Evolution is an atheist theory

From SkepticWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Definition

The claims made by creationists that evolution is an atheist theory and that evolution is a religion are intended to give the impression that evolution is irreconcilable with Christianity.

[edit] Examples

The following quotation, from the website of the Institute for Creationist Research, is perhaps even more revealing than was intended by its author:

"When one compares the pessimistic, nihilistic worldview that evolution teaches — that life has no purpose or reason — with the Judeo-Christian worldview that men and women are a special creation of a loving, caring God who provides for them and will guide them through the trials and travails of life, a God whose love for us is so great that He created the universe and all of its wonders specifically for our benefit and has given us the opportunity of everlasting life in paradise, it is obvious why most Americans prefer the latter view. In Scott's words, "I have been saying for years that the reason creationists can win the allegiance of some of the general public is that all we scientists do is present evidence, but creationists go after the heart and soul." [1]

Here we see the explicit claim that evolution is contrary to the Judeo-Christian world view, (a claim, as we shall see, that would surprise many Jews and Christians) and we also see a fairly frank admission that it is the success of this propaganda, rather than the scientific evidence, which has been effective in influencing the American public towards creationism.

[edit] Discussion

The very existence of this argument shows that it is flawed. The proposition that "evolution is an atheist theory" would not be an argument against evolution if it was addressed to an atheist. The only reason that there is any use for this argument is that there are plenty of Christians who accept evolutionary biology: and if they would only believe that evolution is intrinsically atheistic, presumably they'd give up on evolution. Or religion.

It is easy to see why the creationist-in-the-street believes that evolution is an atheist theory: he has been told as much. But it is harder to see why the chief promoters of creationist writing should maintain this point of view: because they must be quite aware that it is not accurate, and that many of their chief public antagonists are Christians: that the creationist writings of evangelical theologians are answered by evangelical theologians such as Howard Van Till; that the arguments made for the "intelligent design" of the bacterial flagellum by the Catholic Michael Behe are answered by the Catholic Kenneth Miller; that the "creation geology" of the Institute for Creation Research is opposed by men such as Glen Morton, a Christian and a former member of the Institute for Creation Research; that their most outspoken critics include such Christians as Denis Lamoureaux (co-author of Darwinism Defeated?), Conrad Hyers (author of The Meaning of Genesis), Paul Seely, and Arthur Peacocke, the biochemist, Anglican priest, and winner of the $1,000,000 Templeton Prize.

When the Institute for Creation Research had their proposal for "equal time" legislation adopted as the model for equal time legislation in Arkansas, they must surely have noticed that the law was opposed (successfully) in court by, among others, the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. [2].

The Institute for Creation Reasearch complain:

"It is a tragic fact that all secular colleges and most religious colleges in America have become permeated with evolutionism in all their curricula." [3] (italics added).

The creationist Jonathan Sarfatti of Answers in Genesis has noticed with bewilderment:

"It is mystifying that many conservative Christian Bible colleges and seminaries also seem to loathe creationists." [4]

by James J. S. Johnson of the Institute for Creation Research writes:

"Sadly, among Christian seminaries, colleges, and even churches, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in any form has historically been welcomed ..." [5]

Yet in spite of this, the attempt to argue that evolution is inherently atheistic continues to emanate from creationists.

[edit] Christians argue for evolution

There are and have been many practicing Christians in the sciences relevant to evolution: we might list among the more eminent names Asa Gray, the leading 19th century botanist and an early supporter of Darwin; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Sir Ronald Fisher, Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, and Simon Conway Morris, famous for his work on the fossils of the Burgess Shale.

Given the large number of Christians willing to speak out for evolution, it is not difficult to find Internet links covering the biological, geological, theological and controversial aspects of evolution written entirely by professing Christians who are scientists, theologians, ministers, or educators. This section consists of a small selection of such articles.

We have tried to confine the selection to those who agree not only with an old earth and common descent, but who also do not oppose the theory of evolution by mutation and natural selection: so, for example, we have excluded the writings of Stephen C Meyers on Young Earth Creationism, because while approving an old earth and common descent, he is not a Darwinian.

[edit] Overviews

[edit] On geology

[edit] On the fossil record

[edit] Debunking special creation and the “Young Earth”

[edit] "Why I left Young Earth Creationism"

[edit] On the relationship between faith and science


[edit] Statements by religious leaders

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rest. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." (The Clergy Letter Project, now signed by over 10,000 American clergy including Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists and Catholics. [6])


"First, evolution should be clearly included in the science curriculum. Second, evolution should be taught as are all scientific theories and should not be singled out for special negative comment. Finally, the proposed textbook standards should make clear that scientific creationism is not to be taught as scientific theory. Rather, because there is no constitutional objection to teaching about religion, public school teachers should simply tell their students, when evolution is taught, that there are certain religious groups whose members do not accept the Darwinian theory and advise them to consult with their parents or religious advisors for further guidance on the subject." (The American Jewish Congress [7])


"Whereas the principles and concepts of biological evolution are basic to understanding science; and
Whereas students who are not taught these principles, or who hear "creationism" presented as a scientific alternative, will not be receiving an education based on modern scientific knowledge; and
Whereas these students' ignorance about evolution will seriously undermine their understanding of the world and the natural laws governing it, and their introduction to other explanations described as "scientific" will give them false ideas about scientific methods and criteria… (Central Conference of American Rabbis [8])


"If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science." (The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta [9])


"The 214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA):
1. Reaffirms that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and The Reformed Confessions.
2. Reaffirms that there is no contradiction between an evolutionary theory of human origins and the doctrine of God as Creator." (214th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) [10])


"Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 67th General Convention affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, and in this affirmation reject the rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement, and be it further
Resolved, That we affirm our support of the scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this creation that God has given and entrusted to us." (67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church [11])


"As religious leaders we share a deep faith in the God who created heaven and earth and all that is in them, and take with utmost seriousness the Biblical witness to this God who is our Creator. However, we find no incompatibility between the God of creation and a theory of evolution which uses universally verifiable data to explain the probable process by which life developed into its present form." (78 Kentucky ministers and religious leaders [12])


"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory." (Pope John Paul II [13])


"My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it" (Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury [14])

[edit] Miscellaneous quotations from Christians

“I think it’s not doing us any good to ignore the scientific facts. It’s not helping Christianity that people are denying what we can see are facts, or are trying to distort the facts.” (Professor Sir Ghillean ‘Iain’ Prance, former director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew)


“I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore and pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which He Himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.” (The Rev. Charles Kingsley, geologist and Anglican priest, writing to Charles Darwin, quoted in Darwin’s Life and Letters vol. 2)


“The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.” (Freeman Dyson, mathematician, physicist, biologist, winner of the $1,000,000 Templeton prize [15])


“I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?” (Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project [16])


"We’re not throwing the Bible out, we’re saying you need to read it as a set of books, not as one particular kind of literature. What it needs to tell us is that we are God’s creation and we’re made for relationship with him, and we have a special place in the world. And Genesis does that extremely well. I often ask, ‘Which version of the creation are you reading literally?’ Because there are two, and if you try to dissect them stylistically the second text is older than the first one.” (John Bryant, chairman of Christians in Science [17])


“You don’t end up with the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; you end up with a heavenly engineer who fiddles around with bits and bobs which didn’t work out by some other mechanism …. But it’s really not necessarily such a good thing that people start believing only in a heavenly engineer because it might even prevent them coming to know the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So I’m not sure that the design argument, even if it’s completely valid, really gets you theologically where you’d like people to go.” (Denis Alexander, head of the Molecular Immunology Programme at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, talking about “Intelligent Design”. [18])


“It’s God of the Gaps by another route. They don’t have a robust view of God’s actions in the world, so there are two dangers. One is that they say, ‘This thing is so complicated that it must have been created and can’t have evolved,’ and that suggests that God only acts at that point in the world and he doesn’t act in all the other things. That’s the implication and it’s bad theology. It’s also a bad way of approaching things because what happens if one day somebody does explain it – where has God gone?” (Bob White, professor of Earth Sciences at Cambridge University, on “Intelligent Design” [19])


“I think that attempts to read scientific information out of [the Bible] are misconceived and lead to all sorts of problems with distorting it.” (Ernest Lucas, PhD in biochemistry, PhD in Old Testament studies, tutor in biblical studies at Bristol Baptist College)


“Evolution undoubtedly occurs and there is a huge amount of evidence (not least the astonishing similarities of our genomes) that Man and apes have common evolutionary precursors. This does not contradict the Bible which says that "God formed man from the dust of the earth" anymore than astrophysics contradicts the Bible when it says that God also made the stars. Evolution and astrophysics give an insight into the scientific details of how God did these things (which are not what the Bible is about) whereas the Bible gives insights into the (much more important) ethical and spiritual realities." (The Rev. John Polkinghorne, priest, physicist, winner of the Templeton Prize [20])


"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason." (Conrad Hyers, in The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science)

[edit] Appendix: Darwin on religion

We shall not quote here every statement made by Charles Darwin concerning religion, but only those which reveal whether Darwin himself was an atheist and whether he himself considered evolution to be an "atheist theory".


"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." [21]


“I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty." [22]


”I dare say when thunder and lightning were first proved to be due to secondary causes, some regretted to give up the idea that each flash was caused by the direct hand of God.” [23]


”With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion AT ALL satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I probably have shown by this letter.” [24]


”Dr. Pusey was mistaken in imagining that I wrote the 'Origin' with any relation whatever to Theology. I should have thought that this would have been evident to any one who had taken the trouble to read the book, more especially as in the opening lines of the introduction I specify how the subject arose in my mind. This answer disposes of your two other questions; but I may add that many years ago, when I was collecting facts for the 'Origin,' my belief in what is called a personal God was as firm as that of Dr. Pusey himself...“ [25]


"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." [26]


“It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist.” (letter to the atheist John Fordyce) [27]

[edit] Related Articles

Retrieved from "http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Evolution_is_an_atheist_theory"
Personal tools