Science VS Christianity

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
doubleAtheist's picture
Science VS Christianity

So i was thinking yesterday, doing random google searches, and found the fact that around half of the US population accept evolution, now most of those people will be christian, atheists create around 5% of the United States population, more secular countries with way higher atheist rates (sweden, china, japan, denmark ect..) have way more evolution acceptance rates, now we call all agree that evolution is a fact, all fields of science can confirm.

Even the pope accepts evolution...

But evolution does destroy all of christianity not just creation.

If we evolved, which we did, means no Adam and Eve, no Adam and Eve would mean no talking snake, and no original sin. No original sin means jesus never died for our sins, which destroys the whole chrsitian view, unless they do what they always do, say the story was not meant to be taken literaly, which would make no sense..

But yeah, I feel science vs chrstianity is real, for all the other religions not sure, but islam doesnt accept human evolution.. So islam doesnt agree with science..

Any thoughts my atheist friends?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Sir Random's picture
You are certainly correct.

You are certainly correct. But I have to ask, if the Pope himself excpts it, doesn't science win almost immediately, since the Pope is supposed to be the mortal representation of God's will(according to the Catholic Church)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I already answer this topic

I already answer this topic when you first brought it out here:

It is important that you understand well what you are claiming before jumping to conclusions, especially when accusing theists of something.

I hope that helps.

doubleAtheist's picture
I read your comment on the

I read your comment on the other post, and i see where your coming from.

1) We evolved somewhere in Africa, garden of eden as far as my limited knowledge of its location and a google search says its not in Africa, so if the bibles age of the earth was not a red flag, this should be.

2) Your using the argument just bc an alternative has been probven against a part of the biblical story, that we can change it and assume the rest is accurate? Is there a chance that could be true? Yes, but is that an anti-scientific claim? For sure it is.. On top of that, the oldest fossil of a human is a female, but Adam was created first, infact Eve was not Adams first wife, according to midrashic literture it was Lilith.

3) You also used the point, just because we evolved there might still be original sin, as disgusting the idea of original sin even is, yes there is always a possibility, but also a possibility the pink unicorn gave everyone free bowls of bird crap. You can say anything is possible, and with that logic there would never be any possible way to disprove a specific religion.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
1 You are claiming that we

1 You are claiming that we evolved as fact in Africa, where I demonstrated already that you just can't do that.
There is evidence from mitochondrial DNA that the first woman(eve) was from Africa. Thus the hypothesis is that humans evolved from Africa.
No fact there.

No, I just pointed out that evolution does not prove or demonstrate anything about god or original sin.
I do not care if evolution disproves some claims in the bible.
I was very clear that it says nothing about GOD and Original sin which you claimed it does.
Actually you claimed that it proves that there cannot be any original sin because of evolution.
Which you have presented nothing to support that claim.

No, don't straw man me.
I said that evolution does not prove anything related to original sin.
I know original sin is nonsense because it is illogical not because evolution proves it wrong.
Which is what you are claiming and you are wrong.
I just pointed it out.


I do not care if evolution does prove something more but trying to get what you wish out of a topic by claiming unscientific and illogical things is what a theist would do.

I think we should not fall so low to use similar tactics, we are better then that.

We have the truth on our side since we champion it more then what we wish to be true.

Sir Random's picture
Logic is required to be

Logic is required to be present in anything considered true. Without logic, facts would have no base into which the could be tested, and the entire system of human knowledge would fall apart.

Sir Random's picture
Also, Jeff, jstone has been

Also, Jeff, jstone has been blocked in case you did not know.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I did not know, thanks.

I did not know, thanks.

I felt he was a troll from his very first post.

Sir Random's picture
Np. I put up the report

Np. I put up the report myself. He was getting on my nerves.

doubleAtheist's picture
Thanks for the reply, I can

Thanks for the reply, I can see where you are coming from and admit my mistakes.

But this so called "Eve" you said was found in Africa, was that meant literally? Eve never exsisted as far as i am concerned, unless your naming the first women Eve regardless if it was the bible Eve or not.

Sir Random's picture
Jstone has been blocked. No

Jstone has been blocked. No use trying to talk to him now.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
The guys that found the first

The guys that found the first woman called it "the mitochondrial eve" in their paper.(eve for short)

Also you do not know if there was ever an eve and if it was the first human being given a name.

You cannot claim things as facts regardless of how unlikely they are unless you can observe them.

You cannot claim that a particular planet around the next galaxy is not made of cheese as a fact if you cannot observe it.

It really does not matter how unlikely it is.

It is important that one knows the difference between fact, opinion, belief.

Hope that helps.

JAlexG's picture
Your post is what I generally

Your post is what I generally stand by and what I'll say in this comment is all my opinion of course but very simply put:

Evolution is real, the Bible is fake, and is there some superior being to us? I don't know (At least I don't have a strong opinion yet) but if there is, I'm sure it's nothing most common religions say it is. But yeah, I don't really get how people can believe in evolution and still trust what the Bible says.

chimp3's picture
Science does not disprove the

Science does not disprove the existence of god. Science proves that the natural world can operate without a god as part of the equation. The more progress science makes the less we need god to explain anything. Now the creationists are trying real hard to make their childish ideas look like science. Progress!

Pathway Machine's picture
They don't call fact theory.

They don't call fact theory. All of the atheists I know don't believe evolution. It doesn't matter what the Pope thinks, unless, possibly, you are Catholic.

You were right on the mark that Evolution would destroy all of Christianity rather than just creation, though. Your explanation was perfect and accurate.

The real conflict between science and Christianity isn't evolution, though, in my personal opinion. They disagree (Creationist and Evolutionist) sure, but that isn't necessarily the reason for the animosity. The reason for the animosity is actually a mistake, in my opinion.

The philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle, was the leading influence in the Church of Rome. At the time the Greek philosophy of Aristotle and Ptolemy's earlier geocentric view of the universe was widely accepted. From Aristotle to Aquinas to the Church.

The Church's misinterpretation of scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 1:5, which reads "The sun rises, the sun sets; then to its place it speeds and there it rises.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5, The Jerusalem Bible) and Psalm 104:5, which reads “You fixed the earth on its foundations, unshakeable for ever and ever.” (Psalm 104:5, The Jerusalem Bible) along with Aquinas' geocentric philosophy of Aristotle created a conflict with Galileo's heliocentric perspective. Galileo, like Copernicus before him, were, not surprisingly considering the times, both Catholic. But Galileo was more outspoken.

Thus the conflict, which the Church admitted to it's error. In 1992, saying: “Certain theologians, Galileo’s contemporaries, . . . failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the created universe.”

mykcob4's picture
You must not know any TRUE

You must not know any TRUE atheist. Every Atheist I have ever met KNOWS that evolution is a fact!

Pathway Machine's picture
A TRUE atheist? You mean,

A TRUE atheist? You mean, like a TRUE Christian? How would you define a TRUE atheist? Someone who thinks theory is fact?

I was a TRUE atheist, meaning I didn't believe in nor worship any god(s) until I was 27 years old. When I was taught the theory of Evolution throughout school I most certainly didn't accept it as fact or theory.

mykcob4's picture
When I was of school age

When I was of school age Evolution was still a theory but has since been proven. Science is progressive in the fact that many theories arise and are later proven or disproved Evolution is NOT a theory any longer.

Pathway Machine's picture
mykckob, Could you expand

mykckob, Could you expand upon your claim that Evolution is no longer considered theory, that it has been proven as fact, when and how this took place, or was concluded and what documentation there is of it?

I'm certain you are mistaken.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
If he is referring to the

If he is referring to the fact that evolution does exist he is correct.

It has been shown in labs that bacteria do indeed adapt to new environments by changing their bodies permanently = evolve.

If he is referring to human origins, that is an entire different story.

ThePragmatic's picture
Unfortunately, it sounds as

Unfortunately, it sounds as if you have already made up your mind.

Don't misunderstand me, I like that you are sceptic.

Here are some links:

mykcob4's picture

DNA evidence proves evolution period. All living things have some common DNA. It's a tree that branches out and can be traced backwards. excited amino acids became the first living things. They became multi-celled. Multi-cell became the first plants and animals, so on and so on.
The only reason that some claim that evolution is just a theory is, either they don't want to know the truth, they can't grasp the truth, or they are sorely lacking in current information.
I could produce scientific fact after fact, not conjecture, actual fact. We can trace basic common DNA back to a single cell microbe that occurs in blue/green algae. We can carbon date that same algae and microbe to nearly 4 billion years.

ThePragmatic's picture
Atheism has nothing to do

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, but it's my impression that it's unusual that atheists don't consider evolution a scientific fact, or at the very least a believable theory.

If you are comfortable with disclosing such information, I would like to know a little bit more about it: Why do you/they not believe in in evolution? What do you/they believe in, regarding that subject? Does this stem from culture?

Pathway Machine's picture
We / they thought that a lot

We / they thought that a lot of the stuff we were taught in school was nonsense. Am I allowed to say bullshit? Especially regarding history and science. The rest of it was pretty much rules, like math and grammar.

Was it cultural? Perhaps that is for the sidewalk social scientists to speculate. We didn't trust the establishment, we didn't like school, we are self educated or by modern standards not well educated, i.e., indoctrinated by the state.

We are, in my opinion, either real skeptical or disinterested.

Edited to add: However, since then I have discovered that it isn't entirely unusual for an unbeliever or atheist who is educated on the subject to find it laughable. Dr. David Berlinkski who coined a term I use, "failed metaphysical experiment" in application to the so called theory of Evolution is my favorite speaker.


Attach Image/Video?: 

ThePragmatic's picture
@ Pathway Machine

@ Pathway Machine

Personally, I find it very odd that he first claims that the fossil record is useless, then asks why we can't see Darwinian evolution in progress apart from small variations. He can't possibly be unaware of the time frames that major changes would require, but at the same time he invalidates the answer to his own question, regardless of the incredible amounts of fossil evidence there is.

As I understand it, he believes in ID, Intelligent Design. I don't understand how that works together with atheism? An intelligent creative act is behind life, how is that not a god? Or are we talking aliens? This doesn't seem to add up to me.

What makes you believe he has the right conclusions?

Pathway Machine's picture
@ The Pragmatic,

@ The Pragmatic,

I think that the beginning of this video, the second part of eight might address your question regarding Berlinkski's position on the fossil record better than I could.

I don't think that Berlinski believes in ID, though I can't speak for him I would have to say that he is agnostic. Though I've heard him apply the term unbeliever to himself. His position on evolution, however, has nothing to do with that. On the subject he said: "Darwin theory of evolution is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudianism and Marxism into the nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

He says that there is no reason to believe it, and if it comes to pass that we don't know where life comes from then in all intellectual honesty we have to accept it, and if it comes to pass that life was created we will have to accept that as well.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Pathway Machine - "He says

Pathway Machine - "He says that there is no reason to believe it, and if it comes to pass that we don't know where life comes from then in all intellectual honesty we have to accept it, and if it comes to pass that life was created we will have to accept that as well."

But here is the problem. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with where life came from. You may or may not have been aware of this but Berlinkski most certainly is.
Berlinski - "The issue before us is not whether retro-actively we can explain an adaptation, but whether we can draw that adaptation from general principles. This is Darwinian theory can not do. And this is the requirement of normal science."

Uh no, not at all. When a philosopher tries to tell you what science is or is not it reminds me of the words of Feynman:
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."
Berlinski - (paraphrased) "major transitions are missing from the fossil record"

Well duh, but guess what: if you can find one transition that is enough to match the predictions of evolution. No one expects (except for the nutters) all transitions to be found. If you find even a single transition, that meets the predictions of evolution. And Berlinski admitted in the video: transitions have been found...

...Oh a few minutes later he demands that for evolution to be accurate there should be a huge fossil inventory for every transition; confirming that he is in fact a nutter (I actually wrote the above paragraph before I got to this point in the video). OK this guy is a joke, I can't watch any more. Again: d̲u̲m̲b̲ ̲o̲n̲ ̲p̲u̲r̲p̲o̲s̲e̲.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
As I see it he is correct in

As I see it he is correct in his assessment.
I am amazed how well informed he is on the subject, some details I did not even read them once.

He is discussing Macro evolution.

And it is true there is no real evidence for Macro evolution even though Micro evolution has been confirmed as a fact.
(evolution in parts= micro evolution) A bug evolves but remains a bug.

btw the entire paper of natural selection by Charles Darwin uses only Micro evolution evidence.

"An intelligent creative act is behind life, how is that not a god? Or are we talking aliens? This doesn't seem to add up to me."

Why not aliens?

or a better word, those that came before.(maybe even a version of humans)

Assuming we are the first on this planet is a bit arrogant don't you think?

All the evidence we have indicates some kind of intervention, a meteorite, a catastrophic event, something major made the setup we have currently on earth.

Definitely not macro evolution, the evidence is staggering against that proposition.

Its much more likely you win the lottery 500000000 trillion times in a row then randomly generating a human foot by mutation or adaptation.
Yes the human feet are the most badly designed feet on this planet.(I bet you did not know)

"What makes you believe he has the right conclusions?"
Well he has the facts to back up what he said, it is all in the papers, even Natural Selection by Charles Darwin, he admits that at the time the fossil record did not show what he was proposing and to this day the fossil record did not get better but worse since fossils came to light which contradict some of his claims in the paper.
EG: Millions of years for the Macro Evolution to occur, when humans as a species exist for just a few 100 000 years.(later was found)

"Natural Selection" does nail Micro Evolution but its speculation on macro evolution was unsupported.
"Origins of men" by Charles Darwin was a complete nonsense basically since he based it on an assumption with no evidence for.

I am not saying that it was aliens, I am saying that we do not know yet.

It is OK to say we do not know yet about human origins.

Nyarlathotep's picture
formally speaking:

formally speaking:
1) theories can not be proved
2) theories are models that make predictions
3) the validity of a theory is solely determined by how accurate these predictions match observations

informally speaking:
4) when someone says the word proved they typically mean the idea has preformed extremely well at #3 above
5) the word theory is often used to represent any old idea like "I have a theory why John's backpack is missing".

That being said, if you live in the western world, with access to the internet and modern medicine, and don't think the theory of evolution meets the requirements of #3 with flying colors; you are dumb on purpose.

Pathway Machine's picture
Nyarlathotep, "dumb on

Nyarlathotep, "dumb on purpose?" are you by any chance a school teacher?

Nyarlathotep's picture



Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.