Are Evolution and Atheism Incompatible?

[jwoodie]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

 

[theword]

Christian sinners love to exalt themselves and judge other sinners.

 

[rdean]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

So much weird "supposition". Where do these right wingers come up with this stuff. You would think with such over active imaginations, they could put some of that brain power to something worthwhile. Guess not.

It's a shame right wing Universe is so small. Flat in fact.

 

[Hollie]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

I couldn’t help but notice your complete lack of understanding regarding the Theory of Evolution.

Your statements do not follow in any logical way. Why would the inheritability of any physical trait have anything to do with whether or not there are discrete steps in any process of evolutionary change?

Evolution is not directional. It does not advance inexorably from dumb to smart or from simple to complex. The impression you have that it does so literally reeks of something you read on a creationist website. If that is the case, you look quite foolish on their behalf. Lay off the fundie creation ministries. They’re a joke. Otherwise, there certainly is a human tendency to impose our own biases of social progress onto a natural world, but that natural world does not share them.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards “more fit.” And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

Individual organisms do not evolve. Populations evolve. And at any given point in time, a population of any species will have significant variation (along the continuum) for any specific physical trait we choose to consider. Their brains will be different sizes. Within a single population or a single species intelligence will vary, but along different dimensions so that one individual might excel in some dimensions, but not in others.

Over time as populations evolve there will always be a continuum of physical traits that overlaps with that of the previous generation and the succeeding one. Any decision to take a “snapshot” in time and label that a “stage” or a “step” or even a “species” is entirely arbitrary.

There are no “steps” from fish to fowl. Do not mistake the human tendency to categorize and pigeonhole things for a reflection of the natural world.

 

[Hollie]

Christian sinners love to exalt themselves and judge other sinners.

Hallelujah, brotha’.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

1) The genetic deck is not merely reshuffled. The deck itself changes.
2) Evolution does not predict that more and more superior species will arrive on the scene. You must be thinking of the pre-scientific, theological notion of the "Great Chain of Being".
3) Atheism does not reject the notion of the possibility of beings superior to humans. Just gods. A-theism = without theism = without belief in gods.
4) If a "superior" creature arose, atheists would not regard it as a god.
5) There is no concept of "greater" and "lesser" animals in evolutionary theory. See 2).
6) There is no evidence that other creatures regard us as gods.
7) It would be impossible to stop evolution.

Apart from all that, your post was pretty spot on!

 

[theword]

Christian sinners love to exalt themselves and judge other sinners.

Hallelujah, brotha’.

Not one Christian has ever known the Truth, which happens to be our Creator.

A name called "Jesus" is NOT the Creator. It's a way for Christians to exalt themselves above other sinners and claim their "Jesus" gave them the authority to do so.

Blind fools is all they are.

 

[jwoodie]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

1) The genetic deck is not merely reshuffled. The deck itself changes.
2) Evolution does not predict that more and more superior species will arrive on the scene. You must be thinking of the pre-scientific, theological notion of the "Great Chain of Being".
3) Atheism does not reject the notion of the possibility of beings superior to humans. Just gods. A-theism = without theism = without belief in gods.
4) If a "superior" creature arose, atheists would not regard it as a god.
5) There is no concept of "greater" and "lesser" animals in evolutionary theory. See 2).
6) There is no evidence that other creatures regard us as gods.
7) It would be impossible to stop evolution.

Apart from all that, your post was pretty spot on!

First, I would like to apologize for introducing a concept so emotionally charged and otherwise over your heads that it generated these types of responses. As to specifics:

1) Irrelevant word mincing.
2) By definition, superior species multiply while inferior species are reduced or become extinct. Is that not why dinosaurs were dominant in their day? Are not humans dominant today?
3) Please describe a "superior being" who would not be considered a "god" in relation to human beings. Are you limited to omniscient monotheism? (Check out Hinduism.) Atheism is an affirmative belief that there are no gods, whereas Agnosticism is the lack of belief in any particular god(s). To which do you subscribe?
4) See above. How would you know it wasn't a god? Ideology?
5) See above.
6) I define god as a being beyond human comprehension. How do you define god?
7) Does this statement have some significance? If so, please elucidate.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

1) The genetic deck is not merely reshuffled. The deck itself changes.
2) Evolution does not predict that more and more superior species will arrive on the scene. You must be thinking of the pre-scientific, theological notion of the "Great Chain of Being".
3) Atheism does not reject the notion of the possibility of beings superior to humans. Just gods. A-theism = without theism = without belief in gods.
4) If a "superior" creature arose, atheists would not regard it as a god.
5) There is no concept of "greater" and "lesser" animals in evolutionary theory. See 2).
6) There is no evidence that other creatures regard us as gods.
7) It would be impossible to stop evolution.

Apart from all that, your post was pretty spot on!

First, I would like to apologize for introducing a concept so emotionally charged and otherwise over your heads that it generated these types of responses. As to specifics:

1) Irrelevant word mincing.
2) By definition, superior species multiply while inferior species are reduced or become extinct. Is that not why dinosaurs were dominant in their day? Are not humans dominant today?
3) Please describe a "superior being" who would not be considered a "god" in relation to human beings. Are you limited to omniscient monotheism? (Check out Hinduism.) Atheism is an affirmative belief that there are no gods, whereas Agnosticism is the lack of belief in any particular god(s). To which do you subscribe?
4) See above. How would you know it wasn't a god? Ideology?
5) See above.
6) I define god as a being beyond human comprehension. How do you define god?
7) Does this statement have some significance? If so, please elucidate.

1) The "deck" analogy is a bad one. The number of "cards" varies, and so do their "values". Very important.
2) Life forms adapt to their environments - or not in the case of extinctions. There is no inherent concept of superior or inferior, just reproductively fit or not, and lucky or not.
3) A human being with the visual apparatus of a mantis shrimp.
4) A god could do magic tricks. A natural being could not.
5) Reproductive fitness, and luck.
6) An entity that can do magic tricks.
7) You said evolution would have to stop. It can't (short of the extinction of all life).

 

[Youwerecreated]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

1) The genetic deck is not merely reshuffled. The deck itself changes.
2) Evolution does not predict that more and more superior species will arrive on the scene. You must be thinking of the pre-scientific, theological notion of the "Great Chain of Being".
3) Atheism does not reject the notion of the possibility of beings superior to humans. Just gods. A-theism = without theism = without belief in gods.
4) If a "superior" creature arose, atheists would not regard it as a god.
5) There is no concept of "greater" and "lesser" animals in evolutionary theory. See 2).
6) There is no evidence that other creatures regard us as gods.
7) It would be impossible to stop evolution.

Apart from all that, your post was pretty spot on!

I thought you would understand natural selection after all it is a mechanism for evolution. It contradicts what you just stated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Christian sinners love to exalt themselves and judge other sinners.

Hallelujah, brotha’.

The only nut that believes in a god and you call him brotha,priceless.

 

[rightwinger]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

You have the bones to prove this "Superior Being" exists or are you trying to sell some missing link?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

You have the bones to prove this "Superior Being" exists or are you trying to sell some missing link?

I guess that puts creationism on equal footing with naturalism.

 

[rightwinger]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

You have the bones to prove this "Superior Being" exists or are you trying to sell some missing link?

I guess that puts creationism on equal footing with naturalism.

I hold them to the same standards of naturalism

 

[Hollie]

Christian sinners love to exalt themselves and judge other sinners.

Hallelujah, brotha’.

The only nut that believes in a god and you call him brotha,priceless.

He's much better 'versed" in the bibles and gawds than you are.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Popular evolutionary theory is based on the concept that, by endlessly reshuffling the genetic deck, more and more superior species (e.g., humans) will arrive on the scene. Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans. Doesn't the former mandate that these other beings will emerge some where at some time? Wouldn't they be considered "gods" in relation to humans, just as humans are "gods" in relation to lesser animals? In other words, wouldn't evolution have to stop in order to preserve the Atheistic view of humans as the most intelligent beings in the universe?

1) The genetic deck is not merely reshuffled. The deck itself changes.
2) Evolution does not predict that more and more superior species will arrive on the scene. You must be thinking of the pre-scientific, theological notion of the "Great Chain of Being".
3) Atheism does not reject the notion of the possibility of beings superior to humans. Just gods. A-theism = without theism = without belief in gods.
4) If a "superior" creature arose, atheists would not regard it as a god.
5) There is no concept of "greater" and "lesser" animals in evolutionary theory. See 2).
6) There is no evidence that other creatures regard us as gods.
7) It would be impossible to stop evolution.

Apart from all that, your post was pretty spot on!

I thought you would understand natural selection after all it is a mechanism for evolution. It contradicts what you just stated.

Does it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama voters prove we are devolving into inferior creatures.


I'm just saying....

 

[BarryDesborough]

Obama voters prove we are devolving into inferior creatures.


I'm just saying....

Thank you for your fascinating, well evidenced, original and insightful contribution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Thank you for your fascinating, well evidenced, original and insightful contribution.

It's certainly evidence, irrefutable in fact, that we have declining intelligence. Of course, this is concentrated in the North American strata of homosapiens. Perhaps if we turned to the cradle of civilization in Greece and Egypt we will see the great strides forward of mankind....

Whacha think, sparky?

 

[amrchaos]

....... Atheism rejects the notion of a being superior to humans..........

Atheism rejects the notion of a god, as defined by one of the main religions of the world. It makes no mention of man being a superior being or what a superior is supposed to be.

Maybe the reason you are confused is due to your habit of presuming to much.