Is evolution a way to debunk religions?

[Anonymous]

Simply creationist ones, the ones that says adam and eve etc.

[najekim]

In a way. Creationism if based on faith while evolution is based on facts with scientific backing. For example, there are hundreds of creationism beliefs in numerous cultures of how life came about. Like the Thunderbird in some Native American cultures or the world is on the back of a giant tortoise in others. All those are just as valid as Adam & Eve. Just none have any facts backing them.

[richardcory]

Religions are not science, they cannot be disproven and its a waste of time to try. In then end a religion that has an all powerful God can simply say that God made it that way. Can't possibly argue.

[Anpu23]

People who point out metaphor as basis for belief (either for or against a religion) missed the point of the metaphor. Listen, just because one thing in one book in a collection of books is possibly not true does not mean that every word in that same or even related texts is patently false. I've had this argument with a buddy of mine he argues that because the story of Jonah could not have actually happened (no one can survive in a whale) all religions, (Yes even ones that do not follow the Bible) are patently false.

[genericname85]

there is no way to "debunk" religions. cause religiousness is a cognitive bias that favours the chosen delusion over any logic or facts. it's the choice have faith in a thing that is not evidently true or even evidently not true. you can not make someone "undecide" that if they don't want to.

[Girl242]

You're talking about belief not religion. It is impossible to debunk belief because belief does not require logic nor agreement. Belief is just neurons wired together. You can believe something you know isn't true. Many people do, especially about themselves and they are aware of it.

[genericname85]

@Girl242 religion is just the collective form of practiced group believe. you can't "debunk" a decision somone or a group of people made. they made that decision and no logic or evidence will interest them in truth. you can tell them what they believe is not factually true all you want. they don't care and no evidence will undo their decision.

[RealMarek]

No, evolution is a theory based on observed evidence. It doesn’t answer questions of ontology and does not necessarily contradict religion, especially given the figurative readings of scriptures about creation.

[slatyb]

I certainly contradicts literal readings of myths such as Genesis and Exodus.

[RealMarek]

@slatyb Yes, obviously. But if one reads those passages as the ancient Hebrews would have read them they make a lot more sense. For example, consider the literary form of repetition and notice how day 1 (creation of light) is related to day 4 (creation of the sun, moon, and stars. To us this seems backward, but consider how the Greeks thought of the astronomical bodies as being lit by the ether that laid beyond the celestial spheres. The author of Genesis probably thought similarly. The second day (separation of sky and waters) corresponds with day 5 (birds and fish). Day 3 (dry land) corresponds with day 6 (man and beasts). This is obviously not meant to be a literal history, but a story with a spiritual meaning, namely that God provisioned what was necessary for the celestial bodies, animals, and people ahead of their creation. Ironically, the fundamentalist interpretation is borne out of an expectation that all of scripture would be written as history and science. I see no reason why anyone would expect this to be the case, especially given that rationalism is only prevalent among people inhabiting the latter stage of a culture’s lifecycle.

[RealMarek]

And what can evolution reveal about ontology and questions of being? It is a theory derived from inductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning is constrained to the observable material world. As for what causes being, this question can only be apprehended through faith (a belief in God or a belief there is no God) or avoided altogether.

[NamerOfStars]

No, it's a theory- with quite a bit of evidence behind it- to explain how and why life took its current forms.

[strateguy632]

evolution IGNORES god but never refuted god.

[AngryCarl2]

It doesn't debunk the whole religion, just the bits that are incompatible with evolution. 40% is still a pass. Just don't try to tell a Roman Catholic that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[NamerOfStars]

Um, you DO know that when the Church confronted Galileo about that, the command given was "write a book explaining why your theory is correct and the geocentric model is wrong", and that his troubles only started when he turned astronomy into a theological issue and called the pope a retard, right?

[strateguy632]

@NamerOfStars huh, that isn't the version i read. but maybe.

[NamerOfStars]

@strateguy632 "Maybe", nothing. Read for yourself: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/39014

[AngryCarl2]

@NamerOfStars If you mean he followed the Church's instructions and incidentally committed the crime of criticising the Papal Bull, then yes.

[NamerOfStars]

Incidentally, my eye- "Simplicius" means exactly what you think it does. It was VERY deliberate, and VERY stupid; the Pope can't ignore a challenge you MAKE theological, even if he wants to. The resulting blowback was all Galileo's fault.

Blame the Church for its ACTUAL sins; it's not lacking in that department.

[strateguy632]

@NamerOfStars your version is the fiction not mine

[jshm2]

Nope. It's an atheist panacea, and scientific pretension

[OfDeath]

It's definitely a fact of nature which is quite conspicuously missing from religious tomes which are meant to be divine truth.

[strateguy632]

fact? not observed is not even science. nobody saw an ape give birth to a man nor a reptile mothered a mammals.

[OfDeath]

@strateguy632 actually every man ever was given birth to by an ape. Reptiles and mammals are on divergent evolutionary branches now, but if you go back far enough, they shared a common ancestor.

[slatyb]

@strateguy632 all you have done is shown that you have no understanding of evolution.

[strateguy632]

to ofd, i fail to comprehend you can't possibly mean "every" including your mother?

[strateguy632]

@slatyb evolution claims pithicus non tailed apes produced humans. but you can deny any book you want.

[OfDeath]

@strateguy632 Every because humans are primates. A sub group of the great apes. So humans all humans are apes.

[slatyb]

@strateguy632 The evidence for that claim is very strong.

[Pterodon]

No all the Bible says is he created but it doesn’t say how. Who’s to say he didn’t incorporate evolution to create?

[zagor]

A lot of religions consider Adam and Eve, etc. to be allegorical.

[Anonymous]

You know that evolution could just be the process that God used to create life, right?

[Girl242]

That's what I believe. If you build a house the house isn't finished on day 1. If you jump off a building you don't instantly hit the ground. You spend time in the air before you hit the ground. The universe works in an orderly way along specific channels. Science and God are one in the same thing. I believe that is what the Bible is actually saying but it's about the laws of our being written in a very cryptic manner that most people don't understand.

[jahaims]

Common sense debunks Adam and eve lol

[strateguy632]

if it did england wouldn't be 59% FIFTY NINE PERCENT christian. agnosticism is the unpopular bizarre oddity.

[AngryCarl2]

@strateguy632 If England had a degree of common sense Brexit would never have happened.

[slatyb]

@strateguy632 Wromg. Only 46% of the English say they are Christian, and it's a much smaller fraction that believe the Bible is literally true. The number of Christians in all developed countries is decreasing with each passing year.

[strateguy632]

@slatyb while atheist are more than 46%? only. :)

[slatyb]

@strateguy632 Catching up fast in England, where 36% are non-religious. In Nordic countries the non-religious are in the majority. Gallup Poll found in 2016 that 18% of Swedes self-report as atheist and 55% as non-religious. (https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Irreligion_in_Sweden)