# What is really Creationists beef with evolution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627 "2005-04-22T16:54:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/61 "2005-04-24T01:57:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I guess it depends on what you mean by Intelligent Design. > > If you simply mean theistic evolution, in which the natural processes occur under potential divine guidance, there can never be evidence for or against it. (See the “what is supernatural?” discussions that have popped up around here in the last couple of weeks.) > There is simply no evidence _for_ Intelligent Design; none has been presented by its proponents. > > .This, of course, is simply the extreme version of the second point I mentioned in post #13, in which some fearful believer, threatened by the a-theistic (not atheistic) nature of science and ignorant of any actual scientific efforts, goes on to invent lies that there is actually a plot by scientists to destroy G/god. This lie gets repeated often enough that some people are actually willing to ignore the fact that the majority of scientists are actually believers, themselves, making their conspiracy rather futile. > In this case, it is simply a matter of willfull self-deception. The evidence for Intelligent Design follows the “old watch found in the desert routine.” Main stream religious people feel that is sufficient. I agree the order found in this world points to intelligence. Scientists must have known declaring the brain as the creator of man would not go well with the majority of people, but they did it anyway. They did it with no real evidence to back it up. Today there is still no solid proof consciousness is a product of the brain. You can’t see consciousness in the brain, so scientists fall back on more esoteric theories. The big “I”, computer programs, electro-magnetism, electro-chemical storage, gaps, etc. None of which is proof. so I think science will bare some of the cupability in the pending showdown. I see science and religion as water from the same well, just different names. Neither willing to look at the issues of the other side. Both intollerant of the others opinions. I am glad I belong to neither side, or any side for that matter. Yes, I am a creationist, I got there by observation and thinking it through, not listening to the Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/62 "2005-04-24T02:01:49Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Saying religion is irrelevant to science is a lot like saying the rest of the world is irrelevant to America. I cannot think of any two statements that have less in common than your example. Besides, if science is trying to destroy religion, how do you account for all the scientists that also believe in God? Do you really think the majority are atheists? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/63 "2005-04-24T02:13:43Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Well, while **lekatt** is not a Fundamentalist Christian, he shares many of their beliefs. What he has provided, here, is a real life example of a person who has confused what they fear from science with an actual (anthropomorphized) _intent_ of science. > > In order to do this, of course, he has to ignore that fact that so many scientists are believers–even Christians. He has to pretend that his distorted view of the teaching of science (which he admits he has not even observed) has in some magical way changed all of society (and has to distort history in order to pretend that this magical change was not only coincident with but causal to the teaching of real science in schools–and he has failed to demonstrate even coincidence, much less causality). > > (Here is a hint for **lekatt** : your claims about there being no bullying in the good old days are sheer nonsense. My Dad was born in 1914 and had plenty of tales of bullying. Bullying is a standard theme in stories written about schools going back over a hundred years, so it is not something that just erupted since schools began teaching evolutionary science. Beyond that, there is the clear case that many schools have continued to avoid the actual teaching of evolution, yet the students in those schools turn out just the same (good or bad) as students from schools where evolution has been taught–differing only in their level of ignorance regarding biology.) No one said there wasn’t bullies. Look around you. Talk shows are talking about the bullies, action groups have been formed, lecturers are going from school to school to talk about bullying, it is on the news. One shown recently on TV shows a big kid beating the hell out of a little kid on the bus. Now don’t tell me this was common when you went to school. In my youth the bus driver would have called the police and the big kid’s parents would have picked him up at the police station. They could have faced a heavy fine. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/64 "2005-04-24T02:22:06Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > One shown recently on TV shows a big kid beating the hell out of a little kid on the bus. Now don’t tell me this was common when you went to school. Yeah, the big kid whomping on the little kid is brand new, a sign of the end times for sure. Where did you go to school? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/65 "2005-04-24T02:52:32Z")
> [@](#): > > No one said there wasn’t bullies. Look around you. Talk shows are talking about the bullies, action groups have been formed, lecturers are going from school to school to talk about bullying, it is on the news. One shown recently on TV shows a big kid beating the hell out of a little kid on the bus. Now don’t tell me this was common when you went to school. In my youth the bus driver would have called the police and the big kid’s parents would have picked him up at the police station. They could have faced a heavy fine. The most polite response to this claim is: bullshit. In the good old days, kids were supposed to tough it out, stick up for themselves, and fight back. Those who couldn’t were just considered too weak to bother with. I cannot recall more than one or two bullies being taken to task for their actions and I never ever heard of a policeman being called, even when a bully actually inflicted bruises or drew blood. Certainly none of my parents’ stories of bullies from the 1920s and 1930s ever included a reference to police or fines. Most such narratives ended with either successful or unsuccessful escapes from bullies or, rarely, successful defenses against them. I suppose that it is possible that you grew up in some wonderful enclave of civility where bullies were not accepted by society. I rather believe, however, that your story is on a par with your claims for science–you are simply making it up as you go along. Just as nothing in scientific activity resembles the odd tales you invent to describe it, so your claims of how society used to be are nothing more than your invention. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/66 "2005-04-24T07:02:54Z")
My fondest childhood memory was nailing the neighborhood bully (in kindergarten) on the nose and having him run home, crying, to mama. I’m not sure if that had anything to do with his being the first boy at our high school to take Home Economics but I’ve taken credit for turning him gay for thirty five years. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/67 "2005-04-24T17:31:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The most polite response to this claim is: bullshit. > > In the good old days, kids were supposed to tough it out, stick up for themselves, and fight back. Those who couldn’t were just considered too weak to bother with. > > I cannot recall more than one or two bullies being taken to task for their actions and I never ever heard of a policeman being called, even when a bully actually inflicted bruises or drew blood. Certainly none of my parents’ stories of bullies from the 1920s and 1930s ever included a reference to police or fines. Most such narratives ended with either successful or unsuccessful escapes from bullies or, rarely, successful defenses against them. > > I suppose that it is possible that you grew up in some wonderful enclave of civility where bullies were not accepted by society. I rather believe, however, that your story is on a par with your claims for science–you are simply making it up as you go along. Just as nothing in scientific activity resembles the odd tales you invent to describe it, so your claims of how society used to be are nothing more than your invention. I am talking about the real world, not some supposed macho, macho world where all people stick up for themselves. The Colubine shooters were made fun of by their classmates and bullied. Most of the shooters have been bullied. Some kids just commit suicide rather than go back to school where they are beat up on a regulas basis. Most of these bullying sessions are two or three kids on one, or a big kid on a small one. Bullies are cowards at heart. This is the real world my friend. Didn’t intend to talk about bullies anyway, they are not the topic here. Won’t say anymore on this subject. Back to the OP. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/68 "2005-04-24T17:46:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I am talking about the real world, not some supposed macho, macho world where all people stick up for themselves. No, you were talking about your imaginary world where you pretended that teachers and parents and police intervened to put a stop to bullying–a world that has never existed. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/69 "2005-04-24T17:49:31Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Bullies are cowards at heart. Actually, this common received wisdom (which I was told many times in my childhood) is repeatedly being shown false. Bullies don’t act the way they do because they’re really afraid deep down. They act the way they do because they’re _over_confident and believe that they’re entitled to have what they want simply by virtue of their ability to take it. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/70 "2005-04-24T17:54:13Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I cannot think of any two statements that have less in common than your example. Besides, if science is trying to destroy religion, how do you account for all the scientists that also believe in God? Do you really think the majority are atheists? Of course, but I see you didn’t understand. Science says there is no such thing as spirit, soul, God, we know this is all hallucinations and delusions. How many times have I read that attitude posted on this board – hundreds. Now I am not concerned science will really destroy religion, they don’t have the votes. But the religious people could use their votes to get rid of the offending teachings in public schools, and seat more conservative judges. The question is how far is Science willing to push their theories of “man is meat,” onto the public. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/71 "2005-04-24T18:18:06Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Another one is "evolution is just a ‘theory’ ". Fundies have a unique definition of the word theory: to them, a theory is just one explanation for a phenomenon that is no better than any other explanation. . It’s hardly a _unique_ definition. In fact, it’s the #2 definition in my huge Un-abridged “A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural…”. In fact, I’d say outside of the scientific community, it’s likely the most common definition. There are many types of creationism outside the “evolution is a lie, the world was created in 6 days” sects. Those are a small minority. In fact, those that beleive in “theistic evolution” or “Intelligent design” have my respect. Even Science don’t have a coherant and solid answer of where Life originated. By the above, I mean those that belive the Earth is as old as Geologists say it is, that evolution does happen, and that that the Fossil record does show evidence of evolution and earlier creatures- BUT that Life originated with a ‘spark’ from a Divine being, Evolution was given an occasional “Guiding hand” and that Man was “created” when Man was given a Soul, alone of all the creatures. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/72 "2005-04-24T19:01:57Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Science says there is no such thing as spirit, soul, God, we know this is all hallucinations and delusions. Y’know, this is why it is frustrating to have you keep interruptiong these threads. The comment I have quoted is a lie. It is not an error. It is not a mistake. It is a lie. No scientific paper has ever made any claim that spirit, soul, or god are hallucinations or delusions. That is the sort of lie invented byt Jack Chick that is simply not a part of science. It certainly has never appeared in a scientific peer-reviewed journal, so it does not come from scientists practicing their profession. For that matter, take the collected writings of scientists who actually are/were atheists and examine them. I have never seen a claim that science has proven that a god does not exist. Some of those writers have been more open about their _personal_ lack of belief, but none that I have read have ever claimed that science has proven that their beliefs are fact. (And, of course, their beliefs can be balanced by all the scientists who continue to believe in spirit, soul, god or God, and continue to practice their scientific professions.) Like Jack Chick, you have created an imaginary world where scientists say things that no scientist has ever said simply so that you can rail against them. On the other hand, I suppose you are, in this thread, surely answering the OP by demonstrating the irrational behavior (and willful ignorance) that is a hallmark of many (by no means all) people who oppose evolutionary theory on the grounds of false beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/73 "2005-04-25T01:24:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Of course, but I see you didn’t understand. Science says there is no such thing as spirit, soul, God, we know this is all hallucinations and delusions. I’d like you to give cites for science saying this, or for anyone on this board claiming science says this. Even Richard Dawkins, who is proudly atheistic, says no such thing. **tomndebb** is quite correct, you are lying. And while you are at it, please let us know the titles of any science book on evolution which you have read while making your decision to be a creationist. Let’s see if your decision is based on data, or ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![BrianJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/54ee81/32.png) [@BrianJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrianJ)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/74 "2005-04-25T02:28:01Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Of course, but I see you didn’t understand. Science says there is no such thing as spirit, soul, God, we know this is all hallucinations and delusions. As others have said, Science says no such thing > [@](#): > > How many times have I read that attitude posted on this board – hundreds. Now I am not concerned science will really destroy religion, they don’t have the votes. But the religious people could use their votes to get rid of the offending teachings in public schools, and seat more conservative judges. The question is how far is Science willing to push their theories of “man is meat,” onto the public. It isn’t a theory. Do you think we are made of marshmallows? 😉 Its fundamentalist religion tht is trying to destroy science. As usual, the fundies twist their own actions around and try to say the ‘other guys’ are doing all these things when in fac they themselves are doing it. There are many hypocrites in Fundie circles. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/75 "2005-04-25T02:53:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Fear Itself** > > _Another one is "evolution is just a ‘theory’ ". Fundies have a unique definition of the word theory: to them, a theory is just one explanation for a phenomenon that is no better than any other explanation. ._ > > It’s hardly a _unique_ definition. In fact, it’s the #2 definition in my huge Un-abridged “A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural…”. In fact, I’d say outside of the scientific community, it’s likely the most common definition. Inasmuch as the theory of evolution was proposed by a scientist, the definition used by scientific community is the only one relevent to this debate. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/76 "2005-04-25T02:57:02Z")
Perhaps I should have said: Science says spiritual experiences are only hallucinations, etc. They can all be explained by physical means. Implying there is no God. > **[This Is Your Brain on God](https://www.wired.com/1999/11/persinger/)** > > Michael Persinger has a vision – the Almighty isn't dead, he's an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul. Over a scratchy speaker, a researcher announces, "Jack, one of your electrodes is loose, we're coming in." The... This guy is more direct, and I suggest you review your own posts. There are full of insults to religious people. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/77 "2005-04-25T03:48:48Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > But the frightening thing is the rise in suicides, depression, anxiety attacks, school shootings, and general violence. Not all of this can be layed at the feet of school teaching. Some must be shared by TV, and video games. Personally, I don’t think ANY of that can be laid at the feet of school, TV or video games. Those are just excuses, easy targets for those who want to complain and pretend that there’s a singular cause for social ills, and if that cause is removed, everything will be peachy keen once more. I find this mistrust of human intelligence, strength and character to be disturbing. Are we really so pathetic that watching a TV show, or playing _Grand Theft Auto_ or not saying the Lord’s Prayer before class starts can ruin us? If it is, then we sincerely deserve it. I know it’s ever so much simpler to blame social ills on an easily identifiable external source than actually examining the myraid causes, but it sets you up for dissapointment once that a change to the “source” is made and the problems don’t magically dissapear. > [@](#): > > In the past the spiritual community was able to comfort and help those with these problems. Now, with science attacking spiritual beliefs there is no where to turn. Wow. I was not aware that school was the primary source of religious training in the past! In my humble ignorance, I had thought that the _home_ was where moral, ethical and spiritual teachings originated in most people. So, let me get this straight: you think kids put more faith in their textbooks than they do in what their parents and peer groups have drilled into them their entire lives? That if exposed to something which does not emphasize religion they will instantly toss out their faith? If your child’s faith is that paltry and fragile, it is not the school you should blame. > [@](#): > > No purpose in life, no hope for the future, no reason to “tough it out” anymore. My goodness! Who have you been talking to? Your world outlook is extremely bleak, and does not in any way correspond to the outlook of most of the people I know, whether they be religious or not. Kids today have just as much expectation and hope for the future as ever. (The grunge period is over. It seems like being cheerful is cool again.) They’re hopeful, energetic and enthusiastic. They know, more than any generation before them, what the signs of depression are and that help is readily available. They also know that the stigma of getting help for depression has greatly declined from what it was a few generations ago. They know there are support groups for almost every kind of problem in which they’ll find sympathy and support by the boatload. They know they can talk to their pastors, too. > [@](#): > > Instant gratification is the ticket in this society. Where it will end is anybody’s guess. I’ll lay money that it will end up the same as it always has. People have been saying that the world’s going to hell in a handbasket for thousands of years. > [@](#): > > Yes, science started attacking spiritual things with the teachings of “brain produces personality”, there is no such thing as a soul or spirit. Unfortunately young minds believed the false teachings of science. Teachings they can’t back up with evidence. And you can prove the opposite? Oh, wait, that’s faith, right? This argument is a very dead horse that I wish to God someone would give a decent burial. > [@](#): > > There still remains today no solid evidence that the brain produces you. Sure there is. Remove your brain and you are no more. Get a brain injury, and your personality may drastically change. > [@](#): > > When you think about it seriously it becomes ludicrous. Better take another look at that brain. You will find no memory cells. [Maybe.](http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2004-03-02-2) We’re learning more about the brain every day. Just because we don’t have all the parts figured out quite yet doesn’t mean there’s not a biological process at work. > [@](#): > > Some think that consciousness is a kind of electo-magnetic field running around the brain because probes or magnets can produce some actions. Consciousness is spirit and spirit is energy. It’s fine that you think so, but do you really think that religious _opinion_ has any place in science? That we should just chalk it all up to “spirit” and stop bothering to research? > [@](#): > > If you probe a telephone line and hear voices do you believe the line created the voices. Of course not. I go get a book and read about how telephones work. Personally, I’d rather do some research than shrug and say, “God did it.” That’s intellectual laziness. > [@](#): > > Well, no need to show proof, science has become its own religion replacing former religions. Please stop. Please. This is the worst argument I know of, and it’s so old and tiresome. Science depends on research and evidence. Religion depends on faith. > [@](#): > > We must wait now for it to run its course. Disillusionment will set in when people realize once again the brain does not create us humans. You’re gonna be waiting a _very, very_ long time. Perhaps you’ll get lucky and nuclear war will reduce us back to the Dark Ages when the Church had answers for everything and those who disagreed were properly burned alive. But I wouldn’t count on it. Science will just keep refining itself, getting more and better answers. Knowledge will continue to grow by leaps and bounds. I’m so excited by what we may know tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/78 "2005-04-25T05:28:54Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Inasmuch as the theory of evolution was proposed by a scientist, the definition used by scientific community is the only one relevent to this debate. Nonsense- a word is a word. They use a perfectly common usage. It’s in youe dictionary also, I’ll bet. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/79 "2005-04-25T05:33:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Even Richard Dawkins, who is proudly atheistic, says no such thing. Well… He’s not quite so _explicit_, but… > [@Richard Dawkins](#): > > There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes or digital information. > > This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous - indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. > > In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. > > Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not. I provide this [link](http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/river.shtml#quotes) to these publically-available quotes from _River Out of Eden_. I think Dawkins has said about as much as he can on the subject to the effect that science has disproven (at the very least) the common notion of a purposeful and concerned God without spelling it out precisely in those words. He is not alone among public exponents of science in this point of view. Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and Steven Weinberg are a few others who I can think of offhand who have written fairly clearly that their take on the lessons of science is that the notion of a worshipful God has been effectively debunked. Weinberg, for example, states further (in the chapter “What About God” from his _Dreams of A Final Theory_), that alternate views of God, equating God with “energy” or “nature” render the concept not so much wrong as vacuous and essentially unimportant. I don’t think any of them lay claim to absolute certainty in the non-existance of a Higher Being, just a degree of scepticism about the concept of God (as we commonly understand Him, a worshipful creator and designer) that leaves them absolutely no belief in Him. They appear to consider God to be disproven to the extent that anything can be disproven by human investigation. You can, along with some of the above, find a bunch of other Dawkins gems [here](http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm) My personal favorite: > [@Richard Dawkins](#): > > If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it. I imagine a few creationists would have a major beef with that. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2005, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627/80 "2005-04-25T06:45:27Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Perhaps I should have said: Science says spiritual experiences are only hallucinations, etc. They can all be explained by physical means. Implying there is no God. > > [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger\_pr.html](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger_pr.html) > > This guy is more direct, and I suggest you review your own posts. There are full of insults to religious people. > > :eek: You really need to get it straight that SCIENCE doesn’t say anything. Yes, there are studies showing many spiritual experiences can be explained physically. Not that this is new - what do you think peyote is all about? I doubt that scientific papers, which are famously wishy-washy, ever have claimed to prove all such experiences are based on any physical causes. But if they all can be explained as such, I can’t imagine why we’d look for other causes. As for some godless immoral scientists insulting religion - I can’t imagine why anyone would be driven to such lengths. 🙂 Scientists are allowed to lose their tempers also. The lies about atheism from many of the religious (not around here much) and lies about evolution that you have seen in any creationist started thread are enough to make even the most even-tempered hot under the collar. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-really-creationists-beef-with-evolution/300627.md?page=5)