They’re myths, right? They can be entertaining, and they once served a function. They can even serve a function today; most of the evils perpetrated by religion were attributable to organized religion.
We no longer depend on meat, hunting, gathering, or religion, for our society. They’re vestiges. I think “bullshit” is a bit excessive.
There’s a compelling case that the reason there’s a ‘secret’ explanation for the sower parable in the Synoptics is because the original parable was actually about evolutionary thinking.
While a lot of people think evolutionary theory was a more modern concept, the following are all from a book published in the Roman empire 50 years before Jesus was allegedly born:
Especially since this world is the product of Nature, the happenstance Of the seeds of things colliding into each other by pure chance In every possible way, no aim in view, at random, blind, Till sooner or later certain atoms suddenly combined So that they lay the warp to weave the cloth of mighty things: Of earth, of sea, of sky, of all the species of living beings.
Lucretius De Rerum Natura book 2 lines 1058-1063
I cannot hold The race of mortal beings was lowered on a rope of gold To the fields down from the lofty heavens, nor that mortals came From the sea, nor from the waves that smash the rocks. It’s from the same Earth that feeds them from her body now that they were born.
book 2 lines 1153-1157
Sometimes children take after their grandparents instead, Or great-grandparents, bringing back the features of the dead. This is since parents carry elemental seeds inside – Many and various, mingled many ways – their bodies hide Seeds that are handed, parent to child, all down the family tree. Venus draws features from these out of her shifting lottery – Bringing back an ancestor’s look or voice or hair. Indeed These characteristics are just as much the result of certain seed As are our faces, limbs and bodies. Females can arise From the paternal seed, just as the male offspring, likewise, Can be created from the mother’s flesh. For to comprise A child requires a doubled seed – from father and from mother. And if the child resembles one more closely than the other, That parent gave the greater share – which you can plainly see Whichever gender – male or female – that the child may be.
book 4 lines 1217-1232
For obviously the primary particles did not scheme to fit Themselves each in their proper order by their cunning wit. Nor did they strike a deal amongst themselves exactly how Each should move. Rather, for time infinite up to now Myriad primary particles moving in many directions, whether Driven by blows, or their own weight, were wont to come together Every which way and experiment with every permutation And everything that they could fashion by their combination, And as a result, the particles, spread out over a vast Span of time, by trying each movement and combination, at last Suddenly hit upon the combinations that can be The building blocks of greater things, the earth, the sky, the sea, And all the generations of living beings.
book 5 lines 419-431
In the beginning, there were many freaks. Earth undertook Experiments - bizarrely put together, weird of look Hermaphrodites, partaking of both sexes, but neither; some Bereft of feet, or orphaned of their hands, and others dumb, Being devoid of mouth; and others yet, with no eyes, blind. Some had their limbs stuck to the body, tightly in a bind, And couldn’t do anything, or move, and so could not evade Harm, or forage for bare necessities. And the Earth made Other kinds of monsters too, but in vain, since with each, Nature frowned upon their growth; they were not able to reach The flowering of adulthood, nor find food on which to feed, Nor be joined in the act of Venus.
For all creatures need Many different things, we realize, to multiply And to forge out the links of generations: a supply Of food, first, and a means for the engendering seed to flow Throughout the body and out of the lax limbs; and also so The female and the male can mate, a means they can employ In order to impart and to receive their mutual joy.
Then, many kinds of creatures must have vanished with no trace Because they could not reproduce or hammer out their race. For any beast you look upon that drinks life-giving air, Has either wits, or bravery, or fleetness of foot to spare, Ensuring its survival from its genesis to now.
book 5 lines 837-859
Lucretius, writing in Latin, didn’t have the Greek word atomos (‘indivisible’) to use to describe the building blocks of matter, so he used ‘seeds’ instead.
What does this have to do with Jesus’s parables? There’s only one alternative recorded explanation for the sower parable from antiquity, which is the following:
For the ends, he says, are the seeds scattered from the unportrayable one upon the world, through which the whole cosmical system is completed; for through these also it began to exist. And this, he says, is what has been declared: “The sower went forth to sow. And some fell by the wayside, and was trodden down; and some on the rocky places, and sprang up,” he says, “and on account of its having no depth (of soil), it withered and died; and some,” he says, "fell on fair and good ground, and brought forth fruit, some a hundred, some sixty, and some thirty fold."
Pseudo-Hippolytus Refutations 5.3
Not only does the description of seeds scattered that caused the cosmos to exist parallel Lucretius, in book 4 lines 1269-1273 Lucretius even described failed biological reproduction as “By doing this, she turns the furrow away from the straight and true Path of the ploughshare, and the seed falls by the wayside too.”
Their interpretation of the mustard seed parable is also quite similar to Lucretius’s seeds.
That which is, he says, nothing, and which consists of nothing, inasmuch as it is indivisible — (I mean) a point — will become through its own reflective power a certain incomprehensible magnitude. This, he says, is the kingdom of heaven, the grain of mustard seed […]
Refutations 5.4
This group was following a text called the Gospel of Thomas which has other overlaps with Lucretius from the discussion of souls that depend on bodies, entertaining spirit arising from flesh and the greater wonder compared to the opposite, and discussing the idea the cosmos was like a body that was dead (Lucretius described the cosmos as like a body that would one day die, and the Gospel of Thomas is largely structured around the idea of an over-realized eschatology, thus in it the cosmos body is already dead).
In that text, it’s actually very interesting to look at what the sower parable is located next to given the above:
Jesus said, “Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human.”
And he said, “The human being is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!”
Jesus said, "Look, the sower went out […]
Gospel of Thomas sayings 7-9
So we have a saying about how no matter who ate whom, becoming human was the inevitable result. Then a saying comparing the human being to a large fish selected from small fish, and then a saying about how only the seed that survived to reproduce multipled.
And the only group recorded following this text offers up the only non-canonical explanation for the parable as referring to seeds scattered at the dawn of existence by which everything that exists was formed. Seeds elsewhere described as indivisible parts making up all things using the specific language of the author who wrote about indivisible seeds making up all things and causing the cosmos to exist - 50 years before Jesus was even born.
Which starts to fill in the picture as to why the sower parable is the only parable in the earliest gospel (Mark) to be given an alleged secret explanation, at odds with things like John 18:20’s “I said nothing in secret” or Papias describing the parables of a lost sayings work as being left up to each person to interpret as best they could.
Why was a public parable about randomly thrown seeds so dangerous it needed a canonical secret explanation? Could it be because it was about a topic that would have been extremely sacrilegious to conservative Judaism endorsing the belief in intelligent design?
TL;DR: There’s quite a bit of irony in looking at how a canonical tradition which may have been trying to “correct the record” 2,000 years ago away from evolutionary thinking endorsed by the original historical figure is today being used to try to deny the legitimacy of evolutionary thinking two millennia later.
I may read through that later to see if it’s covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it’s not evolution by natural selection.
Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.
As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).
But I’d strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn’t a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).
What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.
Nah. I’m familiar with Lamarckian evolutionary theories and there’s no evidence for them. Although many evolutionary traits and effects seem Lamarckian in the ways they affect species, they are completely defined by natural selection processes and mechanisms.
I can’t tell if you’re bringing this up in bad faith because you’re a religious person or if this is a genuine attempt at separating the hypothesis from the effect and you’re just a bit ignorant.
As an example, epigenetic inheritance, which has been dishonestly used as an example of Lamarckian evolution, has evidence for it. Contrary to that idea, though, it has never been observed to have an effect on actual evolution because the environment of the species in which the inheritance occurs is still selected for by their environment.
I think there is more evidence for lmarckian thinking now than when it was proposed. I don't think it really works but the environment can activate genes. As for whats the difference is natural selection is the source of evolution whereas god evolved creatures over time with his god powers as part of his great plan. well that would not be.
Not in the way he meant it. We’ve confirmed that inheritance is a thing but not in the way he described. In one of his writings, he gave an example of how a blacksmith, for example, could grow his muscles because of the rigor of his work and that he could pass that down to his children to give them an affinity for the same type of work. We now know that that’s not only not true but that, even in his example, the environment is the driving factor there.
I suspect they mean the broad concept of “life came from other stuff that was different before it” vs “life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce.”
Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.
It’s a fair point even if it doesn’t really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.
So it was kind of like “I didn’t bother reading this but I’m going to assume it’s wrong in this way” where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.
I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.
This is one of those posts where ultimately I agree with OP, evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt. Still, OP is an edge lord and gives this instance a bad look when they post edge lord stuff like this.
Yup. This kind of thing gives a bad name to atheists and is one of the reasons I don’t like to bring it up often. We should be more respectful and set a good example, not stoop to the shit-slinging level.
At a certain point, we need to just put it on the table. You can believe in a vengeful sky daddy if you want to, but it’s not real and your faery tale beliefs don’t get to dictate how I and my family live our lives.
It really is important to make this obviously and even painfully clear.
I give zero fucks what your Bible or your sky daddy is telling you to believe.
No one who would actually be able to be convinced of this is going to be swayed by a condescending meme like this. You can make the message clear without being an asshole.
I agree that this meme is not the right message or the best format. But I’m also not sure we shouldn’t be speaking out more. Christians will claim to be persecuted whether or not atheists challenge them. Christians will think all atheists are like OP regardless of whether or not atheists challenge them. We should speak up more frequently, more honestly, and with less deference to the idea that a belief is valid just because it would piss off a lot of believers if it wasn’t.
To share your beliefs is to invite critical evaluation of those beliefs. Anything less is a courtesy not extended by the person sharing their beliefs.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we do any of those things. You can speak up more frequently, more honestly, and with less deference to the idea without calling someone’s beliefs “bullshit” and being condescending. The only strategy that works is meeting them where they’re at and treating it seriously. That can be hard when conversations can devolve so quickly but you have to remember that you’re questioning someone’s entire worldview. I’m not sure if you started as an atheist or became one later but, if the it’s the latter, try to remember what it was like when you were realizing that the way you viewed the entire world didn’t make sense.
That last line you wrote is great except in a community where there was nothing shared to initiate the OP.
To me this Facebook boomer meme style is not something I find helpful for anyone, it’s just rage bait. If this is the kind of thing religious people think of atheists when we discuss our beliefs, it’s starting on a bad foot.
“Putting it on the table” when it’s a plate of poop just perpetuates their persecution complex. Maybe something more thought-provoking and less aggressive would be better. “You catch more flies with honey than vinegar”.
Considering your religion has been used to justify murder, racism, bigotry, homophobia, and countless other injustices….
And considering you learned about your religion from the exact people that caused and perpetrated these injustices……
You need to get your head out of your ass with that bs.
I give zero f’s about what your religion has to say. And it needs to be absolutely clear that your beliefs don’t get to dictate mine or anyone else’s life.
If you don’t like that. Too bad.
The only plate of poop here is religious beliefs.
I don’t need to catch flies or convert people to my side.
But I do need religious folks to understand that they can GTFO of my life and lifestyle, and that your religion does not fucking matter to anyone but you.
(Edit: rhetorical you, you seem like a reasonable person, but I think this can’t be overstated enough. Whatever your religion is it doesn’t matter to anyone but you.)
But I do need religious folks to understand that they can GTFO of my life and lifestyle, and that your religion does not fucking matter to anyone but you.
I could not agree more with this. And I mean, it’s ok for us to disagree on how we express it, though.
evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt
Did we? Are you referring to the people who didn’t wear masks? Because they certainly killed people, but mostly not themselves as 99% of those critically susceptible to it wore a damn mask.
So there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for their comment, but you refuse to accept it? Because of a feeling? A feeling that you can’t quite articulate? Dare I say it… Faith?
It’s an application of Occam’s Razor. It’s an application of the Principal of Charity. It’s an application of some of the most basic concepts of philosophy.
I think it’s an extreme position to say that it’s dumb as shit.
Hey, OP! Are we allowed to debate some of these problems with the theory, or am I obliged to believe it anyway? These are my top twenty doubts and I’d appreciate if you could resolve some of them for me.
Empirical problems:
Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual “tree of life”, i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional.
Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc).
Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability.
Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection.
“Phenotypic Plasticity” - the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1.
Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski’s bacteria experiment and Molly Burke’s fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature.
Philosophical problems:
Alvin Plantinga’s “Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism” illustrates that the combination of naturalism and evolution is self-defeating because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have evolved reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This has prompted many ambitious thinkers to suggest that consciousness is an illusion.
Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (art, music, religion, introspection, homosexuality, etc.)
Evolution as a necessary secular creation myth is ejected from the realm of objective science and is now highly politicized.
Determinism - as implied by evolution theory - is dangerously irrational and hypocritical.
Democracy is founded on a metaphysical claim which contradicts the tenets of evolution, i.e. “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…”.
Quantum uncertainty undermines the mechanistic nature of evolution theory.
Evolution cannot be rationally explained without recourse to vitalist rhetoric, i.e. the “selfish gene”.
All too frequently, critique of evolution theory is dismissed by appealing to vox populi, a disengenuous logical fallacy, or…
Esotericism - the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
An evolution research experiment cannot be performed except by design.
Many of evolutionists blame those who are against or suspicious about evolution with zealotry but when they come up with real arguments and questions, you become the zealots. You fucking hypocrites
Because it’s a gish gallop of mostly thin or discredited arguments, with the strongest at the top to make it look more impressive than it is.
And even the strongest are piss poor and largely discredited by actual science.
“My list of reasons is long” doesn’t make any one of those reasons less shoddy than it already is. “I have used scientific words” doesn’t hold water either.
Instead of answering me, it would be much more helpful to come up with an counter argument to mentioned arguments.
We may debate, it wont resolve something. Time will reveal what is needed to be known or to be accepted. So go on have fun, scroll through lemmy.
It is just that, you are lazy so you dont debate and instead you shout out hate. If you are not going to debate and express the opposing side that they are wrong; you are simply an asshole, waste of resources(from my pov of course, it all is relative).
Have a nice day, btw I am an evolutionist(not that it changes sth).
You’re an evolutionary biologist or a believer in evolution?
I am the latter and suspect you are too, in which case neither of us should be getting our information on science from an unaccredited stranger on the internet.
Go and listen to Forrest Valkai or someone else who is actually accredited and actively researching those topics.
I’ll ignore your ad hominems as, they are just that - evidence of your willingness to engage in fallacy - and add nothing useful to any form of discussion.
Edit: found one while browsing! What are the odds! Post your gallop over there.
I hope you don’t mind me butting into your conversation, but you’re kinda illustrating one of my philosophical issues with esotericism: the claim that only a certified expert is qualified to critique the theory, but every layman is obliged accept the theory.
Although I’ve only studied up to college level gen Ed biology, I still feel like my concerns with evolution theory are valid. Why must I be dismissed just because I’m not a professional biologist?
The fact that you would present my opinion as something other than what I stated is evidence that you’re incapable of an honest conversation.
Do you know what all accredited scientists have in common? That their outputs are available for anyone, even laymen to review, including all the evidence, experimentation and thought work that led them to their conclusions.
But do you know what a layman can’t do? Peer review the work of accredited scientists. That’s the critical part of the process, because only an accredited scientist has the necessary body of knowledge to be able to meaningfully critique the work of his peers. That’s why we use the word peer.
You and I can argue about evolution until we’re blue in the face and scientists will keep pushing the envelope regardless of that, producing new, exciting and important discoveries to the benefit of us all.
I am an accredited scientist in my own field. I discuss it with other scientists every day. I teach laymen every day in the hope that they will achieve accreditation too one day.
If this is your goal, I wish you all the best, but you won’t achieve it with the primitive thinking of your initial comment. As for layman debate about fields in which neither of us are accredited, I’m not interested given the lackluster quality of your arguments, but stick around long enough and maybe you’ll find someone else to roll around in the mud with.
You mentioned new, exciting and important discoveries that benefit us all. Can you please give me an example of one of the benefits of evolution theory? I have not heard of any way in which the theory has been applied. Have we developed novel drugs or technologies as a result of our understanding of evolution theory? Has Evolution Theory facilitated significant improvements in modern medical science?
It seems to me that evolution is not an applied science like physics, chemistry, or biology.
I’ve seen this same list listed before, I’m guessing by the same person. I agree with you. These points have simple explanations.
I get the impression the list is presented the way it is to exhaust anyone wishing to contradict the points. It’s just not worth the time, especially since it is unlikely the person wants to hear explanations.
Anytime I see a person gish galloping I employ a three strikes basis. I will humor their first argument. Maybe their second but if by their third all is consistently bullshit, I consider them to not be worth anyone’s time to “debate” and all further arguments from them in their gish galloping will be disregarded.
Some of these “Philosophical” points are flat out bullshit
Homosexuality isn’t only present in human behavior and there are plenty of explanations, both on an evolutionary and behavioral standpoints, as to why. My favorite is the Gay Uncle Theory.
Who gives a shit? Science is by definition politicized and also by definition it expells myths for obvious reasons
Why? Substantiate that claim
That is not what democracy is founded on. In democracy all men have equal rights and have the same power to vote and be elected. Even in the US when Locke wrote that people disagreed with it, mostly because they liked owning slaves.
6-7 Substanciate that claim.
Skill issue. You can just as easily disprove it with facts.
Anyone is allowed to challenge and contribute to our understanding of the world. Just be prepared to have your claims be rigorously tested.
Bullshit. It has been observed in natural populations since before we even understood it.
Thank you for taking time to address some of my issues. I really appreciate the discourse because it helps me to see what I’m missing and to refine my understanding.
Philosophical problems are more nebulous and difficult than empirical ones, but still important IMO, so long as we presume to be rational creatures.
I consider this a dangerous notion because it undermines human judicial systems which naturally assume that a person made a choice to act contrary to law. Persons who plead insanity in criminal cases are given lighter sentences for the very reason that they are considered unable to control their actions. It would be absolutely disastrous if that became the norm.
As for the hypocrisy, the fact that determinism can not be rationally affirmed is the greatest problem of determinism. Consider that you think that determinism is true. This would imply that you think that determinism is true not because you have rationally freely chosen determinism after careful argumentation; but simply because you were determined to do so. But if so, what is the reason why anyone should hold to determinism? What is the point in trying to convince anyone else of determinism their beliefs about the truth of determinism have already been determined?
The fact that we have to make choices which determine what random outcome we observe is a problem for any attempt to prove that the universe, or even the self, is deterministic. It throws into question the whole notion of everything having an existing state, upon which determinism is predicated.
I don’t have time to reply to all of your counter arguments right now, but I would like to ask what you think about democracy. The “equal rights” that you speak of are not empirical, but metaphysical. We’re certainly not equal to each other in terms of body size and shape and economic status and hereditary traits and intelligence and ability or any other metric. So on what grounds can we claim equal rights? It seems to me that evolution theory is wholly incongruent with this system of government…
Either you have a very weird literal definition of “equal rights” or you’re being purposely obtuse. Trying to equate flaws in implementation of sociopolitical systems to an imaginary lack scientific rigor in an entirely different field is either intellectually dishonest or a fever rant.
Tree of life is just a way we organize all living things to make things easier for us. And HGT happens only with prokaryotes and certain animals. It really makes things more complicated in some parts of tree of life but that isn’t weird, there will always be some thing that we can’t fully explain. Just because HGT makes things more complicated doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t true.
What are you even talking about here?
Please explain how fossil record fails to prove evolution.
Improbability of what? If two organisms live in same or similar environment it isn’t odd if they have similar adaptations to same or similar environment even if they aren’t closely related. And even if they have similar adaptations that doesn’t mean they are same. Wings of bats, birds and insects are all totally different.
Please explain what is wrong with abiogenesis.
Be more specific.
Give at least one example. Who gave inaccurate prediction and for what specific thing?
If you meant that there are no mechanisms for epigenetics than that’s just wrong, there are many of them.
I don’t know anything about this topic so I can’t comment on it.
This is a lie. Most mutations are neutral. And don’t ignore the fact that mutation can become beneficial with changes in environment.
I read more about this argument and it is stupid. What if certain information is neutral in terms of evolution? Us knowing about evolution isn’t beneficial for survival but it isn’t harmful either. Same goes for creationism, belief in it isn’t beneficial nor harmful from evolutionary standpoint. And don’t forget that evolutionary processes don’t always lead to beneficial changes.
Those things are similar to neutral mutations. Again, evolution doesn’t always lead to beneficial changes.
Everything is politicized, it doesn’t have anything to do with truth.
How? Please explain.
Democracy doesn’t have anything to do with evolution or any natural science.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Explain how.
Everyone can critique it but if someone doesn’t know anything about the subject, their critique isn’t relevant.
She wasn't teaching the science of biology at that point. She was teaching her own thoughts and feelings and should have been removed from her position.
My highschool World Religions teacher told us “he followed one of the religions he was going to teach, but would not tell us which one”. Big respect for that, teaching us objectively what was out there.
Add comment