Comments on: Evolution and God Not Mutually Exclusive http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: san http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/comment-page-1/#comment-6386 san Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:01:20 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/#comment-6386 Everyone should see this: http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientific-Evidence-of-the-Existence-of-God Everyone should see this:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientific-Evidence-of-the-Existence-of-God

]]> By: collins http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/comment-page-1/#comment-4167 collins Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:20:24 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/#comment-4167 That Dawkins makes a point of rudely mocking anyone who points out that God could exist is a well known fact. That Dawkins makes a point of rudely mocking anyone who points out that God could exist is a well known fact.

]]> By: Warren http://scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/comment-page-1/#comment-1832 Warren Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:45:23 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/evolution-and-god-not-mutually-exclusive/#comment-1832 It seems to me that Dr Alyala has missed the point of Dawkins and many other atheist scientists have made, which is that whilst there can be no ultimate disproof of God (or in fact anything at all), there simply isn't any evidence to support the hypothesis. Nor in fact any indicators to intelligently make the hypothesis in the first place. There is however, an abundance of evidence to show how the idea of a god could develop and how a religion grows around this. Just because humans feel bad, or uplifted or special doesn't give any credence to the truth of the existence of anything. Evidence does. As such evolution does not require a belief in the supernatural and not a single supernatural account written in any religious doctrine can even remotely come up with a credible, verifiable or even plausible explanation for anything in the universe, let alone the abundance of varied lifeforms. So whilst evolution doesn't necessarily have anything to say about deist beliefs it certainly does contradict all of the major religions in their takes on life. Genesis for instance, is demonstrably not true. The theory of evolution was birthed in a time when it was accepted that God created everything. Since this time 150 years of evidence has supported it and a number of religious groups have done everything in their power to prevent it from being taught. If Dawkins and his predecessors are guilty of anything it is not setting this appalling state of affairs straight much sooner. I'd also like to raise the question: what possible disservice could be done to religion? Religious bodies hold the balance of power on this planet by a staggering margin and have done for thousands of years. They sustain a huge number of untruths about reality. Yes they make a large number of people feel comfortable but this is no argument for continuing to shelter religion from the rigourous scrutiny that should be applied to anything of such inordinate power over so many people. It seems to me that Dr Alyala has missed the point of Dawkins and many other atheist scientists have made, which is that whilst there can be no ultimate disproof of God (or in fact anything at all), there simply isn’t any evidence to support the hypothesis. Nor in fact any indicators to intelligently make the hypothesis in the first place. There is however, an abundance of evidence to show how the idea of a god could develop and how a religion grows around this. Just because humans feel bad, or uplifted or special doesn’t give any credence to the truth of the existence of anything. Evidence does. As such evolution does not require a belief in the supernatural and not a single supernatural account written in any religious doctrine can even remotely come up with a credible, verifiable or even plausible explanation for anything in the universe, let alone the abundance of varied lifeforms. So whilst evolution doesn’t necessarily have anything to say about deist beliefs it certainly does contradict all of the major religions in their takes on life. Genesis for instance, is demonstrably not true.

The theory of evolution was birthed in a time when it was accepted that God created everything. Since this time 150 years of evidence has supported it and a number of religious groups have done everything in their power to prevent it from being taught. If Dawkins and his predecessors are guilty of anything it is not setting this appalling state of affairs straight much sooner.

I’d also like to raise the question: what possible disservice could be done to religion? Religious bodies hold the balance of power on this planet by a staggering margin and have done for thousands of years. They sustain a huge number of untruths about reality. Yes they make a large number of people feel comfortable but this is no argument for continuing to shelter religion from the rigourous scrutiny that should be applied to anything of such inordinate power over so many people.

]]>