who reads this? by Andy J. Biery

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Evolution: The Atheist’s Religion–Part 1–The Why and the Background

Filed under: Philosophy — Andy @ 10:35 pm

currently watching: The Wire-Season 3 Product Detailscurrently listening to: Cymbals Eat Guitars-Why There are Mountains Product Details

Having discussed Atheism/Humanism and Liberalism going hand in hand, I’d now like to venture into how Atheism/Humanism has managed to infiltrate into the minds of people today.

The Why

Since the creation, those opposing God have sought to discredit, disprove, and ultimately destroy the idea that man did in fact originate in perfect form from a god, most often the God of the Bible.  Paganism and its many offshoots are as old as Jewish history.  Like I wrote in my description of Humanism, man opposes God because he does not want to submit to His will, does not want to admit sin, and desires to live entirely for himself.  James 4:4 …whoever chooses to be a friend of the world takes his stand as an enemy of God.  Romans 8:7 The mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God’s Law; indeed it cannot.

So why is evolution so important to Atheists?  Its perhaps best summed up by Atheist Richard Bozarth in an article “The meaning of Evolution” published in the American Atheist:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

The Background

Evolution itself is Paganism, and it originated long before Darwin published the “Origin of Species”. Upwards of 2,500 years before Darwin in fact.  Some early cosmologies included a concept of God or a form of intelligence, and some were strict Atheism.   I’ll detail both, and I’ll start with a few more well-known figures.

Plato (422-347 B.C.), of whom we have a ton of writings from, combined purpose and chance as an explanation for the cosmos.  He talked about a form of “devolution” (that from God came about successive emergences of lower and less worthy forms) and used descriptions for the universe that defined it as a “Living Creature” (a form of pantheism).  Plato’s successor, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), began to remove aspects of the Biblical God by referring to God as a more impersonal “Prime Mover” that simply set the pre-existing and uncreated (eternal) cosmos in motion–then leading to devolution (summarized in his “Great Chain of Being” theory).  While these two had some concepts of evolution, they were not what was surmised by Darwin.

To get closer to the Atheistic/Darwinian views, you actually have to go back further than Plato and Aristotle.  Around 6th century B.C.(about the same time other “rationalistic” religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Vedanta Hinduism were beginning–not a mere coincidence i’m sure) in Asia Minor the father to Greek philosophy, often called Milesian or Ionian philosophy, began.  Thales was its creator, he was the first to introduce naturalistic and materialistic lines of thinking to describe the world rather than supernatural.  From Thales’ thinking developed Atomism (5th century B.C. philosophy developed by Leucippus and Democritus) which simply said that there were invisible building blocks(atoms) making up anything that exists.  Ultimately this lead to the philosophy of Epicureanism.  Epicurus (342-270 B.C.; who today would be an absolute champion of the Humanists) believed that everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding, and becoming entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their motions.  From this you would have little trouble conforming it to modern “sciences” and evolutionary ideas.

So as you can see, the original line of thinking (that we developed from random and chaotic chance) began in and around Ancient Greek philosophy.  From there evolutionary thinking was broken down and redeveloped many times, often by people in the church trying to mesh it with Christianity (see Origen, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas for some examples).  Then in the 19th century Charles Darwin published “Origin” and the same atheistic philosophies developed 2000 years earlier were finally accepted as “science”.  Though before we get to Darwin, we still need to look at the more immediate precursors to “his” theories.

9 Comments »

  1. If I’m correct, the publishing of “Origins” almost did not take place because it conflicted so strongly with Darwin’s beliefs, but when he found out that somebody else was planning on publishing a similar “discovery,” he figured he might as well go ahead and take credit….

    Are you arguing for or against athiesm?

    Comment by Anonymous — Thursday, April 9, 2009 @ 12:25 am

  2. I’m pretty sure Darwin believed everything he wrote by the time he wrote it. The guy you are thinking of is Alfred Russel Wallace, I’ll talk about him and other things surrounding the Origin publishing in my next post.

    As for what i’m arguing, i’m not specifically arguing against atheism with these posts–its more implied that i’m against it. I guess I assume most reading these posts know me so I haven’t come right out and said “I’m completely against atheism!!” I’m probably trying too hard to be objective in my writing on atheism, though if you read other posts by me i’m usually completely nonobjective.

    Comment by Andy — Thursday, April 9, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

  3. A few questions:

    1. I realize you are probably summarizing, but how much of this comes from the book you read? Like, 100% or what?
    2. Do you realize how one sided and full of strawmen all this?
    3. When was the last time you read anything that treated evolution scientifically and not philosophically? Ever?

    If only to provide a small counterpoint to your one-sided take on, well, everything:
    “I will be working from an idea that an acceptance of evolution is just as much a faith as creationism, and no more a science than creationism.”
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and most things can be argued, but this statement is false whether you “believe” it or not. There is no evidence for the account of creation provided in the bible (or a lot of other stuff in there) outside of the bible, thus it can only be taken on faith. There is overwhelming evidence (that continues to mount) that evolution does in fact take place. The difference is in the evidence, the research of which makes it science. If you personally choose to believe that science fails or ceases to exist only in the cases that don’t agree with your worldview then that is your decision, but it doesn’t address the fact that there has been more research on the subject than you apparently care to imagine, or bother to learn about. Other than through propaganda.

    Comment by Patrick — Monday, April 13, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

  4. Patrick, if you can recommend me one really excellent scientific book that you believe lays out a great case in favor of evolution, I would love to read it. I’m too lazy to try to find one myself.

    I don’t necessarily agree with you that there is no evidence out there that can validate creationism, but even if that is the case, what exactly is there that explains how a nonliving organism became a living organism through pure chance? Aren’t any theories about the actual origin of man – or anything else – pure speculation?

    Comment by Abbie — Monday, April 13, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

  5. hey bro this is only 1 post of many. i’m just getting started yo. let me finish completely (prob take me a while). 🙂

    the book i read, “the long war against God” gave me the framework for how i’m writing about this topic, yes. but i could easily link to wikipedia for what i posted here (and i did use wiki to help me write this up). The stuff about Plato, Aristotle, Thales, Atomism, and Epicureanism is easily verifiable.

    Comment by Andy — Monday, April 13, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

  6. Abbie-
    I’m not in any great position to be recommending books I guess since I haven’t really read any Biology books since high school. I really wish everyone who wants to have an informed opinion on this subject would just read or even skim a basic high school level biology book (for instance: http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Exploring-Life-Neil-Campbell/dp/0132509253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239894481&sr=1-1 written by my high school science teacher and someone who through personal one-on-one experience I know has no hidden agenda and is definitely not out to persecute anyone, ridicule anyone, or make “war on God” or whatever nonsense) and then follow it with something like this http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Mark-Ridley/dp/1405103450/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239894222&sr=1-8 but I know most people would rather not go to all that trouble which, unless they are pretty interested in biology, is understandable. Plus they are textbook prices, but maybe they could be found at a library somewhere? The only other book I found on amazon (and I looked at a bunch) that wasn’t borderline or outright garbage seems pretty good: http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Ernst-Mayr/dp/0465044263/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239894391&sr=1-14
    I haven’t read it but the author and material seems as legit as it gets. The single problem I could see with that book being one probably would need a lot of supplemental material to get much out of it should one endeavor to read it. Which, again, people really should read, at the very least, a basic biology book before forming many opinions, in my estimation.
    Andy-
    You answered exactly zero of my questions. I have little doubt most of that stuff is verifiable. My real problem was with the statement I quoted, which is misinformation.

    Comment by Patrick — Thursday, April 16, 2009 @ 10:30 am

  7. P.S. Abbie- ignore the amazon review, whoever wrote that doesn’t know what they are talking about. Read the first customer review for an idea of what the book is like.

    Comment by Patrick — Thursday, April 16, 2009 @ 10:36 am

  8. i know i didnt answer any questions, i said i wouldn’t here in this comment section.

    the fact that i believe evolution and creation as explanations for the origin of life (either from the start or as we see it today) to be much more philosophical than scientific is going to take me a lot of posts to cover.

    P.S. I knew it was mr. williamson that got you into believing all this. i remember you talking about it back then.

    Comment by Andy — Thursday, April 16, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

  9. They don’t have your teacher’s biology book on the internet, and I’m definitely not going to buy it for that price, but the other two are now officially on hold in my name. I will try to read them if I have any free time at all in the near future.

    Comment by Abbie — Thursday, April 16, 2009 @ 10:27 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.