Evolutionists and believers in evolution, what do you think of this?

Question

Influential evolutionist Richard Lewontin wrote that many scientists are willing to accept scientific claims that are against common sense "because we have a prior commitment to materialism." Materialism, in this sense, refers to the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality, that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process. Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intellegent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, "we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: "There's been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you've got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion." He further notes that in research universities "the religious people keep their mouths shut," while "irreligious people discriminate." According to Stark, "there's a reward system to being

irreligious in the upper echelons of the scientific community." You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite the fact that a century of research, the study od billions of mutations, shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite the fact that the fossil record strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on fact or on a myth?

Answer 1

i believe evolution is totally false and the scientists working on it refuse to believe in supernatural causes because that would then put all them years of working to shame but at the same time they aren't going to find out for sure how we are here until they are willing to admit that the only logical explanation is God.

Answer 2

I think that it would be nice if you provided a source.

Science is about the study of the natural world through natural means. There really isn't any room for the supernatural because it cannot be tested, reproduced, or evaluated in any meaningful way. If you open the door to magical explanations for phenomenoa then all coherency goes out the window. ANYTHING can be explained by "supernatural" means...from faeries and demonjs to to the oft-heard claim of creationists: "Goddidit."

Religious dogma is a dangerous bias in any scientific investigation. If you write off something you don't understand as "divine will" or "satanic influence", then there is no further inquiry. There can be no advancement because such "explanations" do not lead to other questions. This is one of the reasons the Dark Ages was so "dark". If you accept God "poofing" something into existence as a valid explanation, then how can anyone ever discover anything with any kind of reliability? The notion of a divine being "tinkering" at random with the universe renders science--all science--pointless. After all, one can never know if one has just encountered a new phenomenoa or if they just witnessed God's "tweaking".

Simply put, the attempt to get supernatual explanations as acceptable in science is a goal held only by one group in the world: Creationists who despreately want their religious dogma to be validated by science no matter how ludicrous.

Answer 3

You will get the "evolutionary fundies" jumping with what you wrote. I really think some would cause violence if they could. They are close-minded. They think the more they repeat their myths about transitional froms, speciation, without data, etc, that the more right they are.

What is evolution versus the orgins of life? Many will say natural selection over a long time creates a lot of change. Within limits it does create change, but not a lot of change. It is rightly called micro evolution.

How can you get to a theory of the origins of life. It seems you cannot start natural selection from nothing. For natural selection to begin takes a certain level of biology, or elucidation of genetic material. I've spoken and researched and though there are some far fetched ideas, there are none make sense or are even close to accepted. It is a deep pit of the unknown for the materialists.

Keep asking. Good write up on your question.

Answer 4

many scientists do subscribe to various notions of materialism. there are also many who do not accept its provisos. the theory of eveolution is not contingent on materialism. if you throw materialism in the garbage you will not have done a single thing to refute evolution. they are not connected to one another.
the Rodney Stark quote is interesting. he is right about the marketing. at the birth of the modern scientific age there was a lot of resistance from the church which at the time was more interested in maintaining control than it was interested in the truth. the antagonistic relationship that characterized the early years of modern science was necessary because tremendous social forces were needed to mobilize society in the direction of the new branches of learning which were sprouting up all over Europe.
the scars of this early conflict are still bearing consequences today. many scientists still feel that if we give religion an iota of credibility then we will be right back in the dark ages where authoritative people make pronouncements and deviation from these decrees bears dangerous results for individuals. the effect on free thought and experimentation that this would have would be stifling.
perhaps these scientists have a point, since there are a lot of religious adherents who clearly do not value the free exchange of ideas and who do not have any reasonable or educated idea of what science is or does.
there are also a lot of scientists out there who do not really understand science either. as soon as Richard Lewontin says he has a prior commitment to materialism, he is no longer practicing science. it is faith. to practice real science you need to have an open mind that is ready to accept whatever evidence there is to be had. Many scientists do not find any conflict between this attitude and their religion, since any wise person, religious or not, knows that your world can be turned upside down at any moment and everything you thought you knew could suddenly turn out to be wrong.
and realizing that what you thought you knew was wrong is totally different than losing faith.
Lewontin, however, is not willing to let go of his faith and commitment to materialism. in this way, he does not realize that by trying to defend scientific principles against the threat of religion, he has indeed replicated the conditions of religion within what he calls science.
in all likelihood he is merely one of the footsoldiers of science who carries out accepted procedures in the laboratory rather than a really good scientific thinker. don't accept his opinions as scientific doctrine.

just a little addition here; the idea that life proceeds through evolution from a common ancestor is a misconception. Darwin did not suggest it, and there is no evidence to suggest that we all come from one blueprint.
in fact, from observing the way that life interacts, changes, mutates, and lives in general, plus with all the incredible diversity out there, most evolutionary biologists will tell you that it is much more likely that life originated in plurality. there is no one single origin, but many many different, and sometimes totally incompatible contributions to the fabulous collection of living things we now have on our planet.

Answer 5

No. You are repeating lies and misinformation. First off all what you have said about mutations is complete and total lies, eg. many instances of recent speciation have been recorded. And the fossil record does NOT show anything of the sort!!!!!!! LIES!! Many PHYLA appeared in the Cambrian - vertebrates were microscopic and worm like. And the fossil record shows nothing but incremental change up the geological column. Why must Creationists LIE????? Who has the morals??

But anyway, so what do you suggest Science does, throw it's hands up and say well God did everything. We would still be in the middle ages if that's what science did. And which God??? your definition of God or someone elses?? Science is based on evidence. And there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence for Evolution, like there is for Gravity.

...oh and many scientists ARE religious. Scientists 'believe' what the evidence tells them. And the evidence tells us that evolution is fact.

Answer 6

IF there is a god IF we came from single celled organisms. One must realize there is no proof one way or the other.. but every day there are more and more hints towards evolution.

As for this comment: "the religious people keep their mouths shut," while "irreligious people discriminate." What?!?! lol

I have seen more religious people condemn homosexuality, even race, how much you eat , hate each other for going to different churches.. etc.. while the irreligious just sit back and try to enjoy life.

Answer 7

It's hand waving and a lot of outright mischaracterization. Scientists examine all possibilities for which they can find evidence. Intelligent design is an assertion about a designer we cannot detect. To simply say "and then magic happened" is not science. If every time explanations became harder we stopped our investigations and asserted the hand of "God" as the explanation, we would not understand the simplest things we take for granted today. When you are trying to understand gravitic forces it is simply not respectable to stop doing your research and simply say, "I give up. I can't understand it. It must be God." Otherwise we'd have settled for "it must be demons" as an explanation for illness, "the angels are crying" as an explanation for rain. Can't you get why that's not something scientists do?

And by the way, in twenty years in academia I saw lots of science profs at church, so the comments about why ID is dismissed don't wash. Intelligent Design is dismissed because the clear and overwhelming evidence says it didn't happen that way, and no evidence says it did.

Answer 8

Yes. It sounds like a myth. I know a number of well respected scientists who are deeply religious and are thoroughly convinced in evolution as they see it on the small scale in their work on unrelated problems. The fact that 100 years we haven't seen anything that takes place over tens of thousands of years is hardly a disproof. We have seen mechanisms of speciation in the laboratory. We have learned some of the mechanisms of P-transposable elements and homeobox genes. We have observed life move into regions blasted from volcanoes. We have seen species driven to extinction. We have seen newly introduced organisms take over an ecosystem. We have seen species adapt to changing environments. Evolution is obvious to anyone looking at the world around, if you just ignore the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The fact that you have to keep your mind free of preconceptions to be a good scientist, is not at all incompatible with religious thought. The fact that you cannot fit one pair of each of the more than 5,000 species of mammals (less the marine mammals) on an ark of the volume given in the Bible led Biblical scholars to cast away preconceptions. Scientists setting out to prove Biblical Creation found it wanting.

We live in a world of matter, and whether the matter was created or sprung into being from nothingness is irrelevant to the question of evolution. I observe the world of matter. You can live in your mythical world.

Answer 9

EVERYTHING on Earth evolved from one common ancestor; the Single Celled Organism. What elements caused it to evolved into countless trillions of different species, who can say?

Scientists try to ignore the possibility of God whenever possible, because the concept of God is not a scientific one.

If you ask me, just because we have a fairly informed idea about what most likely caused life and existence, I still feel more comfortable with the notion that Someone designed it for a purpose.

Answer 10

I think it's a standard Christian response to science.

Christians want science to be biased in favor of their mythology. But seeing as how science is completely unbiased, they take issue with it. (Just like they take issue with the government telling them they can't put their religious sayings on public buildings, at the exclusion of other religions, etc)

Science does not discriminate. Religion simply dissolves under a microscope. That is not the fault of science, or scientists. In fact, in the early days of science, its purpose was to better understand and support the views of the bible. The fact that science very quickly found facts that debunked the majority of the Christian beliefs, is no one's fault but the Christians.

If you believe an obvious falsehood, you can't blame someone for telling you the truth. You just need to accept it.

Answer 11

First of all, Richard Lewontin was hardly influential.

Second, this is all bunk. Scientists are taught to be objective, not to set aside their belief system.

Besides, I have yet to EVER see where a religious person in a research university "kept their mouth shut."