Neatras wrote:
I think describing reality using terms that are distinct and informative is how we should go about things productively. But if that's not viable, what's the alternative?
I take the following positions
1. Evolution versus Creationism as a pure academic topic (no theology involved).
If they want to argue for Creationism in this picture then they must first define the mechanisms of Creationism and provide evidence for where those mechanism can be shown to exist in nature.
If they can't do this then they can hardly hold "Creationism" up as an explanation for anything. And they certainly can't hold it up as a "Science". Therefore Creationists who deny Evolution are necessarily denying all of Science and the Scientific Method of discovery of truth.
So Creationists have placed themselves at war with all of Science. Good luck with that.
2. Evolution can't be true because I can't understand how complex things could evolve by pure chance (argument from ignorance).
The only reply I know to give on this one is to suggest that they actually study evolution until they do understand it because it's quite clear on how it works for those of us who do understand it. Evolution does not even suggest that anything happens by "pure chance".
Arguments like, "
Asking us to believe in evolution is like asking us to believe a tornado could hit a scrap yard and accidentally leave behind a perfectly assembled functioning jumbo jet."
Such statements are nothing short of a vivid display of ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution is actually saying.
And finally:
3. Evolution versus Creationism as a Theological topic (no science involved).
As far as I can see this argument fails all on its own. Especially if the God in this theology is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and have a Master Plan.
If such a God existed and wanted to created a universe full of humans then surely this God could create a universe that would naturally evolve to produce the desired result (i.e. humans).
To argue against evolution from a purely theological perspective is to argue that their God is neither omnipotent, omniscient, nor had an original Master Plan. For if he was all these things then why would he need to babysit an inferior universe to constantly push things around to make them happen the way he wants?
The idea of rejecting evolution doesn't even make any theological sense.
Moreover, think about things like genetic birth defects. Well, with evolution by natural selection it makes sense that sometimes mistakes will happen. However, if a God is actually pushing things around to make things happen, then birth defects would necessarily need to be this God making mistakes, or worse yet doing it on purpose!
In fact, when we stop and think of this, even if we allow for a God who created a universe that can evolve into humans on its own, why should he design a universe that isn't perfect and can indeed result in accidental birth defects. This less than perfect design would have needed to be part of God's "Master Plan" anyway.
So it seems to me that even from a purely theological perspective, both Creationism and Evolution have equally serious problems.
~~~~~
Having said the above, I supposed its only fair to add here that Buddhism actually has an explanation for why a God might create a universe that can naturally evolve into humans including allowing for random birth defects on occasion.
I won't go into the details of how Buddhism justifies this idea of God as being perfectly rational, I'm only going to state that they do. For those who care to understand why this makes sense in Buddhism will need to look into that for themselves.
The only reason I bring this up is to point out that there to exist some religions that offer rational explanation for why things are precisely as we see them, and this still allows for their "God" to exist. But also note here that Buddhism does not deny evolution at all. To the contrary for the Buddhists, evolution is perfectly compatible with their concept of "God". In fact, they idea of "Creationism" would be silly in Buddhism. Again, that would require a God who wasn't intelligent enough to know how to do it automatically via natural processes.
Bottom Line for Me
It doesn't make any sense to argue against Evolution as an attempt to make an argument for a supposedly omnipotent omniscient God, because if that God can't design a universe that would naturally evolve into humans (if that was his original plan), then he could hardly be said to be either omnipotent or omniscient.
So to argue against Evolution is to argue against the very idea of an omnipotent omniscient God anyway. It's not even a good theological argument.
Additional Notes to Abrahamic Theists
I personally see arguments of Creationism versus Evolution, and arguments for how the "Big Bang" might have gotten started to be nothing more than distractions from the real problems with the Abrahamic Religions which is what their various Dogmas and Scriptures actually contain.
Even if Creationism could be show to be necessary, that would hardly point to the Abrahamic Theology anyway.
Even if a "God" was required for a Big Bang to occur, that would hardly point to the Abrahamic Theology.
Arguing for a God in general does not support the Abrahamic Doctrines. The existence of a God, could support any of the man-made religions. Including Wicca.
So these types of arguments don't support the Abrahamic Religions in particular anyway. If you want to argue or debate the Abrahamic Religions with me, you're going to need to argue it directly from your specific dogma or doctrine. I will even give you the hypothetical assumption that your God could potentially exist and perform any miracles he so desires.
Given the hypothetical that your God could potentially exist and perform miracles, I will then debate entirely on why I reject the Abrahamic texts as being self-contradictory and utterly absurd, even given that this God could potentially exist in scientific terms.
So if you want to argue with me about your dogmas, bring on the dogmas, and don't hide behind generic arguments for why you think there needs to be a God in a more general sense. Those arguments don't support your specific dogmas anyway.
Just because a God exists doesn't mean that the Abrahamic mythologies are true. To the contrary, I suspect that if a God exists Buddhism is far more likely to more correctly describe what God is actually like.
So if you convince me that a God must exist, I'll just embrace Buddhism anyway.
In the meantime I remain agnostic with respect to the existence any type of God, even the God of Buddhism.
