Less Religion - More Acceptance of Evolution?

[DBT]

There are no transional fossils, irreducible complexity, structures like the eye cannot evolve in stages, all mutations are maladaptive, so on and so forth....

 

[lpetrich]

Gregory Paul notes that two big evolution defenders, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Committee for Science Education, have recently focused more attention on other issues, such as global-warming denialism.

 Dating creation - it's mainly Xianity and Judaism that have trouble over the age of the Universe. As to evolution, Hindus seem to have much less trouble with it than the more conservative Abrahamic believers.

What's in a creation story -- disturbance, secretion, building, poofing

 

[ronburgundy]

Gregory Paul notes that two big evolution defenders, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Committee for Science Education, have recently focused more attention on other issues, such as global-warming denialism.

 Dating creation - it's mainly Xianity and Judaism that have trouble over the age of the Universe. As to evolution, Hindus seem to have much less trouble with it than the more conservative Abrahamic believers.

What's in a creation story -- disturbance, secretion, building, poofing

I don't think the age of the earth is the sticking point for those who reject evolution. They just use that as an easy excuse to dismiss the theory they don't like for other more psychological important reasons. If all religious texts left age open or even implied billions of years, the rejection of evolution would be largely the same as it is now. The sticking point is that evolution makes human beings highly insignificant in the history of life on Earth and means that our most cherished traits (morals, sense of self, etc.) are just variations on long pre-existing genetic codes that varied randomly and happened to be useful enough to impact reproduction rates. And the highly happenstance-determinism nature of evolution is huge threat to teleological notions of meaning and purpose for human life. It's pretty much the polar opposite of the highly ego-centric paternalism that makes monotheism so appealing. Hinduism is polytheistic without the singular ruler whose authority would be threatened by happenstance variation and selection and it's far less designed to stroke the human ego or provide a clear moral compass by providing one guy in charge you simply have to obey. Thus, evolution is less of a threat to the sense of self or the moral system that Hinduism promotes.

Same goes for Buddhism, which is arguably non-theistic and far less founded on super-natural notions threatened by evolution or other aspects of science.

 

[bilby]

Gregory Paul notes that two big evolution defenders, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Committee for Science Education, have recently focused more attention on other issues, such as global-warming denialism.

 Dating creation - it's mainly Xianity and Judaism that have trouble over the age of the Universe. As to evolution, Hindus seem to have much less trouble with it than the more conservative Abrahamic believers.

What's in a creation story -- disturbance, secretion, building, poofing

I don't think the age of the earth is the sticking point for those who reject evolution. They just use that as an easy excuse to dismiss the theory they don't like for other more psychological important reasons. If all religious texts left age open or even implied billions of years, the rejection of evolution would be largely the same as it is now. The sticking point is that evolution makes human beings highly insignificant in the history of life on Earth and means that our most cherished traits (morals, sense of self, etc.) are just variations on long pre-existing genetic codes that varied randomly and happened to be useful enough to impact reproduction rates. And the highly happenstance-determinism nature of evolution is huge threat to teleological notions of meaning and purpose for human life. It's pretty much the polar opposite of the highly ego-centric paternalism that makes monotheism so appealing. Hinduism is polytheistic without the singular ruler whose authority would be threatened by happenstance variation and selection and it's far less designed to stroke the human ego or provide a clear moral compass by providing one guy in charge you simply have to obey. Thus, evolution is less of a threat to the sense of self or the moral system that Hinduism promotes.

Same goes for Buddhism, which is arguably non-theistic and far less founded on super-natural notions threatened by evolution or other aspects of science.

Yup. Christians hate evolution, because it implies that they are nothing special.

In other news, Christians consider humility to be a virtue.

As usual, they have everything backwards.

 

[lpetrich]

Yup. Christians hate evolution, because it implies that they are nothing special.

In other news, Christians consider humility to be a virtue.

As usual, they have everything backwards.

That's true of the more theologically conservative Xians. I also note that such Xians alternate between (1) God Almighty, Creator and Ruler of this entire Universe, looks exactly like them, and (2) they are terrible original sinners who cannot possibly merit salvation no matter what they do.

As to the more liberal sort of Xians, they tend to be a woozy bunch.

 

[bilby]

Yup. Christians hate evolution, because it implies that they are nothing special.

In other news, Christians consider humility to be a virtue.

As usual, they have everything backwards.

That's true of the more theologically conservative Xians. I also note that such Xians alternate between (1) God Almighty, Creator and Ruler of this entire Universe, looks exactly like them, and (2) they are terrible original sinners who cannot possibly merit salvation no matter what they do.

As to the more liberal sort of Xians, they tend to be a woozy bunch.

Also, God is all powerful, all knowing, and is everywhere at all times. But unless I pray, He won't know which bits of his perfect creation I think he needs to change. And if I do pray, He will get right on it and do whatever I demand, as long as I believe that He will.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yup. Christians hate evolution, because it implies that they are nothing special.

In other news, Christians consider humility to be a virtue.

As usual, they have everything backwards.

That's true of the more theologically conservative Xians. I also note that such Xians alternate between (1) God Almighty, Creator and Ruler of this entire Universe, looks exactly like them, and (2) they are terrible original sinners who cannot possibly merit salvation no matter what they do.

As to the more liberal sort of Xians, they tend to be a woozy bunch.

Liberal Christrians imagine their sky daddy to be less of a bigot and are willing to treat the Bible as metaphorical, but even as metaphor all Abrahamic religion promotes those comforting notions of a human-centric paternal authority, which are highly threatened by a real acceptance of the actual modern scientific theory of Evolution (and lot's of other science, such as all the neuroscience that decimates any notion of a soul or afterlife).

Most "liberal Christians" don't really accept evolution either. They are the one's who accept "God-guided evolution" which is logically incompatible with actual evolution by random variation and natural selection. They distort evolution to simply mean "change over time", so they can pretend they are in line with science. Only about 22% of Americans accept actual evolutionary theory, and most of them are either in the non-believer/none category or Hindus and Buddhists.

Even when the Bible is treated metaphorically, the only way to make the core sentiments of Christianity compatible with evolution is the strip it so bare that it no longer qualifies as anything resembling Christianity and the Bible is treated as just another book of myth with some life lessons and God himself is viewed as mere metaphor. Granted, that is what some "liberal Christians" do, but then I would argue that they are just closeted non-theists clinging to labels assigned to them at birth.

 

[steve_bank]

If I remember right the drop in Christianity has been offset by a rise in non traditional beliefs. The New Age stuff.

Back in the 70s there was EST and a host of other pseudo religions mostly for profit. There was The Dvine Light Mission, a pseudo Hindu cult.

I was living in Portland Or when 'the Bagwan' and Indian guru fleeing Indian taxes took over a ranch in Antelope Or. His followers were mostly mid lass young people form Europe and USA. I saw them walking around. Dressed in orange and wearing a picture of the grand poobah. People came to work on the ranch for free and allowed the leader to dictate their lives.