Evidence for God from Science

How do "evolutionists" explain the need for a gene that makes people inclined to worship (paragraph 11)? If there is no God, why would such a thing exist? And, why is that supposed to be threatening to a believer?

Mystical wrote:How do "evolutionists" explain the need for a gene that makes people inclined to worship (paragraph 11)? If there is no God, why would such a thing exist? And, why is that supposed to be threatening to a believer?

The gene is yet to be discovered, although there seems to be a genetic component to a certain type of thinking. I.E. its heriditary.

To answer your other questions, the answer is we don't know and I don't know.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Hypothesis based on evolutionary theory, the differences in the cytochrom C correspond to the proposed distance of relation of each species.
Now if this isn't the case then one needs to hypothesis another reason why cytochrome C does not differ in this way.

I thought we already did this. Also it doesn't matter to the truth of the cause wether an alternative explanation is proposed or not.

Are you asking for me to form a hypothesis proving why the observations aren't true again? In fact an alternative hypothesis would also have to explain the similarities. I see no evidence of anything that similar animals are more similar.

Doesn't anyone wonder that? If there's no God, how and why would there be a gene for worship? That doesn't make sense.

Mystical wrote:Doesn't anyone wonder that? If there's no God, how and why would there be a gene for worship? That doesn't make sense.

There isn't a gene for worship. It is beleived that some people are more likely to participate in religious activities.

The hypothesis is that natural selection favors those who see their surroundings as having a purpose (reason).
Also favored are those who seek to find explanations (curiosity), and those who are not easily confused (stubborness).

So...beliefs are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So...beliefs are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable?

No.

First of all it's a hypothesis, second it's dealing with temperments not beleifs.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So...beliefs are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable?

No.

First of all it's a hypothesis, second it's dealing with temperments not beleifs.

Correction...temperments are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable...and some of them offer a higher chance of surviving than others...how exactly?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So...beliefs are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable?

No.

First of all it's a hypothesis, second it's dealing with temperments not beleifs.

Correction...temperments are now 1) inheritable and 2) selectable...and some of them offer a higher chance of surviving than others...how exactly?

I'll leave it to you to do the research.

Really? I'm sure I read somewhere there was a gene?

Mystical wrote:Really? I'm sure I read somewhere there was a gene?

It couldn't be a single gene, perhaps it was in a popular science magazine.
And they entitled it "The God gene."
But if you read the article its actually about the above mentioned hypothesis.

Sensationalism sells.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mystical wrote:Really? I'm sure I read somewhere there was a gene?

It couldn't be a single gene, perhaps it was in a popular science magazine.
And they entitled it "The God gene."
But if you read the article its actually about the above mentioned hypothesis.

Sensationalism sells.

Just correcting you BGood, it was in Time Magazine .

EDIT: Sorry, I thought it was Newsweek Magazine.

Believer wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mystical wrote:Really? I'm sure I read somewhere there was a gene?

It couldn't be a single gene, perhaps it was in a popular science magazine.
And they entitled it "The God gene."
But if you read the article its actually about the above mentioned hypothesis.

Sensationalism sells.

Just correcting you BGood, it was in Newsweek Magazine .

Cool, do you have a link?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Cool, do you have a link?

Here's a reference to one story: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/
[I thought the original newspaper story was an interesting overview, but had no idea it would engender such debate.]

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Cool, do you have a link?

Here's a reference to one story: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/
[I thought the original newspaper story was an interesting overview, but had no idea it would engender such debate.]

It was Time Magazine, my bad. My thoughts on this are this. It doesn't matter! Why out of all reason would evolution (unless done by God), put genes in us to believe in a higher power? It is illogical to conjure such a thought or idea. If we don't have it, oh well. As I see it, atheists don't believe in God, so all of a sudden this gene is missing, but wait, an atheist from birth converts and the gene constructs itself? I really don't think so. There are believers that have faith in God from the get go, and sometimes they will deconvert into atheism. There are atheists that have faith that God doesn't exist, He just isn't there and never was, right from the get go, growing up, and convert to religion. How would a gene all of a sudden just show up to say you don't believe or you believe on will? It's a really stupid idea. But if there is such a gene, it is from God through direct creation or from evolution.