h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A very well written article. I believe in simple creation rather than evolution, but this is purely due to having read scientific books about the lack of evidence for evolution. The Bible doesn't really disagree with evolution, but the theory seems to have been developed, not for the purpose of furthering scientific understanding, but for the purpose of freeing certain scientists (and those who listen to them) from the evidence that they have a moral obligation to their creator. That someone can show that the theory doesn't fulfill this purpose is very encouraging, because it frees me from any moral obligation to keep disproving it!

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here

Are you saying that evolution continues to be the accepted theory because some scientists want to be free from "a moral obligation to their creator"? (I, unsuprisingly, totally disagree by the way) What is this obligation? And that this article is saying that that is not the case? Am I right so far?

The theory of evolution is amoral. Not immoral, just that morality doesn't even come into the equation.

I look forward to your response

Ste

Oh!

And thanks for the compliment . It should be aimed at BillSD though, even though he rarely makes it onto h2g2 much. I'm still trying to coax him on here...

hint.

Ste

I think the reason evolution continues to be the accepted theory is that people talk about in schools, on TV programs etc. as if it was a fact. This causes people watching it to assume that it must be proven, when it really isn't. But I think the reason it came into being in the first place was as an escape clause.
Theories usually are developed by people observing facts and thinking of something that explains them. But seeing a bunch of finches that look similar hardly seems to suggest that they could all lifeforms came from one original by chance. Neither does seeing some different coloured peppered moths.
Considering all the well-known immense probabilities involved, does it seem to you as if somebody observed that these things probably happened and that God was therefore not necessary, or that they already wanted to believe that God was not necessary and then came up with a theory to explain how this might be so?
So while the theory itself may be amoral, I don't think the reason for it's being thought of was. Darwin himself, before he died, confessed that he couldn't believe in the evolution of the species anymore. So why do you think many others still do? Consider the two possibilities:

1. Evolution is false. God must exist because life must have been created. Since he gave us life, he has the right to tell us what to do, and we must therefore do what he says, like not lying to people, not having sex outside marriage, spend a lot of our time serving God and all the other things that are difficult about serving God.

2. Evolution is true. God doesn't necessarily exist. We are therefore free to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, and within the limits of human law, can do whatever we want, and even outside the law as long as we don't get caught.

What do you think many people would rather believe? And once enough people believe it, how are they going to defend their views to the people who are still religious? By telling them that "This is the scientific view, we have found evidence to prove it but we're not going to show it to you, you can see this bit of selective data that vaguely suggests that it is true, and of course, absolutely no evidence has been found against this theory otherwise we, as knowledge-seeking scientists, wouldn't be promoting it would we?"

And then the people who haven't seen the evidence for themselves are just going to believe those scientists, assuming that they must know best.

You seem to think that evolution is based upon a few observations from a couple of centuries ago. I can assure you that this is not the case. The observed and experimental evidence for evolution is overwhelming, that is why it is talked about as fact. When properly understood, the probabilities involved for things to evolve aren't that great.

Coming from a theists perspective, can you not see how evolution allows you to see God's work in all it's beauty? It is intricate, stunning, infinitily complex and suprisingly simple all at once. If I believed in God, I'd be pretty damn impressed with him.

People accept evolution as fact. I notice that you try and justify this to yourself buy bringing morality into the issue, where it really does not belong. You have managed to link your view of some people's behaviour (which you clearly see as distasteful) whom you have labelled as "non-christian" with the acceptance of evolution and rejection of your God. This has no basis. The whole point of this article was to highlight that most Christians have no problem with evolution, which is true.

You have to be really careful saying that morality comes from God, and anyone who is free from God is free from morality. It is highly offensive to a lot of people, including myself (but I'll let you off this time ).

If you want some evidence for evolution, I can give you some from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries . Read my two entries on the topic, that would be a good start. Then give me a shout, I would be more that willing. I'm not trying to convert you here, I respect your opinions, it's just that there's nothing like a good debate though, huh?

All the best

Ste

PS. Can I suggest that you have read these "scientific" books "disproving" evolution not because of some intellectual pursuit, but to confirm your beliefs that you hold because of your faith.

PPS. Darwin's deathbed confession is a myth, as confirmed by his daughter who was there at the time.