# Assuming evolution is discovered to be junk science, would you believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194 "2011-03-28T00:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/41 "2011-03-28T06:26:14Z")
I don’t see what makes God the default position, to fall back to if evolution gets tossed. The God concept hasn’t earned that right. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/42 "2011-03-28T06:29:00Z")
[quote=“abele\_derer, post:1, topic:576194”] …/QUOTE] Your hypothetical is moronic trash, therefore your question is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![scamartistry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@scamartistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scamartistry)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/43 "2011-03-28T07:14:19Z")
Sorry this is a complete false dichotomy.Why in the world would “GOD” be the default position if evolution was false. Your “theory” that god created the world, would just be one out of an endless amount of possible and impossible scenarios. Your are making a logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/44 "2011-03-28T07:18:52Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Then, yes, a “designer” toying around to get whatever result he wanted to begin with (say, octopuses dominating the world) would be a possible explanation.. But of course it wouldn’t be an evidence for the Abrahamic god, and not even for any god at all (aliens, our world being an hyperealistic SIM game, whatever). That’s pretty much my point. Even if we falsify evolution (though who the heck knows how that’d happen), that doesn’t yield “So it’s the Arbahamic God.” Space aliens, Cthulu, some unnamed and un-guessed-at God, there’s no telling. All we’re left with, at that point, is a set of questions. It’s like… “Someone broke into my house last night while I was out at the bar.” “It was Mike. I know it was Mike. It was Mike, right? Tell me it was Mike.” “Nah, Mike was with me at the bar all night, he never left.” “Ah, well then if it wasn’t Mike it must be Batman. It’s the only possible choice left to us.” ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/45 "2011-03-28T07:44:54Z")
> [@scamartistry](#): > > Sorry this is a complete false dichotomy.Why in the world would “GOD” be the default position if evolution was false. Your “theory” that god created the world, would just be one out of an endless amount of possible and impossible scenarios. Your are making a logical fallacy. I don’t think you’re responding to me, are you? If you agree with the statement that there are no gods, then we’re ok, otherwise you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/46 "2011-03-28T09:06:25Z")
Evolution does not preclude the existence of a Creator. It conflicts with some stories of the creation of man from some (most? all?) religions. But disproving it would not automatically mean that there is a god. ---
**Author:** ![scamartistry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@scamartistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scamartistry)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/47 "2011-03-28T10:03:42Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > I don’t think you’re responding to me, are you? > > If you agree with the statement that there are no gods, then we’re ok, otherwise you’re wrong. No I was responding to the OP ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/48 "2011-03-28T12:12:07Z")
There’s about as much point in debating the outcome of evolution being “discovered to be junk science” as there is in debating alternative outcomes to 20th century history if Hitler was assassinated in 1937. Not going to happen. Whatever eventuality one dreams up for evolutionary theory will not vindicate creationism nor prove/disprove existence of God for determined believers. One does not have to believe in creationism in order to believe in God, as demonstrated by the large numbers of scientists who accept evolution while practicing their religions. \*By the way, if it were to be magically shown that all the evidence for evolution was conjured up to deceive us and natural phenomena turned on their head to support Creation, I’d have to believe not in a God but in gods by committee, which would explain all the screwups. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/49 "2011-03-28T12:51:59Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. The argument from design is based on an analogy – a flawed analogy. We know that if we’d find a watch, we’d automatically assume that it was designed by an intelligent human. But that doesn’t mean that if we find a masterfully-designed cell, we should automatically assume that it was created by God, since we never saw God make anything; however, we have seen humans make watches. This was Hume’s response to the argument from design. This is similar to Hume’s criticism, but it misses the point that we’d know a watch was designed because **we know how watches** are designed. Evolution is a theory, which means it’s an explanation. It explains how an organism arrived at the current form it is. For ‘design’ to be a valid theory it has to explain how the designer actually did the designing. So what’s the explanation? Magic? Saying ‘God did it’ is not an explanation, it is an appeal to magic, which is why it should be rejected from science. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/50 "2011-03-28T12:58:19Z")
> [@komolono](#): > > I suppose evolution would become “junk” if carbon dating were disacovered to be misunderstood. But it’s not me saying that it will. That doesn’t follow. For one thing, there are many different types of radiometric dating methods, not just one. For all of them to be wrong would take a probability that would make mathematicians blush. Further, it’s not the only means of knowing that the earth is old. There are several other ways, varves, tree rings, shoot even the amount of meteors that have hit the planet make a 6k year old earth unlikely. That said, if all of these things were determined false, that wouldn’t mean that evolution/common descent was false. It would mean that evolution occurs on a much more rapid scale. It would still need to be argued that this scale couldn’t have happened within X amount of years (It probably could be argued, but regardless). ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/51 "2011-03-28T12:58:55Z")
Repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of evolution being disproven is missing the point of the question. I agree it’s absurd, but the debate being posed is validity of the ‘arguments by design’ in the hypothetical situation of the natural origin of complex life not being known. It’s valid topic of debate, IMHO, and simply denying the hypothetical is useless noise avoiding the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/52 "2011-03-28T13:32:53Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of evolution being disproven is missing the point of the question. I agree it’s absurd, but the debate being posed is validity of the ‘arguments by design’ in the hypothetical situation of the natural origin of complex life not being known. > > It’s valid topic of debate, IMHO, and simply denying the hypothetical is useless noise avoiding the issue. No, it isn’t. Anything that disproved evolution at this point would also invalidate everything else we know about the physical world; the question is unanswerable because it’s about things we no longer have no valid knowledge of in this scenario. We can’t answer the question of where complex life came from if we have no way of knowing if complex life actually exists, or if there was even a past for it to originate from. And we can’t turn to the Bible for answers because we have no way of knowing if that is real either. In other words: > [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > If evolution is false I’d be stuck so deep in Solispist denial of everything to not know what to think. Clearly my senses weren’t reliable. Disproving evolution at this means that we’ve disproven the validity of our senses, which means we’ve disproven everything outside of pure mathematics that we personally know (because we can’t trust the word of mathematicians we don’t know actually exist). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/53 "2011-03-28T13:38:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The most obvious explanation is that there was no design. Nobody set out to give pandas thumbs. They just developed them by accident by a series of random mutations that happened to work out - ie evolution. Thanks for dumbing it down a bit for me. I had a go at reading Gould’s article, and didn’t understand that either. Bad day for me, apparently! Anyway, I still think the problem exists that we’re assuming purpose. Pandas use their thumbs for that particular task, so we compare them to possible alternatives and they come up wanting. But it’s possible they’re designed for some other purpose for which they’re more impressive. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/54 "2011-03-28T13:40:32Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Anyway, I still think the problem exists that we’re assuming purpose. Pandas use their thumbs for that particular task, so we compare them to possible alternatives and they come up wanting. But it’s possible they’re designed for some other purpose for which they’re more impressive. Um, no. We see them actually being used for their “purpose”. Although “function” is a better word. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/55 "2011-03-28T13:43:54Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Thanks for dumbing it down a bit for me. I had a go at reading Gould’s article, and didn’t understand that either. Bad day for me, apparently! > > Anyway, I still think the problem exists that we’re assuming purpose. Pandas use their thumbs for that particular task, so we compare them to possible alternatives and they come up wanting. But it’s possible they’re designed for some other purpose for which they’re more impressive. So the pandas are just jury-rigging their bamboo-manipulation with a “thumb” that is supposed to be used for something other than bamboo manipulation? How is that a more enlightening idea than that pandas have jury-rigged a wristbone into the “thumb” they need to make bamboo manipulation more convenient? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/56 "2011-03-28T13:49:17Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of evolution being disproven is missing the point of the question. I agree it’s absurd, but the debate being posed is validity of the ‘arguments by design’ in the hypothetical situation of the natural origin of complex life not being known. > > It’s valid topic of debate, IMHO, and simply denying the hypothetical is useless noise avoiding the issue. The debate is trying to present it self as: A or B Not A Therefore B The problem is, if we remove evolution, there is more then just ‘design’ on the table. Lysenkoism or Larmarkianism were around before/after Darwin’s theory - it’s not unreasonable to assume that if Darwin’s theory were dissolved that some other theory would be on the table. It should be noted that “Design” is not currently on the scientific table, since it’s not actually a scientific theory. It does not explain the phenomenon that it purports to. It simply attributes a mystery for the cause of another mystery. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/57 "2011-03-28T13:49:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Um, no. We see them actually being used for their “purpose”. Although “function” is a better word. And if I went and cut my lawn with a spanner, you’d see me using it for a function. Observation of use alone doesn’t imply function. [QUOTE=DrFidelius] So the pandas are just jury-rigging their bamboo-manipulation with a “thumb” that is supposed to be used for something other than bamboo manipulation? How is that a more enlightening idea than that pandas have jury-rigged a wristbone into the “thumb” they need to make bamboo manipulation more convenient? [/QUOTE] I don’t really have any clue of how more enlightening an idea it is. I’m afraid i’m not even sure what that means in this context. I’m just saying it’s a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/58 "2011-03-28T13:50:36Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Thanks for dumbing it down a bit for me. I had a go at reading Gould’s article, and didn’t understand that either. Bad day for me, apparently! > > Anyway, I still think the problem exists that we’re assuming purpose. Pandas use their thumbs for that particular task, so we compare them to possible alternatives and they come up wanting. But it’s possible they’re designed for some other purpose for which they’re more impressive. No need to thank me. Making things dumber comes naturally to me. There are problems with the “hidden purpose” hypothesis. First, why would so many species be designed with the non-digit version of this same bone (including the panda in its hind limbs) if its purpose is to function as the thumb on a panda’s fore limbs? Second, pandas are not subtle - I think we should assume that what we see is what we get. Pandas use these bones as a thumb, so we can’t assume that their real purpose is to allow pandas to play future versions of Wii Nintendo and they’re just waited for humans to invent the platform so they can demonstrate the ability. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/59 "2011-03-28T13:51:33Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Repeatedly pointing out the absurdity of evolution being disproven is missing the point of the question. I don’t agree. Evolution being false would require an entire constellation of facts to be falsified. Pointing out the ramifications of that is germane to the subject. It also speaks to the argument at hand; even if we find out that our entire understanding of biological science is wrong, that doesn’t mean that “God did it” is a replacement hypothesis. It’s a bit like saying “So tomorrow we discover that gravity doesn’t exist. Would some atheists still stubbornly insist the Great Cthulu isn’t dead but still dreaming?” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194/60 "2011-03-28T13:56:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No need to thank me. Making things dumber comes naturally to me. > > There are problems with the “hidden purpose” hypothesis. First, why would so many species be designed with the non-digit version of this same bone (including the panda in its hind limbs) if its purpose is to function as the thumb on a panda’s fore limbs? I suppose the answer might be that that isn’t its purpose. Or, alternatively, that those other bones serve a different hidden purpose. > [@](#): > > Second, pandas are not subtle - I think we should assume that what we see is what we get. Pandas use these bones as a thumb, so we can’t assume that their real purpose is to allow pandas to play future versions of Wii Nintendo and they’re just waited for humans to invent the platform so they can demonstrate the ability. But use is a matter of context. That I, today, may be using my spanner to cut grass because it’s the best tool I have for that job doesn’t mean that tomorrow I won’t find myself in a room with lots of loose bolts. Pandas probably won’t be enjoying Wii Boxing any time soon, but perhaps in the future they’ll find themselves in a situation where their odd thumbs serve a very useful function. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/assuming-evolution-is-discovered-to-be-junk-science-would-you-believe-in-god/576194.md?page=4)