Evolution Isn’t The Problem
For the record, I did not make that title up. Over at Musings on Science and theology there is a post with the same title.
I don’t want to rehash the post here, rather I have my own take. Comments are not easy on that blog so I’ll just do so here.
Evolution is the description of a set of processes, of the way things happen and why. It is not a world view. It’s not a belief. Truth is not believed, it is known or understood. It is not a religion. As
Coming to terms with materiality and spirituality. Another somewhat softer version of the same sentiment was expressed by Alan Lightman. Spirituality to Lightman, and to many others, means something very different from Christian faith and hope.
(4:17) Although I believe that we are material beings, purely material. And I believe that our consciousness vanishes entirely when I die. And I see no evidence for a super being who created and guides the universe, I still consider myself to be a spiritual person. Different people have different meanings for the concept of spirituality. For me, spirituality is the belief in something larger than myself. Spirituality is the belief in principles and values for living. Spirituality is the recognition of beauty and meaning in myself and in other people, and in the world. Spirituality is connection to other people. Spirituality is also an attempt to answer the great questions of existence, such as how did the universe come into being, and what is its future? what is the purpose of my individual life? how can I live a life with meaning? I am an atheist, but a spiritual atheist
That redefines (for most people) what the meaning of the world spirituality is. This manoeuvre is not helpful.
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
3. closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor’s spiritual heir in linguistics.
4. of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
He may be an atheist, but he is not suggesting that the supernatural exists. He suggests that there is an understanding of life which gives us meaning for our lives and transcends the Spartan-like existence that reality hands us. It is entirely within our heads/brains/minds.
Evolution is not the foe of creationism, materialism is, monism is, nihilism is, and for any given religion all other religions are the problem. The confusion comes because when we understand the reality that materialism, monism, and nihilism show us, the correct explanation for diversity on this planet is evolution. The gods never claimed to use evolution so the world view of creationists have to explain why they do not include what is obviously true. In that one sentiment, the problem is for creationists is not evolution or other world views. No, the problem for creationists is creationism and its complete lack of credible evidence. Creationists know they don’t hold a world view that embraces and encourages fact seeking and truth – their only option is to blame other world views for being in opposition.
I don’t need a creationist to convince me their god is real. Far from it. I need a creationist to convince all other creationists that their god is real. When a creationist can convince all that who _want_ to believe that their special god is the right one and there is evidence for it, then I will pay attention. Unless and until then when a creationist tries to argue with me all that I hear is:
“I can’t convince anyone else in the world that I’m right, not even those that want to believe, but somehow I think this same old bullshit will convince you because I think you’re stupid as a bag of hammers.”
No, evolution is not the problem, creationism is.
myatheistlife 
“and for any given religion all other religions are the problem”
This is incorrect. I don’t have a problem with other religions, save for Christianity and Islām (I don’t consider Judaism either this or that, it’s a bit of a category on itself as they don’t proselytise like the other two abrahamic religions). And even when my religion and any given other religion (save for the abrahamic ones) have different ideas about something I may reject that within my religions, but have no problem at all about accepting and talking about it intelligently within the framework of that religion. Perhaps that’s the anthropological side of me, but I’ve yet to meet anyone serious who doesn’t do this. Though I have encountered both Hellenist and Hindu cultural/religious supremacist who claim all sorts of nonsense, but I don’t take them seriously at all.
As far as non-abrahamic religions goes the atitude you describe above isn’t really part of the religion (and Hellenismos in antiquity and modern times actively encourages research and increasing knowledge, both at the scale of the individual and of society at large), but rather part of the idiocy and fucktardery of certain individuals whom should be prevented from breeding.
J_Agathokles, you’re always keeping me honest. I get focused on the Abrahamic crap and a little sloppy with references. As always, thanks.
In this case I was focused on the religions that proselytize, support ID, and are creationists of the active and caustic sort – mostly Islam and Christianity. It always cracks me up in the USA when the MSM pretends to have their bases covered on some religious issue by bringing in a Rabbi. Well, unless the issue is a child dying from an infection caught from the mouth of a Rabbi during sexual genital mutilation of the child.
I just about tore into a comment the other day about how if it weren’t for Jebus we wouldn’t have educational systems and such. I got no reply from them yet, but if they do I’d love to see you hit them.
Gah, the stupid makes my head hurt!
“if it weren’t for Jebus we wouldn’t have educational systems and such”
*facepalm*. At the time Constantine the so-called Great converted nearly every Roman child received education (at least basic schooling), and the vast majority of the Roman populace could read and write. A century of Christian domination, literacy dropped in the most dramatic and apocalyptic way since the invention of writing to barely 99% of the population.
Yes, and before the Romans there was education. Before writing it was in trades and skills needed to survive. Some people either do not know how to speak well or simply are ignorant. You know that Cane and Able were such bad kids because they didn’t attend school! And Lot’s daughters? Yeah they didn’t get that Christian approved sexed class.
I’d rather think Cain and Abel were bad kids because they were inbred 😛
And their grandpa was a bastard!