Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Evolution can't disprove God!

So says the Vatican.

And they are absolutely right - evolution proves god is superfluous.

Additionally it proves (as if anyone should really need yet more proof) that any literal reading of the holy texts is sheer silliness.

In the early 1800s, the French mathematician Laplace presented Napoleon with a copy of his great five-volume work on the solar system, the Mechanique Celeste (Celestial Mechanics). Aware that the books contained no mention of God, Napoleon taunted him, “Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace answered, famously and brusquely: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” “I have had no need of that hypothesis.”

If you don't know where god came from, what it is, what it wants, what it is doing, what its connection is to the universe as we can observe it - then what do you need a religion for?


Anonymous said...

According to the Vatican, Richard Dawkins claims that the theory of evolution disproves God. I don't recall reading that in any of his writings or hearing him say it. Did I miss something, or is the Vatican setting up a straw man? Of course, they'd never stoop so low, being righteous and all.

John Evo said...

Yes, it wasn't in this article I linked, but someone from the Vatican did dispute (i.e. lie about) Dawkins "claim" that evolution disproves god.

Dawkins has always said he is 6 on a scale of 7 when it comes to atheism and he knows better than anyone that science can't "prove" anything - it simply brings us to a tentative conclusion.

DB said...

I agree with Chappy, this is just a classic straw man attack. To preach to the choir, Dawkins has repeatedly claimed that evolution doesn't disprove god (in those very words I believe). I think this is a typical religious argument to avoid the bigger issue at play here...evolution disproves their bed time stories, which to them is the threat.

Anonymous said...

No, evolution can't disprove God, at least in the court of public opinion, where people believe what they will believe regardless.

I think in 100 years, tops, most Christians will see evolution as a fact, and many will still believe in God. Even today some Christians believe in both, God and evolution.

I like the point you make about God being a hypothesis. It definitely is. If the religious would just see that, and instead of preaching certainty they would preach possibilities, the stuff wouldn't be so silly, but there will have no followers either.

Mamacita Chilena said...

"Additionally it proves (as if anyone should really need yet more proof) that any literal reading of the holy texts is sheer silliness."

I go crazy when people act as if someone up in heaven scrawled a few notes in a book for the mortals to follow and then threw it down to bonk Moses on the head. While I don't agree, I could see how people could follow a liberal interpretation of holy texts. But I completely don't understand how people can take the Bible or other holy texts literally.

Spencer!! said...

If evolution was right (which I think it is), then I still think religion would have a purpose - yes, even Western religions - because nobody has (nor will they) prove(d) what happens when someone dies. Some people just need that kind of spiritual comfort of (the idea of) God (or whatever deity/ies they believe in) being there to welcome them after they die. IMHO, religion is (at least partly) based on fear of the unknown, and since what happens after death won't EVER be known, I think religion will continue to exist for quite awhile.

Sam Stubbs said...

I agree with Spencer. Religion's purpose is not merely to explain our creation, but also postulate on our destination as well. It's also there to provide a way of living. (Which, I'll be the first to admit, has been used to justify horrible deeds in the past.) I personally believe there are greater Powers at work in our lives. But I have come to that conclusion through my own experiences, research, and, thoughts; and not through the rigid dogmas of the past. "Religion," for me, is merely a starting point for ideas, but I feel that people should find out for themselves what they truly think and believe through experience and thought.