Secularist’s Favorite Body Part

I don't really see how the appendix being useless disproves God's existence nor how the appendix having a function proves it. Evolution is a question of science – the study of empirical evidence. God is not matter; His existence is a question of metaphysics. I don't see how any scientific discovery could prove or disprove God. The conclusion some people reach that an irrefutable proof of evolution would mean that all of creation is random and purposeless (and Godless) is both bad science and bad metaphysics.

We should take this for what it is – an interesting scientific discovery about appendixes.

Religious people are afraid of evolutionary biology because the evidence shows supernatural intervention was totally unnecessary to create the diversity of life on Earth. A useless god is a god that probably doesn't exist.

In my opinion the appendix in people is not the best example of a vestigial organ. A better example are the legs, feet, and toes found in fossils of ancient whales, which is powerful evidence for the idea that whales developed from land animals.

The most powerful evidence for the evolution of whales from land animals is from molecular biology. A comparison of DNA sequences of whales and hippos shows beyond any doubt these two species share an ancestor. Similar evidence has repeatedly shown beyond any doubt that people and chimps share an ancestor.

Evolution is fact. The gods who were invented to solve scientific problems are obsolete, including the Christian god that people continue to waste their time worshiping.

Not to worry. Understanding reality is many times more rewarding than believing in mythical supernatural creatures.

"We can only pray that they too one day discover God and his very real and loving purpose."

Loving purpose? It's pathetic that religious people think they know so much about their imaginary friend, that of course doesn't have one shred of evidence. It's all just wishful thinking and a total ignorance of modern scientific discoveries.

Sometimes I feel sorry for the scoffers. Every time they boldy and dogmatically (with as much fervor and sense as any fundamentalist) claim that proof of the non-existence of God is just around the corner, a story like this gives them a kick in the shin.

Bobxxxx,

Since you're so proudly an ape, do you spend your time in trees, picking lice and eating bananas?

Why ever not, if we (apes) are all the same?

Can you produce one example in nature of an entire species developing an advanced communications network that can reach all over the world and into space? Can you produce an example of a species that is able to cure almost any disease to their species on the macro level? An example of a single species whose greatest predator is, in fact, the species itself? How about a species who continually construct buildings that will last for thousands of years?

And, btw, I don't think it's going to get that young lady to jump into bed with you ('cause isn't that really all apes are interested in?) to call her an ape. You could try it, though.

The most fascinating thing about evolution, besides the logical inherent impossibility of Darwinian evolution (adaptation is not proof of evolution, natch), is how all of the evidence really can be used for either side. We are all connected by DNA, therefore evolution exists. Or, you know, Intelligent Design exists. So what makes the difference in viewing the evidence? Arrogance. Like Bobx (sorry Bobx, I'm just going off your posts here) who thinks, "The world is not how I would have created it if I were God, therefore God does not exist."

The Evolution debate, at its heart, is really just the natural world manifestation of the problem of evil. Not that I mind, it's a problem that Christianity can face but not truly conquer on this side of existence, and so always worthy of respect in those that doubt the faith. I just wish people would understand that this makes Evolution a philosophical good time, and stop sullying the good name of Science.

Bobx,

You conveniently ignored most of my post. I've copied the relevant parts for you to respond to.

Can you produce one example in nature of an entire species developing an advanced communications network that can reach all over the world and into space? Can you produce an example of a species that is able to cure almost any disease to their species on the macro level? An example of a single species whose greatest predator is, in fact, the species itself? How about a species who continually construct buildings that will last for thousands of years?

And, btw, I don't think it's going to get that young lady to jump into bed with you ('cause isn't that really all apes are interested in?) to call her an ape. You could try it, though.

As you your being an ape, does this mean you don't have a paying job, because you're so busy being an ape? Your simian cousins don't have careers or deadlines or responsibilities, so why should you, if you believe yourself so close in nature to them?

Thanks in advance for responding to all my points. (do your ape cousins type?)

Bob,

"The evolution idea only explains the development of new species. I don't think it says anything about evil, except I noticed people who are annoying and disgusting were raised by their parents to be that way."

So then how do you explain evil? Give me an explanation for Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Abortions, etc. What is atheism's explanation for the revulsion I feel when I hear of children being rapped in Africa (unconnected with my blood line, tribe or group). Or the old and frail or sick (who weaken the genetic lines) being left to die. Why does my stomach turn – what genetics are a play when I feel guilt and shame for doing nothing?

Catholicism gives me an explanation, and it's truth cuts deep and I don't like it all that much. It hits home too much, it forces me to look inside myself for the answer to evil.

Is Atheism's only explanation a virtual shrug? A passing of the buck to all religions? Where does religion come from? If we evolved to need religion – isn't removing it a bad thing?

What answers does Atheism have, again I ask, what answers can you give?

Sarah asked: "Also, how would atheism exist without the original theism it apothesizes?"

In a perfect world there would be no need for the word "atheist" because there would be no theists.

Christina asked: "What answers does Atheism have, again I ask, what answers can you give?"

Atheism only means "not theism". Atheists don't believe in any gods. They do not necessarily have anything else in common, except perhaps the ability to recover from religious indoctrination.

So atheism says nothing about everything else. Atheism is just an acceptance of reality.

You keep talking about evil. All I can say is it's a bad thing. I like to think I'm a good person, so I don't think I'm part of the problem. For people who don't care about anyone else, and for people who are willing to commit crimes just to make a buck, we have police, courts, and prisons. Perhaps it's easier for chimps, who would probably just kill another chimp if he was disrupting the lives of others.

The reason I'm an atheist is because I'm convinced that all gods were invented only to answer questions that can now be answered by scientists without the god hypothesis. Also, "God" is just another word for "Magic", and I think it's a bit childish to pretend magic can be real.

William, religions make some people evil. Just look at the never ending violence in the Middle East. Throw out all religions, and they wouldn't have such an easy excuse to kill each other. They might kill each other anyway, because they're stupid, but religion just makes everything worse.

Another problem with religion, the problem I'm most interested in, is the tendency of many Christians to reject any scientific discoveries that conflict with the insane gibberish in their worthless Bible. How is this nation ever going to keep its lead in scientific progress if we are teaching students to throw out modern biology because it conflicts with the childish creation myths in Genesis?

Look it guys and girls. I work 7 nights a week. I would like to continue this, but I might have to wait until tomorrow because I need to get some sleep.

Dear Bob, you fail to make a compelling argument. You say that evolution means we worship an ape. But we already scandalously worship a man as God – so what's your point? You can't out-scandal the incarnation – it's pure blasphemy and idolatry.

I don't know why you think evolution would in any way change a Catholic's faith. Catholics are free to believe, disbelieve, or be agnostic toward evolution as they see fit.

And then, of course, there is the fact that Christianity lies at the root of modern scientific thought in the very notion that the world is rational and subject to scientific enquiry, as MB Foster argued in Mind in 1930, and as others (Christians and non-Christians: See for an example of the latter, Amos Funkenstein's Theology and the Scientific Imagination) have since shown in varying levels of detail with just about every single scientific theory of the last few hundred years.

One of the most fascinating episodes in the history of physics is the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, which is both thoroughly theological, and thoroughly scientific.

Part of the point also is how one can maintain any notion of evil if one has no external reference. I mean, pain is just pain, and botches are just botches, and death is just death, and violence just violence. People killing each other in the Middle East is just people killing each other in the Middle East. What makes it good or evil? "Facts" (though I don't want to buy into the empiricist version of the word) are not good or evil. They are just "facts", and ideas of good and evil deriving from one particular point of view or another (and in the modern world they are incompatible, mutually hostile points of view) cannot be imposed. To impose my view of good and evil on someone else is merely an arbitrary exercise of the will, unless there were some transcendent good and evil: A child's death, or a rape, or mindless violence, is a tragedy, not a "fact." And tragedy is intrinsically a religious concept.

One can likewise make an argument about beauty. It is, to my mind at least, patently ridiculous to insist that Andy Warhol is just as beautiful as Rembrandt, or that Britney Spears is as good as Bach. And again, no amount of listing of facts will explain "why" these facts add up to anything at all.

And lastly, one can make the same argument about Truth, as I realized paradoxically, reading Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Scientific theories in the modern sense don't make large scale claims about the truth of things. They don't need to do so, and indeed in some sense, their incommensurability, and incompatibility argues against such claims. What is necessary is that they work. They add up. But then there is the odd question: Why do they work? Is the world reliable, and regular? Does it have a point?

To all of these questions, one can indeed answer that there is no truth, or beauty or goodness, and I can't "prove" to you that such an answer would be a bad one. But the alternative is reasonable, and I think more so. In the end, faith is a gift, and reason leads to it. Reason neither subsumes it, nor is it itself subsumed by it.