Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

That's what I've been saying all along, Science does not address religion, because there are no facts to examine. Sure, many of the religious feel threatened. Any time science advances, there are going to be those who do not necessarily wish it to happen. But you can't put the lid back on Pandora's box. Facts is facts, as a character from Dickens' Hard Times, says.
My contention that there is no god has nothing to do with science, evolutionary or other. It is simply common sense. In the first place, there is no evidence of a guiding hand, re evolution. Look at all the dead ends of life forms. Look how fragile the environment is. Look how murderous whole populations of humans become.
The God with a beard, so personified from the Bible, is too inconsistent and illogical to be real. Same with Jesus. Foolish and illogical. All based on faith. What do they tell Thomas? Blessed are they that believe without seeing, or that ilk. Other religions are as unbelievable.
So, some, recognizing that fact, begin to imagine a disinterested god. But, they never can separate this disinterested god from the old man god. Purpose in the universe. How convenient. The human concept of purpose, in the embodiment or non embodiment of a god. Except, that requires a mind. Back to the meddling old man. Never ending circular idea.
No human has ever had evidence there is a purpose, therefore a god. It arises from the imagination, based in hopes, fear, ignorance - what have you. Certainly no reasonable expectation of any sort of god.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Oh, Ionus, I think Edgar Blythe has bested you. He has, of course, superior knowledge and is not an Agnostic but an Atheist. He KNOWS and can PROVE that God exists.( he hasn't done it yet but I am sure that he can do it--I amwaiting!

Scientists work hard to come up with an explanation for the Big Bang that does not have to show some creator. But the brilliant Stephen Hawking tells us that there could be a scenario in which the universe could have come into existence without an original singularity. Hawking tells us about "imaginary time"--a mathematical concept referring to the square root of a negative number. Hawking does not haveany empirical evidence for this. He says it is purely "imaginary".

Ionus is correct. It is much more honest to declare one's self an Agnostic than saying one is an atheist unless one can PROVE, PROVE that God does not exist.

Hawking cannot prove it--neither can Edgar Blythe.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Science does not address religion

Sociology addresses religion. So does psychology. And political science. Anthropology particularly. History as well. Gibbon treats religion in some detail.

The ladies beautification industry treats of religion as is easily seen by comparing street scenes in New York with those in Islamic cities.

Diet science is a religious matter. Art and religion are inseperable.

The Materialist Theory of Mind says ideas and thoughts are phyical objects. Which means they exist. A belief is a thought. If the thought of God exists then God exists for the duration of the though. The thought that God does not exist need the thought of a God to be happening at all so God exists in the thought that God does not exist.

The actions resulting from the thought that God exists also exist. Our whole way of life is conditioned on the thought that God exists. It is of no consequence whether God exists or not because no one can prove either, nor ever will be able to. It is only the consequences of the belief that God exists that matters and it is sophistry to maintain otherwise.

We have no scientific evidence for the consequences of the thought that God does not exist. Such a thought can only be found in individuals living in societies conditioned by the thought God/s exists.

The atheist is in a lovely position. He gets all the benefits of the Christian belief system, which he cannot imagine being without, and he neatly slips out of accepting the disciplines which are not only a necessary part of it but are the fundamental core from which the dogmas are derived. It is the practical necessities of a surviving and growing success story which creates the dogmas and not the other way round.

He also gets to "be different" like the chap who turns up at a nice wedding with a fluorescent mohican hair-cut and with nose-rings and holes in the knees of his jeans and distracts attention from the bride. There's one like that in nearly every pub.

1 Reply

The perfervid rantings of the religious in this thread is strong evidence of just who believe they have something to fear from evolution. The topic of the thread is definitely not whether or not anyone's imaginary friend exists. That some people here seem to think it is, however, shows what people feel is threatened by a theory of evolution.

Evolution does not stipulate any cosmogony. Evolution does not "care" how the cosmos came into existence. Evolution has no part in the matter at all until self-replicating molecules arise. Evolution is indifferent to the question of why or whence these arose.

Those who hammer on the notion of agnosticism are special pleaders. Unless the agnostic is equally agnostic about the existence of fairies, pixies and elves, they are being dishonest. This is something Frank was never prepared to answer. Why would the agnostic not equally as well suspend disbelief with regard to fairies, pixies and elves as toward the concept of a deity?

It is evident that for many of the religiously devout, the concept of evolution is threatening. Not because a theory of evolution is concerned with the origin of the universe--but because the religious are concerned with a claim of special creation, and evolution contradicts that. No one has to "disprove" the existence of a deity--those who make special claims have the burden of proof. Even stipulating for the sake of discussion the existence of a deity does not automatically contradict a theory of evolution, since evolution is never concerned with cosmic origins.

There are any number of dictionary definitions of "atheist" which run "disbelief or denial" of a deity. None of that, however, is germane to this discussion, because a theory of evolution is not concerned with whether or not there is a deity.

4 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The perfervid rantings of the religious in this thread is strong evidence of just who believe they have something to fear from evolution.

He can't resist it can he. "The perfervid rantings" eh? Makes my point about avoiding people who start with such self-serving assertions.

The topic was an invitation from Ed for people to say what they had against evolution science. As soon as people respond to that in comes Setanta labelling what they say as "perfervid rantings".

The poinst being made by myself and others can in no way be characterised as "perfervid". And they are not rantings either. In fact the phrase used by Setanta is much closer to perfervid ranting than anything said by "the religious in this thread" and if perfervid ranting is strong evidence of anything then it is of Setanta's emotional and impassioned self justifications.

And that point is that he himself, and Ed, and not just the religious, have something to fear from evolution and they don't know it because they are enjoying the blissful ignorance (using Ignore function screens) of not considering what their position entails as a consequence of everyone accepting what they are saying and Kant's main imperative is that before one preaches anything the preacher should assume he converts everybody.

Which is another way of saying that Setanta needs the religious in order to engage in infantile perfervid rantings and if he converted us all he would then have to find another target on which to exercise his obvious need to rant perfervidly. His wife say. Or his ugly dog. Or the New York Yankees.

1 Reply

@spendius,

We are a perfervid ranting sink and justifiable on that ground alone because Lord knows what Setanta would do if we weren't here to diffuse his obvious rage.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

because Lord knows what Setanta would do if we weren't here to diffuse his obvious rage.

Setanta has obvious rage ? Why wasnt I told this before ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Why would the agnostic not equally as well suspend disbelief with regard to fairies, pixies and elves as toward the concept of a deity?

It's interesting that most people seem to be able to accept the loss of pixies and elves in their view of reality, but it's the one BIG Pixie they have trouble letting go of. I wonder what the difference is in the thought process?

4 Replies

@rosborne979,

The difference for those who wish to know is that pixies and elves and other pagan ephemera are a bunch who all do different things and can be invoked for as many reasons as there are people invoking them. Total confusion. It was tried and foundered.

The one BIG Pixie solves that little difficulty and can be invoked much more spectacularly by experts with highly evolved procedures on behalf of the general good.

If we put our faith as individuals in a wide range of pixies and elves then the Manchester United fans would now be faced with the uselessness of their own pixies and elves.

Of course, ros has me on Ignore, so he'll never know the explanation and thus can go forth looking for stupid people in whose faces he can blurt his infantile inanities. The faith in the BIG Pixie is a collective one and not an individual one. It is a logical error of ros's that he has the collective confused with the individual. Hence he is able to spout on behalf of both as the occasion arises.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And that obvious truth is in Exodus. Chap 7 :verses 9-12.

When Aaron cast down his rod before the pagan Pharaoh , it became a serpent and when the Pharaoh's magicians did the same their rods turned into serpents too. But Aaron's serpent devoured the lot of them.

Naturally, ros, having a pedantic cast of mind, will pour scorn on the story saying that rods don't turn into serpents and pretend that the gifted writers of such concise parables actually thought they did. Or at least I hope he pretends.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Science does not address religion

Quote:

Sociology addresses religion. So does psychology. And political science. Anthropology particularly. History as well. Gibbon treats religion in some detail.

Nonsense.
Sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology and history only report on what effects religion (the belief in the supernatural) imparts upon the natural condition of human beings the same as is done with any virus, mental condition or political movement.
Science inquires into reality. It tests evidence.
Science does not and cannot test either religion or the concept of the supernatural existing, it cannot propose a theory and then then test to verify the tenets of same because there isn't any there there. Any 'facts' proposed to support the belief in the supernatural aren't. It's completely made-up and every purveyor of religion will admit such everytime they fall back onto the taking any contradictions on faith.

What makes evolution and natural selection such a dangerous idea is that it makes the belief in the supernatural completely unnecessary to the human condition. The good news is, because there is no god protecting the belief in himself, those who presently adhere to such beliefs will in time be selected out.

Joe(what a relief that will be to humankind)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

That's just ridiculous Joe. And we've been through it all anyway.

And Ed invited those who have a problem with evolution to offer their reasons. You were not invited. Ed knows what you think. He wants to know what anti-evolutionists think.

You have made it look like the human condition is not a reality which is to make the same case as the religionists make. And that science only inquires into the reality as you define the word. The reality of the natural human condition is the feral organism. That has had to be worked on and moulded and the evidence is right before your eyes which mould was selected in. The Christian mould.

We are not discussing a belief in the supernatural. I never have been. It is fruitless. I am discussing the effects of the belief set against the effects of non-belief. Can you not see that you're in a false position. I've explained it often enough and every which way I can. You are sat in the boat and for a laugh or some other reason you have decided to rock it knowing that you won't sink it on your own and forgetting that if all the others in the boat do what you do it will sink. So either you want it to sink or you want to make a nuisance of yourself. Take your pick. Explain how us all being atheists, rather than just a small and noisy minority, will serve our purposes.

As for those who adhere to beliefs being selected out---you must be living in cloud cuckoo land. You are not facing a society that has followed your policy recommendation. So you can indulge yourself at no cost. It's a free ride. The Emperor has no clothes.

Kant said--"So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law." In other words--don't preach what you are not ready for everybody, yes--everybody, to accept. And to do so from the minute you sit back down as they obviously will if you are persuasive enough.

0 Replies

What makes evolution and natural selection such a dangerous idea is that it makes the belief in the supernatural completely unnecessary to the human condition. The good news is, because there is no god protecting the belief in himself, those who presently adhere to such beliefs will in time be selected out.
from Joe(bless him)Nation

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The perfervid rantings of the religious in this thread is strong evidence of just who believe they have something to fear from evolution. The topic of the thread is definitely not whether or not anyone's imaginary friend exists. That some people here seem to think it is, however, shows what people feel is threatened by a theory of evolution.

Evolution does not stipulate any cosmogony. Evolution does not "care" how the cosmos came into existence. Evolution has no part in the matter at all until self-replicating molecules arise. Evolution is indifferent to the question of why or whence these arose.

Those who hammer on the notion of agnosticism are special pleaders. Unless the agnostic is equally agnostic about the existence of fairies, pixies and elves, they are being dishonest. This is something Frank was never prepared to answer. Why would the agnostic not equally as well suspend disbelief with regard to fairies, pixies and elves as toward the concept of a deity?

It is evident that for many of the religiously devout, the concept of evolution is threatening. Not because a theory of evolution is concerned with the origin of the universe--but because the religious are concerned with a claim of special creation, and evolution contradicts that. No one has to "disprove" the existence of a deity--those who make special claims have the burden of proof. Even stipulating for the sake of discussion the existence of a deity does not automatically contradict a theory of evolution, since evolution is never concerned with cosmic origins.

There are any number of dictionary definitions of "atheist" which run "disbelief or denial" of a deity. None of that, however, is germane to this discussion, because a theory of evolution is not concerned with whether or not there is a deity.

Setanta's post bears repeating. Spot on and all the crackers and peanut butter.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And that obvious truth is in Exodus. Chap 7 :verses 9-12.

When Aaron cast down his rod before the pagan Pharaoh , it became a serpent and when the Pharaoh's magicians did the same their rods turned into serpents too. But Aaron's serpent devoured the lot of them.

Naturally, ros, having a pedantic cast of mind, will pour scorn on the story saying that rods don't turn into serpents and pretend that the gifted writers of such concise parables actually thought they did. Or at least I hope he pretends.

I have read articles in which the very existence of Moses and his story are in question. Serpent stick eats other serpent stick. You ought to be embarrassed by that post, spendi.

2 Replies

It is Easter and it is spring and the field rabbits are mating like crazy.
The females run as fast as they can and are followed by the male ones. She will mate with the fastest male. That is evolution.
Why should a person feel threatened by that fact? If a Creator gave the rabbits that instict what is wrong with that?
If you believe it was the big bang which did it, why then attac the people who believe in the Creator.
Sience cannot prove anything about why we believe in this or that - sience cannot prove why some believe in a Creator/God/gods and others in the big bang and others in nothing at all.
Sience cannot prove why we have architypel symbols either.
Sience cannot prove super natural things. Sience can only registrate it happens and does exist. So far it cannot prove how it happens.

1 Reply

@saab,

saab wrote:

It is Easter and it is spring and the field rabbits are mating like crazy.
The females run as fast as they can and are followed by the male ones. She will mate with the fastest male. That is evolution.
Why should a person feel threatened by that fact? If a Creator gave the rabbits that instict what is wrong with that?
If you believe it was the big bang which did it, why then attac the people who believe in the Creator.
Sience cannot prove anything about why we believe in this or that - sience cannot prove why some believe in a Creator/God/gods and others in the big bang and others in nothing at all.
Sience cannot prove why we have architypel symbols either.
Sience cannot prove super natural things. Sience can only registrate it happens and does exist. So far it cannot prove how it happens.

The religious wish to force their belief system on the rest of the world. Bottom line. We don't have to take it.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I have read articles in which the very existence of Moses and his story are in question. Serpent stick eats other serpent stick. You ought to be embarrassed by that post, spendi.

Well Ed--I'm not in the least embarrassed. I don't care whether Moses existed or not. The tale is the thing. And the lessons it teaches which are dependent upon the force of the teaching. I said it was a parable.

We can guess who wrote the articles.

You ought to be embarrassed. (Hey--that's easy to do.)

0 Replies

And it's a brilliant parable because serpents are sinister in mythology. So Aaron's serpent is sinister but, and here's your evolution, it swallowed up all the other sinister serpents. The lesser evil according to Christians. Which looks about right when you compare our lives with those of Pagans.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And it's a brilliant parable because serpents are sinister in mythology. So Aaron's serpent is sinister but, and here's your evolution, it swallowed up all the other sinister serpents. The lesser evil according to Christians. Which looks about right when you compare our lives with those of Pagans.

THe Bible's villifying of serpents is in itself despicable. My whole life, I have watched as these useful animals get murdered for no good reason.

1 Reply

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know