Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  David_Jay

  Fernando,

  Evolution is not the only scientific theory out there. There are alternative scientific theories and very smart, non-relgious people who do not advocate or support evolution. (See http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ as a starting point.)

  I am not one to endorse criticism regarding evolution or Neo-Darwinism, but it is awfully two-dimensional to believe that the field is as polarized as Watchtowerism has portrayed the world. Science does not have their eggs in one evolutionary basket when it comes to explaining life's origins, neither does it find support in Creationism or some type of religious views. But the Jehovah's Witnesses have done a good job of convincing people that there are only two ways about thinking about most things, compartmentalizing them into "good" or "evil," "truth" or "false," "Jehovah" or "Satan." They have done the same with science, claiming their are only two sides to the issue, "evolution" or "Creation by God." Not true, don't fall into that trap.

  Lastly, watch for the attitude from others that suggests that whatever choice you make is wrong. You might not choose to accept religion or God, but evolution isn't the only alternative for atheists, logical thinkers and scientists. Don't allow others to convince you as did the Jehovah's Witnesses that there is only one way to think, especially when it is the view they accept. Think for yourself, outside the box, pushing the envelope with courage. Great thinkers don't follow. Great thinkers lead.
• 

  cofty

  There are alternative scientific theories and very smart, non-relgious people who do not advocate or support evolution

  There are NO scientific alternatives to evolution - just as there are no alternatives to heliocentrism.

  There are very smart non-religious people who question the various mechanisms of evolution. How important was natural selection? So far after 150 years of investigation the answer is very important but keep an open mind. Is natural selection always slow and steady or is it more stop-start? The answer might be both. Is the gene the unit of selection? So far the answer is yes but keep an open mind.

  All of these things and more are legitimate questions but none of them challenge the fact of evolution.

  Science does not have their eggs in one evolutionary basket when it comes to explaining life's origins

  Yes it does and evolution does not deal with life's origins. That is abiogenesis.

  They have done the same with science, claiming their are only two sides to the issue, "evolution" or "Creation by God

  Can you think of another side?

  watch for the attitude from others that suggests that whatever choice you make is wrong

  Rejecting the fact of evolution is wrong just as rejecting heliocentrism is wrong.

  evolution isn't the only alternative for atheists, logical thinkers and scientists

  Yes it is. Just as heliocentrism is the only option for logical thinkers and scientists.

  Think for yourself, outside the box, pushing the envelope with courage. Great thinkers don't follow. Great thinkers lead.

  I look forward to your paper on the origin of species by non-evolutionary mechanisms. A Nobel prize awaits you.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Atheists who reject evolution sounds like a niche market indeed, ripe for some "crazies" to come along and fill. There's room for all sorts of views in this world.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Thomas Nagel, an atheist who rejects evolution, what do you know!

  http://news.nationalpost.com/holy-post/what-has-gotten-into-thomas-nagel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism

  I've read Mind and Cosmos, I'm not sure it says Evolution is false exactly. Just that what we don't know may some say overturn what we think we know now. A pretty reasonable point I reckon.
• 

  cofty

  The author is professor of philosophy and law. He acknowledges he is a scientific “layman,” however well read, but his point is not a scientific one. It is a philosophical one... He says his book is meant to be a defence of “the untutored reaction of incredulity.” His way out of this thicket is the most controversial part of Mind & Cosmos – and the ripest target for critics – as it seems to verge on the fanciful, suggesting consciousness is not an accidental by-product of evolution, but was somehow written into the universe from the beginning.

  “Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself,” he writes.

  So not an actual scientist then. A lawyer who thinks that evolution can't ever explain consciousness. So what?
• 

  slimboyfat

  Who said he was a scientist?
• 

  cofty

  There are alternative scientific theories - David Jay

  There are NO scientific alternatives to evolution - Me

  Thomas Nagel, an atheist who rejects evolution, what do you know! - SBF

  So not an actual scientist then. A lawyer who thinks that evolution can't ever explain consciousness - Me
  

  Who said he was a scientist? - SBF

  FFS!
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sorry my comment about Nagel was intended as a response to this comment by Fernando, I should have made that clear.

  I was going to ask what proportion of atheists reject evolution, however Saintbertholdt beat me to it with his concise answer.

  Thomas Nagel is an atheist who rejects evolution, according to that report.

  Incidentally Kuhn and Popper weren't scientists either. Most philosophers of science aren't scientists.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  My bad, Kuhn was a physicist, Popper wasn't.
• 

  David_Jay

  Cofty,

  I am still puzzled by your responses. All I can think is that there is something keeping you from reading my comments without some preconceived prejudice.

  I am a strong believer in evolution. I even mentioned this in this last post of mine that I am not one to endorse accepting arguments against evolution. That is how I started after providing a link from a Scientific American editorial regarding other non-religious voices on the issue. Apparently the ability to fully read what I state is either a failure on my part in composition or one on yours to fully absorb what is presented or a combination, but I cannot imagine.

  I merely mentioned that there are other scientific theories besides evolution that others endorse. Since I am a supporter of the evolutionary theory, your bombastic response is still uncharacteristic of a person who claims to be governed by logic, and your questions are for others.

  But it doesn't speak well of us if we cannot tolerate the mere suggestion of the existence of alternative views without repeatedly blowing up with questioning challenges each and every time. Alternative views to ours are not attacks on what we believe, unless we find anything but our own views so fragile that such suggestions are perceived as threats. You can rest assured that the theory of evolution is not in danger of disappearing because others may have alternative, non-religious and equally scientific views. And yes, they are out there, but your convictions still remain the most popular.

  Yet if we were once Jehovah's Witnesses then we are already done with people telling us that there cannot possibly be alternative views. The idea that only one or even the majority of voices on this forum have to be in the right is a holdover from the Watchtower system which demands uniformity of thought, practices bullying those who will not conform, and revealing the unreasonableness of those who adversely judge others who don't desire to agree withyou. I am certain that you are not intolerant of other views or missing those days when elders and the Governing Body demanded we think only one way. I think higher of you.

  These alternatives were not an attack on you or your beliefs, but people deserve to know about all that is out there. Neither you nor anyone else will ever stop people from learning and choosing to embrace alternative views if they so choose. We should not forget that the more we show our distaste for the mere suggestion of other views and the freedom of thought, the more we and our own convictions will be viewed as unreasonable and unacceptable. And that would be a shame becuase evolution deserves better.