Religous Arguments for Evolution

June 29, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

A few weeks ago I said I’d return to the site that used the
term " universal acid" to refer to evolution’s "power" to eat away all opposing
arguments. It’s time.

The quote is from Daniel Dennett, and this particular web incorporates several ideas from
one of his books. Dennett is a strong evolutionist, but prefers to couch his
position about God as a benevolent acceptance that some people need God. This
particular site is more straightforward in positing that evolution removes ALL
need for God. Indeed, the purpose of the site is not to promote evolution as
much as to discredit God. Those who think evolution and the Bible are compatible
have yet to take one or the other, or both, seriously. This site does, and
begins its slideshow clearly stating its objective–to use evolution to make
"no room for God."

After supporting its position with quotes from those who
agree with their thesis, the next step is thestraw man approach: The
third slide positions all belief in fixity of species as Christian
(portrayed as the sum of all non-believers in evolution), even though it admits
that the idea originally came to Christendom via Aristotle. It also acknowledges
no other alternative to evolution for "Christians" than fixity of species than
fixity of species, even though Edward
Blyth, a Christian, first suggested to Darwin the idea of variance within
species. 

Slide four defines creationism as "the idea that God
created all species in their current form a few hundred years ago." I am aware
of no one who believes animals originated a few hundred years ago, much less the
major creationism proponents. And the major ones all agree that variation occurs
from generation to generation.

On slide five they begin their explanation of Darwin with natural selection as "Darwin’s most original contribution to biology." I must return to Blyth: in
1835 he published an article
in the Magazine of Natural History, in which he explains the principle of
natural selection, though not using the term: “It is a general law of nature,
for all creatures to propagate the like of themselves: and this extends even to
the most trivial minutiae, to the slightest peculiarities; and thus, among
ourselves, we see a family likeness transmitted from generation to generation.
When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain
peculiarity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature
for that peculiarity to increase, and if the produce of these animals be set
apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be
selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more
remarkable degree; and so on, till at length the variety I designate a breed is
formed, which may be very unlike the original type.” (Eiseley, Loren C.
1959. Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection.
Proceedings of American Phil. Society.103(1059), 94-158, as reprinted in
Loren Eiseley’s Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, New York: E. P.
Dutton, pp 55-56).

 The next couple of slides are dedicated to explaining
natural selection as the key to evolution. (I must interject here that you
cannot select anything unless something is there from which to select. There is no
discussion of where the something came from.)

Pages eight
through ten take on Design with Paley as the key witness, ignoring any design
arguments that have been developed in the past 150 years. In all, no formidable
arguments are presented for or against evolution. The only presentation is
opinions that favor their view.

My point here is not whether evolution is true or false,
but that the position is argued for religious reasons in some cases. Whether it
is in most or all cases, please consider the honesty of the arguments. That
honesty is crucial, and most obvious in disclosure of real facts, not quotes of
the opinions of others.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »