18th November 2011

“You cannot dovetail evolution into the Bible. You put yourself in the position where you are forced to concede that you don't believe the first few chapters. You are also forced to concede that there was no original sin, no wrath of God that destroyed the world in the flood and no need for Jesus. In short, by trying to ingratiate yourself with the theory of evolution you abandon your Christianity in the process.”


19 Responses to “18th November 2011”

  1. R J rjf114@gmail.com Says:

    ah well……………..

    many are called …. few are chosen.

  2. Atheist MC Says:

    This is of course why the fundies hate Darwinism so much. They at least have the intellectual honesty to realise the consequences of it to their faith. The more wishy-washy faithful don’t take the bible literally anyway, so are happy to invent compatibilities that can’t exist.

  3. Dan Says:

    I’m surprised that the fundies don’t hate Newtonism* as much. Since Newton, there’s been no room for gods in the realm of physics, that is.

    *(I say “Newtonism” because if we’re to call modern biology “Darwinism”, then we should be consistent and start calling modern physics “Newtonism” from now on too.)

  4. electrabotanical Says:

    I’ve heard this arguement coming out of the radio on the lower end of the dial – you know, the fundie stations? That’s why they have to reject recent evolution and evolution among humans (I think that’s Romney’s line)

    This is a quote that both sides can embrace, for exactly the opposite reasons!

  5. Jeff Says:

    What I find so funny about the whole thing is that Darwin wasn’t theorizing on the existence of evolution – it was widely accepted as fact in his time, even among the clergy, many of whom were naturalists as well. Darwin’s theory is about the MECHANISM of evolution (a.k.a. evolution by natural selection). Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks that were trying to talk about Darwin actually knew what his theory was all about?

    What makes this so funny is that the fact of evolution is fundamental to biology. Without it, most of the knowledge that makes modern medicine possible goes right out the window – along with vaccines, antibiotics, and a bunch of other discoveries that make the lives of so many of the folks who denying them, possible. Wonder how many of them would die off of infections and disease if we made them give that stuff up? If you had to believe in evolution in order to benefit from the knowledge gained because of understanding it, how many would convert?

  6. Xhim Says:

    Evolution being fundamental to biology may be true, but it is no guarantee that it is accurate science. We should be cautious in appealing to “established facts.” I just read the following, which, if verified, will totally upset current thinking in physics:
    “Revealed religion” can at most be reinterpreted (which it has been many times), but can’t change it’s mind. It is in the nature of science in all fields to “change it’s mind” on the basis of new evidence.

  7. Dan Says:

    Right, but if the speed of light really isn’t constant, no one is going to throw out all of modern physics. Similarly, even if one or even two critical points of evolutionary theory are refuted, Descent With Modification and Universal Common Ancestry would still be true.

  8. Rj Says:


    thanks for the great article.

    i love stuff like this.

  9. Atheist MC Says:

    Jeff, you’re correct of course but the distinction would be lost on the fundies. Also, without a mechanism evolution, while believed, wasn’t science just an idea that was easy to dismiss.

    Be careful with this. Science adjusts its view to accomodate new evidence, but real paradigm shifts are rare. Even when they happen it doesn’t necessarily always invalidate earlier theories. Newton’s view of gravity may have been superceded, but at sub relativistic speeds it is still coorrect. NASA spend a lot more time in Newton’s company than Einstein’s

  10. s0l0m0n Says:

    There you are…I’ve told you….theres God…

  11. Dan Says:

    What the hell is Sol talking about? I just wish one of these times this twit would try to make a shred of sense….

  12. s0l0m0n Says:

    There’s no need for physical evidence to prove God exists. Reasoning would suffice.

  13. Dan Says:

    No, Sol, reasoning alone never suffices. What a stupid suggestion!

  14. n0m0l0s Says:

    Atheists with their so called ‘science’ will never ever succeed to prove that God does not exist.

  15. Dan Says:

    Why should we need to prove that gods don’t exist?

  16. s0l0m0n Says:

    You need to prove that coz’ you all always says that.

  17. n0m0l0s Says:

    Specially for Dan,

    God creates human. Surely his intelligence is far far more superior than human.

  18. Dan Says:

    You clearly don’t understand my point if you say “coz’ [I] always says that.” The point that you’re unable to perceive is: claims that appear absurd need evidence. The corollary is that one doesn’t need evidence to disprove absurd claims: they’re absurd, and the burden of proof is on the apparent fool.

    In your case, it’s absurd to suggest that gods exist. So the burden of proof is upon you to prove it. For instance, why would YOU have to bother disproving another god? Surely Hindu gods (I’m assuming you’re not Hindu) don’t need disproving. But by your logic, since I’m sure you can’t disprove any Hindu gods, a prudent man should worship those gods. And further, since I can’t disprove any gods, a wise man would worship ALL gods.

    Of course that’s ridiculous though. Because it is absurd to believe that gods exist.

  19. Dan Says:

    By the way, I’m always surprised that anyone would think that a god created humans and not the other way around. There are just so many creation myths, and they’re all so obviously impossible to take seriously. Why do YOU believe in such things anyway?