Answers to objections about atheism and evolution

2009 June 7
more by

Podcast: Download

By David Annis
Article ID: 1325

Atheism and evolution are two topics that I write about and discuss with my religious friends. I encounter the same objections for both. Repeatedly.

The wing of the Atlas moth: you can't see it evolve, but you can see the evidence of evolution

The wing of the Atlas moth: you can't see it evolve, but you can see the evidence of evolution

Myth: “If you do not believe in God, you have no basis for morality.  Anything is permissible.”

I can and do have a system of morality. It’s based on what kind of world I want to live in, not on belief that a supernatural being wants me to behave in a certain way.  Wars, genocides, pogroms, holocausts, discrimination, terrorism, and slavery have all been justified based on religion.  I donate to charity, know that murder is wrong, and teach my children right from wrong (there are no toy guns in our house).

Show me empirical evidence that the religious behave in a more moral way than non-religious and you might have an argument, but the evidence is not there.  I know many atheists that donate to charity, love their wives, abide by the law, and otherwise act in a moral way. And I know many religious people that do not.

If you maintain that belief in God is needed as a foundation for a moral system, is any God sufficient?  Are Xenu, Shiva, Allah and the Christian God, all equally moral?  If so, isn’t picking a God just taking the easy way out?  Instead of grappling with the difficult questions you are swallowing a belief system whole. Since you took the easy way out, if a premise fails you end up with a moral structure that can’t support itself. If all Gods are not equally moral, how can you be sure that your God’s system leads to real morality?

Myth: “You can’t prove a theory, so the Bible may be literally true.”

This argument falls into two pieces.  The first piece says that an omnipotent being could change the Universe in all sorts of ways.  Physical laws that work one way today may have worked differently years ago, so we should not believe the evidence before us.  Carbon may decay at a different rate then than it does now, geological process may have been different one thousand years ago, and so on.  Yet, those who make this claim also assume their refrigerator, car, and home heating system will still work just as well tomorrow. They rely on medical and agricultural systems built upon scientific methods.  That’s intellectually dishonest.

The second piece of this objection is that science only proves that a theory is highly improbable. It doesn’t say something is impossible. A scientific theory can be overthrown.  I can’t prove that I can’t jump to the moon.  I can’t prove that I can’t pray my way there.  Using the scientific method, however, I can prove that it is highly improbable that either method will put a man on the moon.  Gathering insights about how the universe behaves is what allowed Neil Armstrong to take his giant leap for mankind.

Myth: “I can’t see evolution happen.”

Some people protest that they can’t see evolution happening right before their eyes.  Plant speciation has been observed and used by farmers for hundreds of years, though not under laboratory conditions.  In a previous post, I discussed macro-evolution occurring in the laboratory, but still got a response saying something like, “Gee, that’s a long way from seeing a bacterium turn into a horse.”

So, why don’t we see a bacterium turn into a horse right before our eyes?  It’s because we observe over too short a period of time.  My 10-year-old son is growing, but he looks no taller now than he did last week.  There is rich evidence of evolution in the fossil record, in the genetic sequences of the plants and animals alive today, in our ability to breed new varieties of plants, pets, and livestock, and in the changes we observe in the natural world around us.  We can’t see changes within our lifetime because these changes normally take hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Does this mean we should conclude these changes aren’t happening? If my son isn’t taller this week compared to last week, does this mean he’s not growing? In both cases, you can’t focus on a comparatively small timeline to see these changes. Look at the big, long-term picture.

Myth: “Evolution has missing evidence.”

This brings us to the last big objection that I want to discuss: missing evidence.  Creationists will say that there is a missing link between X and Y.  Indeed, not every single intermediate evolutionary form will be found.  However, ask yourself if you need, or would even expect a complete record of evolution.  Many things I believe in: Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, my oldest son’s fourth birthday party, the fact that my socks all came in pairs, have some of their supporting evidence gone missing.  We believe in many things for which there are incomplete records.  Why insist on a standard that can never be met?  Furthermore, just because evidence is missing now doesn’t mean it will remain so – and we see evidence being found all the time like this fish fossil or these ants.

Conclusion

The clarifications and facts mentioned here may not change anyone’s mind about the topic, but they will clarify the viewpoint of the critical thinker and skeptic. Honest debate is healthy. We need it in order to best understand our world. Detailing what I believe – and why – will hopefully lessen confusion and bring clarity to conversations that desperately need it.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Evolution, Religion, Science

13 Comments
2009 June 7
Sandra H permalink

“I know many atheists that donate to charity, love their wives, abide by the law, and otherwise act in a moral way. And I know many religious people that do not.”

I can top that, I know atheists who love their husbands.

2009 June 8
Dr. Arv Edgeworth permalink

You state that you know murder is wrong. Based on what? Do you believe in survival of the fittest? You base your morals on the type of world you want to live in. Why does that supercede the type of world others want to live in? Isn’t that being kind of selfish and self-centered? What if you decide some day that you want to live in a world that doesn’t include your next-door neighbor?

You state that it is being intellectually dishonest to believe a Creator may have worked differently in the past in the physical world, but believe your refrigerator, car, or heating system will keep working the same. In the second case you are not allowing for the person who built them to make future changes, that is a faulty argument.

You try to prove the statement wrong that evolution can’t be seen happening before our eyes, then admit that macro-evolution can’t be seen happening before our eyes because it takes too long. I think you just proved their point. Both sides believe in micro-evolution and speciation. Speciation does have limits. You speculate that life forms will keep speciating until it turns into a different life form. Speciation often occurs because of a loss of genetic information, and often results in sterility. Other speciation occurs because of previously existing genetic information that allows for change. That does not prove it was not designed.

By the way, what do you suppose your 10-year old son is evolving into? If we can see macro-evolution happening today, point to something that is clearly in transition.

You claim there is rich evidence in the fossil record of evolution. The creationist claims that without a great flood there would be very little fossil evidence. If you factor in habitat, body density. and the ability to survive a flood, it does pretty much explain what we see in the fossil record. If I get buried on top of a hamster, it just proves I got buried on top of him, not that we are related. Is there any fossil that is clearly in transition, or just different?

Do you know why there are genetic similarities between humans, plants, and animals? Maybe it is so there can be a food chain. Could that be considered evidence of design?

How does our ability to breed new varieties of plants, pets, and livestock (micro-evolution on purpose) prove that (macro-evolution) happened over millions of years, for no purpose?

To answer your question: “We can’t see changes within our lifetime because these changes normally take hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Does this mean we should conclude these changes aren’t happening?” No. But it doesn’t mean that we should conclude that they are either.

Neither side disagrees that micro-evolution is happening. This would be consistent with both viewpoints. Other evidence is being interpreted as either proof of macro-evolution, or creation and a great flood. Neither side was there to see it happen. Both are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions.

One side sees similar features in different creatures for similar functions and concludes that proves they had a common ancestor. The other side looks at those similar features for similar functions and concludes they had a common designer (similar design features for similar functions).

You claim that “missing evidence” is a myth. Then you state: “just because evidence is missing now doesn’t mean it will remain so..” I think you just made their point for them again.

There is no evidence of any life form clearly in transition today. There is no fossil that can be given as being clearly in transition. Scientific evidence, and the interpretation of scientific evidence are clearly not the same thing. When both sides are looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions, how can this evidence be given as proof of anything? An honest approach would be: Here is the evidence, this is my interpretation of the evidence.

Will these observations bring clarity to conversations that desperately need it? I doubt it. But I believe the writer touched on the real problem with his first topic. If Somebody made it, Somebody is the Boss, and He gets to set the rules. If Nobody made it, then Nobody is the Boss, and we can all set our own rules. That is the real issue at stake here. Any change from either side would be very reluctantly.

2009 June 8
Tim Williams permalink

I think the real issue is the lack of honesty found on the side of the ID movement. I think you’ve made some good points doc but your last paragraph is oversimplifying things just a bit too much. We, on the “nobody” side do not set our own rules and that is the whole point of the debate at hand….to be objective and use only that information that science gives us to back up our arguments. Everything else is a stab in the dark.

2009 June 8
David Annis permalink

Dr. Arv Edgeworth,

Is my basing my morals on the kind of world I live in really different than you basing your morals on who you believe the creator is and which books you believe are divine revelation?

You ask “What if you decide some day that you want to live in a world that doesn’t include your next-door neighbor?”. I guess my answer is that one of the functions of governments is to keep us from anarchy. Even an amoral atheist can be deterred from immoral acts. A religious zealot, on the other hand, can believe that God wants him to fly airplanes into buildings, shoot a doctor as he attends church, or to torture and kill thousands who refuse to believe as he does and no threat of earthly punishment will deter him.

In fact, it is not “the creator” that sets the rules but the clergy. When you abdicate rule making to the creator you end up with the anarchy that you seek to avoid. I can find religious leaders that believe in polygamy, gay marriage, capital punishment, or killing infidels and religious leaders that believe those things are abominations and sins; often both views occur in clergy of the same religion.

Now, on to evolution:

You claim that I “admit that macro-evolution can’t be seen happening before our eyes because it takes too long” In fact, I specifically said that macro evolution can be seen but that turning a bacterium into a horse took too long to observe.

You go on to claim that “Both sides believe in micro-evolution and speciation” which is not true. The vast majority of creationists reject speciation because the bible says that God made each after its own kind. Once you allow for speciation and you allow descent from a common ancestor of animals as diverse as a Saint Bernard and a Chihuahua there isn’t much left to argue about.

In response to:
You claim that “missing evidence” is a myth. Then you state: “just because evidence is missing now doesn’t mean it will remain so..” I think you just made their point for them again.

Allow me to clarify. There is endless amounts of evidence for evolution – including almost all of modern biology. I see it in my everyday life – everything from the new varieties of apples I eat to the antibiotic resistant ear infections my kids get. Hence, missing evidence is a myth. However, a creationist can always find something missing from a very impressive record. “Where is the link between humans and lemurs?” for example. As a creationists however, it must be disheartening to see new links being found all the time.

Finally, in answer to your concern about not finding a transitional form today the question stems from a misunderstanding about how evolution works. Species evolve to be better adapted to their environment, but the environment changes over time. So, many species today are intermediate between what they’ve been and what they will become, but not knowing the future I can’t predict whether a change is an intermediate form or just random drift.

Sandra,

Hopefully my wife is one of them.

2009 June 8
Bob Allen permalink

Howdy folk,

Let me throw in some other stuff on the Atheism side that historically finds little discussion. This is the area of Symbols and Symbolic Form. In this discussion, I clearly belong to the orientation that Homo Sapien Sapien follows an evolutionary path of adaptive differentiation over this past three million years or so. Prior to this ongoing Homo line of adaptive differentiation, adaptive differentiation involving bipedalism, binocular frontal vision, and color vision (to name a few key elements) – lay the foundation for the Homo way of life.

Several keys predominate. One is the three million year time-frame of primary hunter-gathering, with only the past ten thousand years finding focus within the agricultural revolution. Another is that of about three million years dedicated to using tools and Symbolic Form, with only the past fifty thousand years as a maximum for any evidence pointing to the presence of the written word/symbol/whatever. (This three million years of using tools and Symbolic Form quite literally brings about the increase in skull size within the Homo line by a factor of three). Another is that during the years of hunter-gathering (prior to the agricultural revolution) there is neither evidence of so-called accumulation of wealth nor evidence of defense of territorial boundaries. There is though evidence of Symbolic Form within pre-agricultural-revolution burial rituals indicating a highly differentiated sense of Self from Other, implying a sense of the Spiritual within the Homo line.

Therefore, there is something about Symbolic Form conjoined with the agricultural revolution that brings forth the evidence of the accumulation of wealth and the defense of territorial boundaries. At base, so-called morality begins with the conjugation of Symbolic Form with the agricultural revolution – and this roughly commences 10 thousand years ago. However, Symbolic Form, a sense of Self, a sense of Other, and a sense of the Spiritual ALL begin somewhere near the beginning of the Homo line some three million years ago – through the agricultural revolution – to the present.

I would like to see this discussion of Atheism and Evolution to include the issues above.

Oh, and by the way – in the tradition of David including the notion of Atheists loving their wives – and Sandra including the notion that Atheists love their husbands – I want to include the notion that I love my lover and friend – out of wedlock.

Bob Allen

2009 June 8
David Annis permalink

I found the missing link – the one I meant to include in m post above:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html

Sorry I left it out.

2009 June 9
Josh Walker permalink

David:

I applaud your efforts on broaching these topics, but I must disagree with your assessments on morality. Morality can be determined by reason, logic, and the facts. For instance: murder, no one has inherent authority over anyone else, therefore no one has the right to take another person’s life in cold blood. The same would apply to personal property, thus the immorality of socialism and communism. We have the inherent right to defend ourselves from those that would take our life, liberty or property (thus the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and yes there are many toy guns in my house:-)). Anyway, I can get carried away with examples, but to reiterate my main point, morality is derived from reason, logic, and the facts. Try reading some of the stuff by the Mises Institute (mises.org) or Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness” (a couple of the essays from the book can be found on aynrand.org). And no her use of the word “selfish” does not mean that you can lie, cheat, steal and murder your way to happiness. Those things do NOT serve one’s self-interest in any way.

As for your comments on evolution, I’m not much of an expert on that topic. But basing one’s opinions on a three thousand year old, pre-science book is absolutely ludicrous, so even if evolution is one day “proven” wrong, I know that the actual naturalistic explanation of our origins will be found. I also know the creationists will have a field day with that statement, but I’ll leave it as is.

Thanks for the article.

2009 December 6
Lana permalink

“You state that you know murder is wrong. Based on what? Do you believe in survival of the fittest? You base your morals on the type of world you want to live in. Why does that supercede the type of world others want to live in? Isn’t that being kind of selfish and self-centered? What if you decide some day that you want to live in a world that doesn’t include your next-door neighbor?”

Have you never witnessed a very young baby experiencing compassion?  (by, for example, crying when his mother cries). It certainly appears that morality (if thats what you want to label it) is, at least to some extent, innate.   Or perhaps the baby is crying because and only because  he perceives that his own security is being threatened.  If that’s the case you might be correct,  maybe “morality” is perpetuated by nothing but pure selfishness.    We as human beings do quickly learn that life is much easier and more pleasant  if we cooperate with our fellow human beings and it is undeniably true that  the easiest way to avoid (the intentional infliction of) pain is to avoid hurting others.   Maybe what we commonly refer to as “morality” or “goodness”  is nothing more than making wise choices for survival. 

2009 December 7
David Annis permalink

Lana,
You asked a lot of questions and some are going to have long and complex answers.  I’ve given them some thought and I’ll do my best to answer them, after I have some lunch :)
David

2009 December 23
David Annis permalink

Lana,

Sorry for the delay.  I haven’t been eating lunch for 2 weeks; I just got busy and lost track of this.  I’ve tried to answer your questions below.

Murder is wrong because human life is beautiful and precious.

I believe that survival of the fittest happens.  To believe otherwise is to ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary.  Many things that are not good happen: babies suffer pain, cancer, war, genocide, starvation… strong evidence against an omnibenevolent omnipotent God. Just because I believe that something should not happen doesn’t mean that it never will.

The kind of world I want to live in does not supersede the type that my neighbor wants to live in.  I prefer to live in a society where we democratically compromise on the type of world we want.  Some seek, and sometimes even manage, to impose the type of world that they want to live in on others. In some cases they justify doing so politically (the Chinese communist party) and in others they justify it religiously (the Taliban).  Does the fact that one world view is based on a deity make it better? Once again, just because I believe that these societal structures are evil doesn’t mean that they will not exist.

I do believe that morality, cooperation, and altruism are all partly learned and partly genetic. Belief in a deity is also partly learned and partly genetic. There are a number of books on these subjects, and I can’t do it justice in a comment but here are a few thoughts. Societies whose members cooperate and have rules, outcompete those that don’t so a genetic predisposition to be “good” can be selected for at the level of society. 

How spiritual you are is highly heritable and doesn’t change if you are separated from your parents at birth but which God you believe in is not heritable and depends almost entirely on the environment in which you are raised.  If you are raised by Muslim’s in Mecca you’ll be a Muslim…

David

2009 December 29
Lana permalink

David,

Hummm…it sounds like you were attempting to respond to the first paragraph of my prior post.  That paragraph was a quote from Dr. Arv Edgeworth’s post to which I was responding so….

I was attemting to advace the position that morality does not require a belief in a higher power.   We all seem to reach the same basic conclusions about right and wrong regardless of our religious faith or  lack thereof. 

I don’t think you said anything I disagree with. 

2009 December 31
David Annis permalink

Sorry Lana, I completely missed the fact that the first paragraph was a quotation.  Now I feel very silly.
David

2009 December 31
Lana permalink

No worries Dave. An easy mistake to make.

Comments are closed for this entry.