't want you changing them while he isn't watching just because homosexuality got really popular, or feminists decided they shouldn't be denied the preisthood. Problem is most organized religions don't, or at least don't claim to have any modern day communication with God so they can't get permission to change anything either. The only one I'm aware of is the Mormon church who change policy based on "modern day revelation" rather than "reinterpretation".

[Murph]

Problem is most organized religions don't, or at least don't claim to have any modern day communication with God so they can't get permission to change anything either.

No, it's not that at all. It's simply that God, being God, and knowing everything beforehand, and...well, just being God, doesn't change. His will doesn't change, and, thus, His rules don't change. It's not that the Catholic (or Christian, either) church doesn't have any "modern-day communication to get permission to change" stuff, but, rather, that God has no reason to change His rules. Why should he? He knew how things were going to be when the rules were made.

God's just not into changing His mind, that's all. When He says something, He means it. (Thus, I don't see how anyone can claim that God is a woman.)