God or evolution? Are people this simple minded?

Question

Anyone who belives biology and its study somehow undermine the wonder of life/ God ect, clearly don't know or love their subject. We know more about the first seconds of the universe than we do about how the very first lifeform could possibly have come into being.

Anyone who thinks evolution/ biology is somehow proof that there is no God, has a pitifully narrow and impoverished idea of exactly what an Omnipotent being might be or do. Ironically, many physics therorists can " envisage" a multiverse, yet so called believers in a God, seem to prefer a little, limited Omnipotent God.
Isn't time to drop the doctrine adherence perspective for a more generous inclusive idea of life love and the universe. There are scientists who are "religious", without being nutjobs btw. I think we need to remember that science history is full of dogma and opposition to new paradigms, not to mention evil results of "good intentions". Maybe we need a new hypocratic oath for science AND religion.

Answer 1

I don't know. Are you?

"evolution/ biology is somehow proof that there is no God"

No one is claiming that. On the other hand, no one has ever produced any evidence supporting the existence of your mythical "Omnipotent being".

BTW We don't "know" anything about the first seconds of the universe. We have theories about what might have happened. Big difference.

ADDENDUM

"Just read everything above my answer. "

Excellent!

Answer 2

>>Anyone who belives biology and its study somehow undermine the wonder of life/ God ect, clearly don't know or love their subject.

Biologists don't believe biology. They see evidence that supports one theory or another. Anyone who uses evolution as a religious belief is not much of an objective scientist.

>>Anyone who thinks evolution/ biology is somehow proof that there is no God, has a pitifully narrow and impoverished idea of exactly what an Omnipotent being might be or do.

Any good scientist knows that supporting facts for one theory does not disavow all other theories, it just makes that one theory stronger. A theory is a theory for the simple fact that not all other possibilities can be ruled out. If creationism wants to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, though, creationists should do some work in finding scientific data that support it.

>>Isn't time to drop the doctrine adherence perspective for a more generous inclusive idea of life love and the universe.

Are you then proposing a "God of the gaps" idea, where anything we don't understand yet we just assume is done by God? That's been used by just about every religion over the past mellinia to try and justify why people should keep believing in them in the face of new scientific discoveries.

>>I think we need to remember that science history is full of dogma and opposition to new paradigms, not to mention evil results of "good intentions".

Most of the time, these roles have been reversed. It has been the dogmatic views of religions that has impeded scientific discovery. In general, if the research methods are good and the data backs the hypothesis and the results are repeatable, most scientists have no problem accepting the new work. In fact, that's how science works.

Answer 3

yousedummy has 7000 answers and this is his best shot? U are pathetic buddy. >>>" No but YOU are No but YOU are!" ..sad ( Ditto for r~@~w, goes without saying HE wont be joining Mensa, ya know what I mean? )

But back to toolbreath number 1, A few responses to your self important assertions ( vis avie your own "superior logic" dimwit)
A, Yes, plenty of people claim that, ever heard of "GOD is dead," ect and you yourself are pushing the no proof barrow, in a vain and cartoonish attempt to seem articulate and scientific.

B "we only have therories about Big bang ect.. Yes indeed my mentally musclelar midget, this is true, however in terms of this current 'paradigm' ( virtually universally held view in field)if you will, the theroies are well developed and modelled 'accurately back to nanoseconds after the big bang. ( literally ) THAT being the point alluded to above, ie that the ability to logically explain/model said phenomena is well developed vs the much more difficult area of the first development of life especially in the earliest time frame, where there is no genuinely convincing theory or model. ( D o y o u u n d e r s t a n d n o w ...? thats me talkin slow for ya bud btw...)
C regarding and combining the logic of 2 of your responses, mr nevergonnawinanobelprize, Logically, you can not prove your own existence. ( If you don't know why that is, then you have no understanding of science/ logic, if you DO know, why don't you tell us why this is so professor...?
So, logically, I reccomend you diassapear up your own anus, never to be heard from again. But, you have a nice day, and thanks for stoppin by...

ecj 11, I don't think God of the gaps was at all implied in the question, certainly an indepth synopsis on biology as science, is not needed. Further, you should probably read "believe ( that ) biology", which makes it uneccessary to explain to us mere mortals that biologists dont believe biology, they do however ( presummably ) believe in what there are doing. Nominally, its true that in science one doesn't "beleive" but any firmly held position can and has produced dogma and strong resistance to the new idea. In my opinion, the author above was actually critisizing poeple like those that want to ban evolution in schools, not saying that there is something wrong with the science. just my perspective...
Doctors have a moral code ( Hyppocratic oath ) Ethics in science SHOULD be a major issue. I also think religions should have one too, I can think of a few that would not qualify as acceptable social doctrines ( never mind the theology,irrelevent) any more than the Klu Klux Klan, so, if they can't measure up, should be put on a leash or banned.... Can u guess which in particular, 4 letters, kill ya if you leave em... no?... ) For perspective, several countries whose religion is( by definition) anti scientific(and "anti civilisation"), have nevertheless, managed to suspend their "disbelief" long enough to develop atomic weapons... hmmm... think it could be relevent..? ( Batman says kaboom) sigh

Answer 4

I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that evolution disproves the Judeo-christian god. It does, however, send a huge wrecking ball thru certain dogmatic tales held in the bible; Creation, for instance.

Science, as a whole, makes no claims or inferences to gods. Science deals with the natural world, and gods/deities 'exist' as supernatural beings. It is beyond the scope of science (in its present form) to tackle this type of question.

That said, if one applies logic to scientific findings (beyond just biology), one can draw the conclusion that there are no gods: The bible claims to be the infallible word of god, handed down to man. There are hundreds of claims in the bible that have either been proven false (by archeology, sociology, and history), or contain absolutely nothing to add veracity to these claims. When parts of something 'infallible' are wrong, then ALL parts of it become suspect. Logically, anything that cannot be proven as true (independently from the source), under these circumstances, must be treated as false, until proven otherwise. Given that god and Jesus are 2 of these logical falsehoods, then they too must be treated as such, until verifying evidence is found.

Answer 5

Evolution has never said anything about God. It did topple a few doctrines that were internally inconsistent. The backlash by those who cling to those fallen doctrines is the worst collection of deceits and slanders ever assembled and all in the name of God. I'm afraid that religion, not science, is to blame.

Answer 6

Evolution proves how life evolved from amebas (probably incorrect spelling) That's all, it doesn't explain the existance of space/time, no one has any idea of what was before the big bang, some people may say, well, there was nothing (a cop out answer) If it was nothing, I would like to know what "nothing" is.

Answer 7

No one is seriously claiming that the fact of evolution disproves the existence of God. They are two separate questions.

The problem arises when creationists and others fail to understand evolution and use that misunderstanding to try to prove the existence of God, which is not only ignorant of the science, it's a non sequitur.

Answer 8

I do not necessarily believe in straight evolution.. I do believe in adaption.. aka the Galapagos islands.. There is no way you can really deny that certain species have adapted to there climates and to do so is ignorant..I believe in a meld of science and religion..

Answer 9

First following god is not a religion it is a way of life .Religion want you to certain acts to prove you are a believer.Jesus wants you to love and follow him and to do your best to live life accord to what he teaches which in my opinion is not as hard as religion.Jesus just wants us to ask for forgiveness and do our best not to sin and forgive others and love them.I believe this is easier than religion which add on rules and regulations.Second I know God create us and the universe Yes science is not perfect but God gave us it because without we not have the advances we have today

Answer 10

perhaps atheists and fundamentalist theists have similar god concepts, it's just that atheists don't believe in theirs. on the other hand the 'sophisticated' theists seem to have god concepts that defy analysis and stretch the very ideas of existence and reality to breaking point. in the end i don't see much to recommend the 'sophisticated' viewpoints.