Evidence for God from Science

"Is Darwinism Compatible with Christianity?"

This is the debate I'm involved with for a class, I'm arguing the negative and I'm wondering if anyone here has some suggestions for sources. Either online or Books.

I'm arguing modern Darwinism , not Darwin's personal beliefs. So think Richard Dawkins.

Thanks for the help.

b_rows wrote:"Is Darwinism Compatible with Christianity?"

This is the debate I'm involved with for a class, I'm arguing the negative and I'm wondering if anyone here has some suggestions for sources. Either online or Books.

I'm arguing modern Darwinism , not Darwin's personal beliefs. So think Richard Dawkins.

Thanks for the help.

Richard Dawkins represents one possible Darwinist viewpoint but not the only one. His view treads extremely close to 'scientism', and there's no need to accept that metaphysical (er, anti metaphysical) viewpoint.

As far as resources go for the 'pro' side. These are good:

Kenneth Miller - Finding Darwin's God
John Haught - God After Darwin
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Christianity and Evolution
Denis Edwards - The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian theology

Let me know if you need more suggestions.

for the 'con' side ...

Let me think ...
it really depends on what your understanding of Christianity is. If it involves a literal interpretation of the bible or a God who micromanages the universe then the task is easy.
If the theist rejects this position, then it's a bit tougher, and I don't think the case can be made. Dawkins obviously thinks it can, and you might want to read "The God Delusion" to see if you can pick up any ideas there.

As far as others go,
John Haught, in the same book, goes through the 'con' arguments.

Michael Ruse, in "Can a Darwinian be a Christian?", is probably either in the middle or on the con side. So that might be a useful reference.

Darwinism, roughly speaking, is a naturalistic explanation of raising and falling of life specimen on Earth. It is based on random mutations and selection. One of the first corollaries of Darwinism is common ancestor scenario (take two life organism on Earth, then they share a common ancestor).

Here I have to say that while scientifically speaking it is obvious that we share common ancestor with chimps and gorillas, with cows, and with birds and fishes; there is considerably less evidences that ALL living organisms share a common ancestor. As far as we know, one day we could discover a bacterium which is on a different evolutionary line, which comes from a separate abiogenetic event. This would be not too harm for evolution. I will call "common ancestor" the weak claim concerning humans and other mammals.

In my opinion there is nothing preventing a christian to accept common ancestors, macroevolution, even abiogenesis. I do. Many of my friends do. There are whole bunches of christians (eg evolutionary theists) who accept all this stuff.

To be honest, I know many scientists who are believers, even good scientists. Still I think there is no possibility for christians to accept the naturalistic framework. They say that "naturalism" is not science but it is a philosophical claim. But it is hard to me to understand the difference between science and philosophy. Of course the two disciplines are historically and sociologically different. However, today science IS what used to be called "natural philosophy". And naturalism is a piece of natural philosophy; the only piece of it which survived the evidences discovered since Galileo/Newton.

I suppose the problem comes from a wrong interpretation of it as a "principle". In science there is no principle in the philosophical sense; every claim is subjected to evidences. Naturalism is just the observation that everything we understood until now is explained in terms of natural processes with no divine action.

Said that, this is unacceptable to most theists. As far as one considers a divine action as a physical action, well, sooner or later problems might be encountered. Just because until now these divine actions are supported by no evidence. Of course nobody knows about the future: we could have evidences for divine actions or we could be able to disprove them finally.

I don't think most christians could accept the second. And all believers I know in science do in fact hope for a future evidence of divine action or at least for a ever lasting state of ignorance as the present one allowing but not proving divine physical actions.
I personally prefer to consider religion as something disconnected from physical world, but this is another story.

My point is that a scientist cannot live hoping to keep our present state of ignorance untouched. And a christian cannot accept evidences against god acting physically in our world.
The only possible way out (which is in fact the position of all scientists I know who are also believer) is to HAVE FAITH that no contradictions between science and religion will come from future evidences.

The problem I see is that a scientist should not have faith which interfer with physical evidences.

Angel, what about the soul? Did that evolve from the chimpanzee? And what about the refutations that have been written concerning the 'ape-men' (like Lucy)?

Abiogenesis has been proven false in the past with flies and bacteria. What makes you think it could happen with proteins, while scientists have not even succeeded in making it plausible that amino acids could have formed under the circumstances? (Please answer so that a layman (me) can understand. )

Naturalism is certainly a philosophical position, and not a scientific one as the word 'science' is currently understood. If naturalism is true, behaviourism is true, and the soul isn't, i.e. man is wholly determined by outside influences and genes.

Did you ever look at evidence for the existence of the soul? I'm about to read it, and as I know the writer, I have faith that this (long) article will prove very worthwhile. It shows why materialism and reductionism (including naturalism) are 'misguided (at best)'.

Turgonian wrote:Abiogenesis has been proven false in the past with flies and bacteria. What makes you think it could happen with proteins, while scientists have not even succeeded in making it plausible that amino acids could have formed under the circumstances?

For flies and bacteria, too much to happen at once. Look at Utah's Zion and Bryce National parks http://www.utahszionandbryce.com/. These are complicated natural formations. There is plenty of land around, but no one has seen similar formations pop into existence during historical times either. And even if something familiar seemed to be developing, the end results would not be exactly the same.
If life developed naturally, the first "life" would have been simple replicator molecules, nothing as complicated as a fly or a bacterium. We will never know if life developed naturally or not. The best we can hope for is to eventually either come up with plausible mechanisms or discover valid reasons preventing a natural occurrence.

What is the big deal about evolution? Christianity( all religions but this is a christian discussion page so . . .) believed in a flat earth, that was over-turned, then Copernicus suggested the heliocentric solar system which was suppressed but finally was accepted. Evolution will stand or fall on its own merits. If it is wrong science will find it wrong. What I'm trying to say is religion has survived anything science has come up with so stop worrying. There are two ways to look at this-either the world is as we sense it (or measure with our instruments) or God is a prankster who plants "evidence" for the scientific explanation. Most Christians I know see the bible as allegorical so there is no conflict between religion and science. Lighten up!

The Bible is not, as a whole, allegorical. It's mainly a history book, though it also contains theology, prophecy and poetry.

I doubt whether science will ever find 'evolution' wrong, since it seems to be the only godless explanation they have. They'll bend the theory around the facts they find, rather than believe in an intelligent designer, because that's 'bringing Creationism into the classroom through the back door'...

I think the question all depends on which take on christianity we're using. I think darwinism is compatible with some of the more liberal takes on christianity like the episcopal church. It is not compatible with some of the bigger churches that aren't as liberal such as the baptist and catholic church. Regardless I think if you live a good christian life believing either your going to go to heaven.

Dawkins evolutionary philosophy goes beyond science and is used as a basis to reject the existence of God. As such it is completely incompatable with Christianity. In this regard, ironically, Dawkins own philosophy takes on religious qualities.

Evolutionary science itself is not necessary incompatible with Christian teachings and values is it is seen in the context of pure science and explaining the methodology employed by God. I personally do not believe that there is enough evidence to restrict God's methods in this regards although I certainly believe there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that evolution is a legitimate scientific theory. For me, the question is one of scope and scale.

Francis Collins is a theistic evolutionist with impeccable credentials. Stronger in fact than Dawkins whose work has been more in philosophy than hands on actual science. Collins ran the Human Genome project in the US. I would suggest him and others like him as better voices to look at than Dawkins. Dawkins has an agenda and an axe to grind and goes well beyond anything that can be described as remotely objective.

Apparently, Rich Deem has posted a new article on Richard Dawkins book, "The God Delusion".

The article starts out reviewing chapter one of his book here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... sion1.html

godslove39 wrote:... darwinism ... is not compatible with... catholic church.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "darwinism", but many Catholics have no problem with evolution, see e.g., Kenneth Miller http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... d-krm.html

Angel, what about the soul? Did that evolve from the chimpanzee?

Turgonian, to my understanding the "soul" is not a physical object.
I do not mean it does not exist, but certainly it does not "exist in a physical sense".
I am ready to accept other kind of existences for soul, though until now no physical evidence
appeared to the best of my knowledge.
Until otherwise proven I will keep my belief that the soul has nothing to do with atoms and as such has no
influence on things made by atoms.

However I suppose you are aware that this has nothing to do with what I was
saying in my previous post.
There I was exactly saying that Darwinism and Faith are IMO incompatible, despite
many believers hold by faith the hope that no contradiction will ever be encountered.

And what about the refutations that have been written concerning the 'ape-men' (like Lucy)?

References please.

Abiogenesis has been proven false in the past with flies and bacteria.
What makes you think it could happen with proteins, while scientists
have not even succeeded in making it plausible that amino acids could
have formed under the circumstances? (Please answer so that a layman
(me) can understand. )

I am not aware of such a failure.
The fact that they were not able to observe abiogenesis observing for few years
a bottle of mud, does not mean that it cannot happen.

Have you ever won a national lottery?
Does that mean that it cannot be won?

Naturalism is certainly a philosophical position, and not a scientific
one as the word 'science' is currently understood. If naturalism is
true, behaviourism is true, and the soul isn't, i.e. man is wholly
determined by outside influences and genes.

Sorry Turgonian I am a naive guy. I know what a "naturalistic explanation" is
but I do not know what is "naturalism" by itself.
In my previous post I used the term naturalism as a synonimous of
"reality can be explained by means of a naturalistic explanations".
That is not the way you are using the same word.
I suspect we are discussing two different things.

I also clearly claimed that phylosophy IMO is a part of science (and that I accept
the part of philosophy that can be scientivically supported).
Hence I agree that naturalism is a philosophical position. I add that it is in that part of the philosophy which can be
scientifically supported.
Until you prove differently.

Did you ever look at evidence for the existence of the soul? I'm about
to read it, and as I know the writer, I have faith that this (long)
article will prove very worthwhile. It shows why materialism and
reductionism (including naturalism) are 'misguided (at best)'.

No I did not.
Enjoy your reading.


sandy_mcd, about chatolics I have to report that there seems to be a war in catholic church currently.
The previous pope clearly stated to be evolutionary theistic.
The present one appears to be in between this position and a closer position to ID.
We shall see how it goes.
The only thing which is clear in CC is that they cannot accept the evolution to be puposeless, which is exactly what most evolutionist (rightly of wrong) would believe.

Dawkins is arrogance personified but no more than some religious leaders, pastor Haggard for instance. I'm not referring to the recent allegations but to an interview with prof Dawkins, broadcast on BBC1, where he refuses to entertain any alternatives to his evangelical teachings.However most scientists are not God haters they merely represent the evidence as they see it. There are flaws in evoloutionary theory and that is why it is a "theory" but it is overwhelmingly accepted as the best model for describing fossil evidence, specieisation, vestigial organs etc. Intelligent Design is not widely accepted as it fails to offer as coherent a picture. It is important to remember that God (ie the supernatural) cannot ,by definition, be used in a scientific explanation. Where God starts is where science ends. Science and religion can co-exist, however, because they answer different questions.

angel wrote:Until otherwise proven I will keep my belief that the soul has nothing to do with atoms and as such has no influence on things made by atoms.

What about the brain? Don't such things as Reason and Volition guide our actions to some extent? (The mere movements of the brain obviously are not Reason.)

angel wrote:

Turgonian wrote:And what about the refutations that have been written concerning the 'ape-men' (like Lucy)?

References please.

Anthropology and Apeman Q&A (list of articles)
Making Man out of Monkeys (article)

angel wrote:The fact that they were not able to observe abiogenesis observing for few years a bottle of mud, does not mean that it cannot happen.

Assuming it can happen is a leap of faith, rather than logic. Miller tried to prove abiogenesis and failed.
Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis

angel wrote:Have you ever won a national lottery?
Does that mean that it cannot be won?

This is completely irrelevant, since there is a 100% chance that someone will win the lottery. So unless you want to posit an unsubstantiated 'multiverse' (which would create a lottery scenario), you have to accept that it's a marvel this single universe even exists...

angel wrote:

Turgonian wrote:Naturalism is certainly a philosophical position, and not a scientific one as the word 'science' is currently understood. If naturalism is true, behaviourism is true, and the soul isn't, i.e. man is wholly determined by outside influences and genes.

Sorry Turgonian I am a naive guy. I know what a "naturalistic explanation" is but I do not know what is "naturalism" by itself.
In my previous post I used the term naturalism as a synonimous of "reality can be explained by means of a naturalistic explanations".
That is not the way you are using the same word.
I suspect we are discussing two different things.

Naturalism is the philosophical position that matter (the physical) is all there is, or at least the metaphysical is irrelevant. If everything is the effect of a physical cause, people work just like animals and can (and may!) be conditioned the same way.

angel wrote:I also clearly claimed that phylosophy IMO is a part of science (and that I accept the part of philosophy that can be scientivically supported). Hence I agree that naturalism is a philosophical position. I add that it is in that part of the philosophy which can be scientifically supported.
Until you prove differently.

All science is supported by philosophy. To say, 'I will only accept the philosophy that can be scientifically supported' is a philosophy that accepts science as the surest way of reaching the truth (and, ofttimes, developing). Philosophy isn't built on science -- it precedes science. If you say you will only accept the claims of science, and say philosophy is only a part of science (rather than its foundation -- which is more true), you are being reductionistic.