|
Organized
religion has several “sacred
cows”, science has one also
that answers to the name
“evolution”. Aren’t the
rest of us lucky that we have
just a few choices to choose
between without incurring the
wrath of the “enforcers” of
these sacred cow proponents?
Well, I want to clear my throat
and muster my courage by
replying with my own eight-word
salvo. Evolution and Atheism
aren’t married to each other!
Yes
it is true that a large majority
of skeptics and scientist
believe in the respected
position of evolution. But there
are several scientists who
don’t fully hold to
evolutional theory, and
certainly not to creationism
folly.
These are outside of the
box thinkers that respect
scientific methods. They
understand that evolution is
just a theory; I won’t insult
those who have forgotten what
the definition of what a theory
is.
Christian
fence straddling, Christianity
is married to creationism
As
I earlier stated, evolution and
atheism aren’t married, but
Christianity and creationism
should be! I could never
understand the “cross-over”
of those claiming Christianity
and evolution views in unison
together. Back then, I could not
accept them as sincere because
it just seemed to me that these
guys were just compromisers.
Most I suppose would find
justification by referring to
the “gap theory” which they
would derive from the book of
Genesis. I looked at these guys
as already having “one foot
out of the door” of
Christianity. I suppose that
many holding this thought later
took the second foot out and
left the Christian myth
altogether. As to motives, I
want to give them the benefit of
the doubt, but I thought that
they wanted the affirmation of
science so that they could
appear as clever and respectable
in society.
I
don’t know of any atheist that
holds to creationism. This would
have to be an utter
impossibility, wouldn’t it?
Atheists believe in logic,
reason, and the scientific
method. Christians are interested
in logic, reason, and the
scientific method but that is as
far as they go, just
lip-service! Facts are facts and
Christians cannot claim to
follow logic and reason and
still profess to claim that the
Bible is the word of God.
Science
has proven that the earth is
much greater than 6,000 years
old. Creationism is an utterly
absurd position to claim.
I suspect that this is
what those who hold to anything
like the “Genesis gap
theory” are trying to
diplomatically say without
opening their mouths.
With
this said, I suppose that the
Christian scientists that point
out the flaws in evolutionary
theory aren’t of the
fundamentalist persuasion but
rather the philosophical
Christian types.
I really don’t care
what they believe concerning
religion. I find it odd that
they would step into the
scientific ring with atheists
holding a Bible. Now, if they
offered anything other than the
so- called Intelligent Design
theory or creationism story
maybe some might be willing to
lend their ear to what they have
to say. Still, whatever they say
while holding a Bible makes them
difficult to listen to. What
they say is easy for the
faithful flock to hear, but
sheep often believe what they
are told to believe without
question anyway.
Us
de-converted souls can feed
ourselves
A
point that many haven’t
considered is that almost all of
us who have de-converted have
been well schooled in
creationism and the so-called
Intelligent Design theories.
Most of us that attended Bible
colleges or universities have
also had a steady diet of
anti-evolution instruction fed
to us.
We made it out of
Christian bondage, and respect
evolutionary theory but don’t
have this warm and fuzzy feeling
about it.
Removing
an obstacle in the de-conversion
path
I
suspect, that these
anti-evolution instructions
serve as a rather large obstacle
in the path out of Christian
bondage for many considering
leaving the faith. Why, because
of the perception that Evolution
and Atheism are married to each
other. Why should any reasonable
skeptic insist that they should
be?
Doesn’t that defy the
spirit within those that have
de-converted? If you left
Christianity by means of logic
and reason, this means (better
yet proves) that you have
learned to question things.
Isn’t that where science
begins, in the quest for truth?
Looking
at the problem with Hegel’s
Dialectic in mind
People
need to be acquainted with
Hegel’s Dialectic; you
remember it as thesis versus
anti-thesis producing the
synthesis. Synthesis and
anti-thesis do not annihilate
each other, they just separately
coexist. Hegel’s Dialectic can
be in place either incidentally
or on purpose.
Sometimes the synthesis
produces wonderful results,
other times the synthesis
produces stagnation and is just
a spectacle for those enthused
by conflict.
Yes, some knuckleheads
enjoy conflict and being
ineffective.
The bigger picture is
that Evolution, Creationism,
Christianity, and Atheism all
desire adherents to follow them.
All of the above have
their own sales and marketing
strategy. I have problems with
the sales and marketing strategy
of some atheist, Evolution and
Atheism shouldn’t be packaged
together!
For
an example, the respected
American Atheist website ran a
headline during the holiday
season that went something like
this: “Ron Paul Doesn’t
Accept Evolution” .
It made me think, first I
was irritated and said so what!
I have observed Ron Paul’s
voting record through his
career, I challenge anyone to
present somebody with a more
consistent voting record within
the last 200 years of American
history when you judge by the
intent of upholding
constitutional principles.
The man is amazing if the
constitution is important to you
when you vote.
There are humanists like
myself who don’t hold to
creationism but are reluctant to
identify themselves as a
card-carrying evolutionist.
Perhaps it was a clever
headline to lure his followers
to visit an atheist website.
I resent the implication
that evolution is the absolute
final word in science.
Doing
your
own
research
and
those
that
feel
the
need
to
misrepresent
I
could give you several names and
websites to alternative
viewpoints. I think that you
should dig for them yourself; I
don’t want you to be
distracted away from the point
that I am making! When I read
what others have said about
these men, I have to question
the reading comprehension skills
of those making comments. They
misrepresent the viewpoints that
the author has expressed and I
smell a rat!
The tactics that they use
is all the more reason to
explore the views that they have
expressed. History has shown
that great ideas are often
ridiculed prior to common
acceptance. If the expressed
idea is weak, then logic and
reason alone should be able to
put the idea down!
It
shouldn’t be important to you
what I believe on the subject.
The real issue is freedom of
thought and expression.
Pressuring scientists to observe
the party line on evolution
inhibits the potential of
greater understanding. It is
almost the same phenomena as
when you question Christian
dogma within a fundamentalist
university. Both schools of
these disciplines exert pressure
upon those within to stay within
the lines. Challenge this and
you can easily find your ass
will be kicked to the curb as a
lesson.
This isn’t healthy and
suggests an agenda.
Limits
in following important
personalities
I
have great respect for those
well-known atheists that are
better known for their
scientific viewpoints.
They command respect and
I am inclined to immediately
come on board due to their
acumen. But, I have learned my
lesson in following Jesus like I
once did. That lesson is to not
be so hasty in asserting belief
in something due to
personalities alone.
Scientific
views are important, but how a
laymen views a scientific
question shouldn’t prevent
someone from accepting atheism.
Most atheists will follow a
certain path of inquiry, while
others approach it differently
in their pursuit of facts.
Personally, I still have
many questions and practice the
right to explore other
scientific possibilities when
discussing evolution. I strongly
believe in the scientific
method, it is the interpretation
of data that concerns me.
Science
should be a battleground in
establishing facts from fiction.
If critics have valid
viewpoints, then let us not be
so quick to shrug what they say!
Let us watch the process
unfold like a spectator does
when watching a sporting event,
we won’t know the outcome
until the game ends. Why not
say, up until this time this is
the best explanation of whatever
scientific viewpoint that we
have.
This I can accept and
respect!
When a certain viewpoint
has sufficiently put down its
critics then it has earned the
right to reign. Atheism has
earned that right to reign,
while evolution is still
struggling to reach that
pinnacle.
The
end of atheism?
A
hypothetical question needs to
be asked here to those that
insist upon evolution and
atheism being married. That
question is, If someone steps up
with a stronger scientific
accomplishment in the future,
then would the break-up of this
marriage be the end of atheism?
Doesn't it stand to reason that
if they both stand together,
then they would also fall
together?
Closing
thoughts
Human
nature being what it is will see
to it that some people feel the
need to straighten out this
ex-minister.
Maybe we will always
disagree upon how we approach
things, but isn’t great that
we live with the freedom to do
so? Spare yourself the effort of
trying to convince me of your
viewpoint on creationism or
evolution. I enjoy the process
of thinking as much as I do the
results of it. I have a rather
large library and have read or
have access to many of those
that you might use to try to
convince me with. I am always
open to enlightenment and do
welcome your opinions if you
have something significant to
say. I probably won’t respond
to the diatribes I expect to get
for this, but I am interested in
your well thought out opinions
on the subject matter that I
have addressed with this
article.
Since
I was challenged and ridiculed
by some about evolution, I have
placed several links below for
your viewing consideration. I
asked the simple question
"Can anyone name a
challenging viewpoint that isn't
Theistic in nature like the so
called Intelligent Design or
creationism ? Nobody was able to
mention any scientific
alternatives! My main purpose in
writing this was to remove an
obstacle in the path to
de-conversion that some
Christians encounter when
considering humanism/atheism.
Evolution explains many things,
but in my mind, evolution as a
scientific theory has some
problems beginning with the Big
Bang. Some might accuse me of
not believing in evolution, but
I do, and I am not afraid to
express my reluctance to
question certain aspects of it!
I am not a scientist, these men
are with the exception of the
most interesting Laura Lee
website. If someone wants to
challenge them, it then becomes
your battle.
The
Top 30 Problems with the Big
Bang
by
Tom Van Flandern,
Metaresearch.org
Biographical
Sketch of Tom Van Flandern,
Metaresearch.org
Laura
Lee audio interview withTom Van
Flandern
James
McCanney Science.com
Opening
Statement
A
fair review of Vine Deloria
Jr.'s great book, Evolution,
Creationism, and Other Modern
Myths:
A
Critical Inquiry! The best that
I have read on the subject!
http://www.lauralee.com/deloria.htm
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
An
Open Letter to the Scientific
Community
The
letter is a brief letter that
openly questions the big bang
theory.
Look
at all of those that have signed
this letter!
Brian
Worley Ex-Minister.org
February 21, 2008 All
rights reserved
|
