A Question About Evolution and Atheism

Philippines
July 17, 2010 12:35am CST
The world is divided into two groups: First, those who believe in God, His Word (the Bible) and His Creation. We call them Creationists. Then the second group, those who don't believe in God (Atheists), and they don't believe in Creation but instead they believe in Evolution (Evolutionists), that the Earth is millions years old already and a product of what they call "Big Bang" and other heretic scientific theories. I am also a man of science. Besides being a pharmacist, well-versed about scientific theories, I also love reading books and researches about science. But I admit I have a strong affinity to the Creationists because of my Bible education when I was in high school. Now, for the evolutionists, if they are right with their theory of evolution, why is it we, humans don't evolve going back or becoming an Ape or Monkey? I have never heard a story about a man who grew up going back into an Ape form! Why is it inspite of their theories about the possibility our planet being eaten by a black hole, a possibility of giant asteroid colliding with Earth, and other "End of the World '2012 Movie style' horror theories", if the Earth is millions of years old already, why is it the Earth did not collide with a giant Asteroid in the past and broken it into extinction? Why is it nothing so terrible like that have happened 500,000 years ago preventing our human existence? Are they really scientific theories or scientific folly (foolishness)? Looks like there is really a God that is protecting us from becoming Apes again (reverse of their theory of man's evolution)? Looks like there's really an all powerful God guiding, regulating the universe and protecting this world from great disasters such as collision with some weird planets out there...
3 people like this
18 responses
• Thailand
17 Jul 10
Your definition of the world is rather narrow. I guess the best way to paraphrase it would be to say "The world is made up of two parts, fundamentalist Christians and everyone else." I this what you are trying to say? I understand what a Creationist is, a person who chooses to turn their back on all of the hard won knowledge that the human race has gained in the last three thousand years and instead believes in the fables and myths developed in Mesopotamia when modern civilization was just emerging. I don't know what an Evolutionists is. A person who has studied and understands the process of evolution knows that evolution is an ongoing, observable process that does not require belief.
2 people like this
• Canada
21 Jul 10
Chiang, I'd just like to say that after reading some of your responses in this discussion on the first reply, I may have a bit of a crush on you haha. Thank you for the witty retorts, it has made my morning.
@Galena (9110)
17 Jul 10
Wow. you think that there's only Atheists and Christians and nothing else? and as for the theories that because the world has never been hit by an asteroid then it's not possible that it can happen. hmmm. you can't possibly get hit by a car, or it would have happened already. and evolution isn't something that happens in just one lifetime. no one is born one species and becomes another. I don't actually believe that the universe HAS a beginning. it just always has been, and it always will. it will change over time, and has changed over time, but there was never a point of nothingness. I believe in Evolution and I believe in Gods, and see no conflict between the two.
1 person likes this
• Canada
19 Jul 10
Obviously it's more complicated than Christians who believe in creation and atheists who believe in evolution. There are Christians who believe in evolution and Muslims, Hindus etc.. I think many Christians believe in special evolution (black moths evolving into white moths) but not general evolution (ameboas evolving into dinosaurs). Thanks Galena for reminding us that before the Big Bang theory there was the Steady State theory that the universe always has and always will exist in roughly the same form. This is even more contrary to the Bible than the Big Bang.
@Mitraa (3184)
• India
17 Jul 10
I may say that the Earth and its contents, other planets, stars, the Sun, the Moon as well as the entire space and time, everything is the imagination as well as creation of God! All these have been made possible in the never-ending path of the great time as well as limitless space, through the interaction of natural forces with matter! Religion is not above Nature or God, rather it is human-made! Just like we protect anything that we have created, so also, God protects the universe unconditionally by the support of natural forces! Where ever any destruction is required, God also destroy in order to make a better Earth!! Thanks and may God save all!
• India
17 Jul 10
science has many followers for its branding. with a view on science, as naive it is on religion, even science is not better a joke. these days evolution was right, and monkeys were our fore fathers and darwin was god. but now darwinism is in verge of disapproval and big bang is not proved to 100% even today. both shall fall soon.... there is no guarantee with science, that theories of today stand tomorrow. its just a promise for today that fades with your dusk, and your kids have different theories to read. so i ve chosen to believe what our ancestors said is truth and shall discover that truth walking in the path they have already laid for me.
• Philippines
18 Jul 10
I am just wondering, how can these scientist-turned-atheists so sure that they are right with their thinking and reasoning? The reality is, inspite of the advancements in science, there are still things that remain unexplained by science, giving way to the possibility that our human mind and reasoning have degraded too much down the sink since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Why they trust their reasoning too much to the point that it looks like they are already making it their god? The goddess of Reason.
1 person likes this
• Philippines
19 Jul 10
We acknowledge the POWER and VALUE of science, but let's not be blind the science has its own limitations too...
• United States
18 Jul 10
@magtibaygom: "How can these scientist-turned-athiests so sure that they are right with their thinking and reasoning?" Because science has a built-in test for how to tell you're right: predictions that come true reliably. If science wasn't right about electricity, your computer wouldn't work. If science wasn't right about immunology, vaccines wouldn't work. If science wasn't right about radioactive decay, nuclear power plants woudn't work. And so on. If one has a hypothesis, one has a prediction that anyone can test, and if the prediction doesn't turn out to be correct, the hypothesis isn't right.
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Jul 10
Your science is actually quite sloppy. What in evolution predicts that humans would become apes such that a failure to do so would falsify it? What makes you think the universe is so crowded that the fact the earth hasn't been annihilated by collision with something unpleasant over a mere few million years isn't adequately explained by random chance? What prediction does creationism make that if it, couldn't be verified, you would acknowledge falsified creationism? If you can't answer that, and yet still believe creationism is science, then you're no scientist at all.
1 person likes this
• Canada
19 Jul 10
As a Christian I'm concerned that science seems to contradict Biblical creation. We could (as many do) argue that this passage is allegorical but that opens the door to reducing the Bible to a mish-mash of suggestions and you end up talking utter nonsense (I've seen people do this). As a scientist I can see problems with the Big Bang (like it contradicts the general principal of conservation of matter and energy), and evolution (like it can't explain how life started in the first place). I don't think anybody who knows much about science can really be an atheist. Science says that time is an illusion, most the mass of the universe consists of mysterious dark energy and dark matter, there are probably multiple universes etc. Scientists now know that we don't know most things. There's an awful lot of gaps in our understand of the multiverse where God and all sorts of other strange things could be hiding. Atheism is just arrogance that ignores real science. I think the solution has to be to reconcile Biblical creation and the Big Bang/Evolution with some sort of Intelligent Design.
• United States
20 Jul 10
"I don't think anybody who knows much about sceince can really be an atheist" Sagan, Feynman, Gould, and Hawking refute you without even trying, to name only four of many. "Science says that time is an ilusion" No, it doesn't. "Scientists now know that we don't know most things," Scientists have always known that we don't know most things. It's precisely why they developed science as a way to start knowing things. And wow, are you actually clinging to a "God of the gaps" argument? Most creationists view that as highly problematic, given how the gaps keep shrinking. "I think the solution has to be to reconcile Biblical creation..." Good luck with that. People have been trying for a long time. As to "Intelligent Design," you'd have to deal with the problem if Inelegant Design first. The kluge that is biological life is far more consistent with evolution than the notion that someone planned it out, let alone intelligently. Diabetes? Kidney stones? Two lungs, two kidneys, two brain hemispheres, but only one heart? We'd flunk a high school student who proposed the human body as a design.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Jul 10
One need not prove the non-existence of God to have a solid foundation for not believing in him -- one cannot prove the non-existence of polka-dotted unicorns who hide behind the moon, but I doubt you believe in them or consider yourself arrogant or bigoted for not believing in them. It is for those wish the existence of God to be taken as seriously as the existence of gravity to prove their assertion. Yes, indeed, scientists used to believe things that scientific method proved to be wrong. That's the beauty of scientific method, and Christianity has nothing like it. You do realize that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an absurdist comedy, and that in the very next sentence the Babel fish is shown to prove the non-existince of God, yes? Regarding your explanation of how an intelligent designer could design a human body with only one heart, are you seriously suggesting that an omnipotent God couldn't have designed a body with two hearts? That's not even internally consistent. "We don't have [a scientifically valid Intelligent Design theory] yet but I think it's only a matter of time and brilliance." Do let us know when you come up with one of those, and science will be all too happy to test it out.
• Canada
21 Jul 10
I really think atheists have to be very arrogant and bigoted. It's obvious that you can't prove the non-existence of God (and most atheists discount the entire paranormal) so at best your only logical choices are to be an agnostic or believe in some sort of diety(s). An ignorant person may honestly believe that God has been disproved but for a scientist this is a delusion or a lie (depending on if they really believe it). Scientists used to believe (along with everybody else) that the stars were only a few miles above the Earth and rotated around it and that there was only one universe. We now know that the universe is ridiculously huge and strongly suspect that there are multiple universes, and we can't answer a whole bunch of questions that former generations didn't even have the knowledge to ask (like "are there multiple types of dark matter?"). Is time an illusion: try Googling "time illusion" and figure it out! I personally don't believe in the "God of the gaps" because I believe some things we know relate to God but people prefer to ignore it (I've mentioned some things like the Cambrian explosion and Biblical prophecies). It's like the Bable fish in "The Hitch Hikers' Guide To The Galaxy" which is thought to be too useful to have evolved by chance and is therefore used as evidence of the non-existence of God. However, God clearly isn't obvious from what we can normally, easily observe. I believe that if science continues to advance, we will increasingly discover the science of God and the paranormal realm. I think your argument about biology being more in line with evolution than intelligent design is highly biased and debatable. I suspect we only have one heart because it's very difficult to put in a spare and the ability to cut the defective heart out of the system when it fails (and perhaps try to struggle on with the better heart in the event that both have serious problems rather than have the system cut out both hearts and kill you). Therefore a second heart would make us more prone to sudden failure. An Intelligent Design theory will need work, some sort of theory that predicts experimental results or at least some things that otherwise don't make sense. We don't have such a theory yet but I think it's only a matter of time and brilliance.
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
6 Aug 10
Congratulations! You manage to combine bad science with a poor understanding of religion all the best urban
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
11 Aug 10
There are two kinds of people in the world; those who devide all of humanity into two groups, ... And actually I have seen those allegedly human individuals who insist in holding on to their ape nature, especially during their adolescence.
@bird123 (10632)
• United States
17 Jul 10
Everybody wants the simple answer. Creation is much more complex than mere bible stories or just evolution. The universe was created to unfold in such a way that mankind will be able to discover it all in time. Lots left to learn kiddies. If you think the Earth is just 6000 years old, you do not live in reality. If you think existence is centered around the Earth, your ego needs to be checked. God has more depth than you imagine. Evolution might be a piece of creation but there is much much more to the story.Why doesn't man turn back into an ape???Wouldn't that be a very bad design???? Why doesn't an asteroid destroy the Earth??? Simple, God's design on the unfolding of the universe placed Jupiter, a very very large planet nearby the Earth. Why?? It's large mass and gravitational pull attracts large objects toward it away from us. Don't you remember the comet that hit Jupiter? This world and everything around it work so very well. Random chance is not so specific on all those wonderful details all together. Check number statistics on possibility. You then have proof of a higher intelligence design. Keep working. When you understand the entire thing, you will come closer to understanding God.
• Philippines
18 Jul 10
I admire your observations. You got it. I like that. Why is Jupiter placed near the Earth and not beside Pluto?
@greenpeas (998)
• Philippines
17 Jul 10
I dont think the world is divided in a simple black and white as you described. There are Muslims, which dont believe in your God and the Bible and their numbers are greater than yours. There's the Hindus which believes in multiple deities. There's the Buddhists which believes in reincarnation and wisdoms of Buddha. There's the Jews which believes Jesus is just a prophet, etc. There is no use going out and battling science, because science is based on facts of life and logical sets of conclusions. However, science itself is continously evolving, and growing, and becoming better...While most religions stay the same. Faith doesnt need logical explanations so by trying to prove its validity defeats the purpose of why its called like that in the first place.
• United States
17 Jul 10
It's Muslims who believe Jesus is just a prophet. Jews believe Jesus was a false Messiah.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Jul 10
Science, like religion, can indeed be misused. Science differs from religion in that it has a method of detecting and correcting errors built in -- which is why we no longer speak of phlogiston or drapetomania, for instance. Exploiting evolution to attack Christianity for a couple of centuries is a neat trick for a theory first published in 1859. I think your perspective is reversed, however -- it is Christianity that has attacked evolution ever since that publication; or at least certain elements of Christianity. If Christianity has come away from that altercation looking battered, well, picking fights with better armed opponents sometimes leads to that result. It's not the first time -- Christianity didn't come away from it's dealings with Galileo and a heliocentric model of the solar system any better for wear, either.
1 person likes this
• Canada
19 Jul 10
Science can be wrong or get misused. I think evolution has been exploited to attack Christianity in the last couple of centuries.
@rappeter13 (8608)
• Romania
17 Jul 10
Nobody said that science is the opposite of believing. If you take a deeper look to the Genesis in the Bible you will see that the order of Creation is the same as in evolutionist theory. And in the Bible is said that in front of God 1000 years are like a second to us. So belief and science are not combating each other, they are complementary. It is no use to debate about this. And there is a saying that on a crashing airplane and on a sinking ship there are no atheists, because all you hear is Oh my God...;)
• Philippines
18 Jul 10
@rappeter: I agree. Belief and science should not combat each other. But there are people out there who by their stance challenge (fight) God and ridicule His words (Bible). They trust their "reasoning" too much to the point they have already made it their god, "goddess of reason"...
• United States
17 Jul 10
"If you take a deeper look to the Genesis in the Bible you will see that the order of Creation is the same as in evolutionist theory." Absolutely false. The story in genesis has light before stars, indeed has plants before there are stars -- which means the plants would have no light to photosynthesize.
2 people like this
• Philippines
24 Jul 10
When I was in elementary school and I first heard about the Theory of Evolution from my Science teacher, I can't help but think how ridiculous it was. My young mind couldn't comprehend the "fact" that from simple forms of bacteria, life evolved into complex organisms eventually into apes and then humans. However, since I was still a kid then and going against your teacher's ideas is not allowed (or else you could get kicked out of school), I tried to believe it and accept the idea that was offered to me. Later I heard that my Science teacher and Religion teacher were not on speaking terms anymore. Moving on to high school, I met more smart people who attempted to combine the soundness of both Evolution-ism and Creationism. They claimed that God's timescale and the earth's timescale is just not the same. Being the phlegmatic that I am, I again accepted those ideas. However, when I got to college, I came upon this book written by Lee Strobel called the Case for a Creator. And I was really shocked at what I had discovered. That book showed the many flaws of Darwin's supposed theory and I believe that the numerous evidences presented in the book was what I have been looking for all these years. It was a cool book and it was the first time I realized that there is such a thing as false science and true science. Since then, I learned to be more critical of the ideas that were presented to me and not just to accept them blindly.
• India
26 Jul 10
"Evolution-sm"! Well, you don't call "motion-sm" or "gravitism" etc. My due respect for Lee Strobel. But how many biologist did he interview? None. If I remember it correctly he did interview biochemists among philosophers and engineers. Try Francis Collins' book The Language of God; or read OT scholar and Biochemist Ernest Lucas' Can We Believe Genesis Today?; or biologist Darrel Falk's Coming To Peace With Science; or Denis Alexander's Evolution or Creation: Do We Have To Choose?. Philosopher of Science like Nancey Murphy and Ernan McMullin differ with philosopher of Science like Steve Meyer. Alister McGrath and John Polkinghorne, two well known Christians who write on Science, will have a different take from that of Lee Strobel. My view is that Intelligent Design folks have a very weak case, theologically plus scientifically.
• United States
24 Jul 10
Another Case Not Made: http://bit.ly/92w1kO
• Indonesia
17 Jul 10
Well, i choose being both of it, i believe god, and i believe science too, it's not hard in combining it, and it's confused us less when we believe both of it :) just don't be atheis :A
• Philippines
17 Jul 10
That's a nice position. A combination of both. You take the truth out of the two and eliminate what you think is not true. But there are part of the controversy that we cannot mix, like oil and water. I would like to hear the comments of those "strong hard-core Atheists, and Evolutionists" who frequently roam this part of MyLot...
• India
23 Jul 10
@ magtibaygom, I am afraid it's rather your version which is taking bit of both and mixing it so that they don't become compatible. Evolutionary biology does not deny God or affirm it. After we won't expect a scientific theory like motion's theory or quantum theory etc to deny God or affirm God. Science does not deny or affirm God as much as geography or physics etc won't.
@urbandekay (18278)
6 Aug 10
I agree, I am a believer in both God and evolution. all the best urban
• United States
17 Jul 10
i believe in both science and god. i dont see how i could live with myself if i was athiest
@Galena (9110)
18 Jul 10
well the atheists seem to manage just fine.
1 person likes this
• India
23 Jul 10
My friend, I have my doubt if you are well-versed in scientific theories! Heard of evangelical Christians like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, Darrel Falk, Jeffrey Schloss, Nancey Murphy, John Stott, J I Packer, Billy Graham et al. They don't see theory of evolution as opposed to biblical account of creation. The way you see creation vs evolution is not quite right. You can't say Physics vs God or Biology vs God or Chemistry vs God or God vs medicine. You said you are pharmacist. Suppose somebody puts the matter as medicine vs God: who heals it? You will say it's not either medicine or God; it can be both medicine and God. Sometimes it can be only God, but sometimes it can be both God and medicine. To say that God can never use medicine is to undermine God's way of working because God can be subtle as well as explicit. Similarly even in evolution God could have used evolutionary process to create man. Does biblical text rule that out? I don't think so.
• Canada
18 Jul 10
First of all though I'd like to make it very clear that atheists do not NECESSARILY beleive in evolution. Every atheist is free to make up their mind about the origin of man, though most go with the science and do infact believe in evolution. The same thing can not be said about those in dogmatic religion (such as christianity) that demand its followers to believe in things like creationism. I'm not trying to make a point against or for either way of thinking here but the fact that atheist don't necessarily believe in evolution is an important to be made, I'm glad you have a respsect for science, however it does seem that your knowledge in evolutionary biology could use a little brushing up. As for why man has not begun to evolve back it is important to note the time scale evolutionary processes is in the hundreds of million even billions of years (first/early life 3.5 billion years ago). To really appreciate this you have to take into consideration that all of human history, all those ancient history classes, cant even go as far back as 10000. Imagine a football field thats length represents the 4.5 billion year old earth. Humans have only been on this earth equivalent to the width of a blade of grass at the very end on that field. (Its been a while since I actually did the math for this and I cant remeber just how many football fields it is. If memory serves I think it was 5 or 6 but one football field is a very conservative estimate for this example.Anyways) So even if humans needed to adapt to their environment by becoming more like modern day apes it would take millions of years. (Just an FYI for us to evolve closer to what apes look like our environment would have to be so similar to their's in order that natural selection starts picking "ape like humans". As far as I can teel humans as they are right now look pretty well adapted to the environment we've created) As for all those things you mention that has allowed humans to exists on earth such as asteriods, yeah itis pretty amazing but science has some pretty good explantions out there. One of which is that Jupiter does an amazing job at stoping potentially dangerous asteriods from getting anywhere near earth. I'm sure there are many more physical explanations scientist have come to find. What I think you might be getting at is the Cosmlogical Arguement for God, which has been leagely dispelled by philosphers and is not employed by any thoelogan in a contemporary setting.
@marguicha (217369)
• Chile
17 Jul 10
Hi friend, The word "believe" is being used too many times in this post by you and by the members who answered. We have no real proof of anything, we can only guess. What my own beliefs are is that in my experience nothing is only black or white. The stories (whatever they are about) are full of grays and full of different possibilities of interpretation. There is one God, then which one is THE God? The one that cavemen worshipped? The ones that Greeks worshipped? The God of the Jews? The God (or Gods, excuse my ignorance) people worship in India or China? The conversation turns to be more difficult (and I´m not mixing Mr. Darwin here yet) when we think that maybe Earth is not the only planet with intelligent beings as we see them. I believe (here I use the word) that human beings have used and are using too much the word God for violence, wars and hathred. It might be because we haven´t really evolved too much . Take care.
@kolsti87 (521)
• United States
17 Jul 10
Well first off there are more than just two groups. You have agnostics, atheists, atheists who don't believe in evolution, etc. Also, you must realize that evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the earth, the creation of the universe, or the creation of life. There are separate theories for those such as the big bang theory, emergence, and abiogenesis. Also, there are deists who believe in creationism but they believe that god left and no longer watches over the world. Also, men wouldn't revert to apes because of natural selection and the fact that ape-like features are less appealing and useful than human-like features. Why do you think we are so dominant anyway? Plus, religious creation theories have no factual basis and are just as valid as the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory or Invisible Pink Unicorn theory. Also, there may have been an infinite number of other worlds with intelligent life that could be adjusted to cold, or low gravity. And maybe they have been destroyed but we are all very lucky and the reason we exist is because the enormity of the universe is so big that it provides such a diverse array of conditions that maybe we are the product of universal trial and error.