Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

I hesitate to open a new thread, but watching Charlie Rose last night, there were 2 very distinquished scientists being interviewed, James Watson and Edward O. Wilson, and they were asked what was the significance of Darwin's discovery. Both of them said the significance was that "there was no Designer."One said that in a lengthy statement and another summarized that with the "no Designer" comment and the other concurred, stating life had "risen autonomously."In one sense, the candor was refreshingly honest, but in another the comments were very disturbing for 2 reasons. First, Darwin and no one has ever come out with a good explanation for how life arose in the first place. So the idea it happened without a Designer is not at all verified, and seems unlikely from a scientific perspective.Secondly, using the theory of evolution to assert atheism, that there is no Designer or Creator as these 2 leading evolutionists insist, really giants in the field, is a fundamental misuse of science, and imo, shows a total ignorance of what science is. It's shocking to say the least that they would make that claim, but on the other hand, I think it's patently obvious that this willful, unscientific assertion lies at the core of the reasoning behind evolution. The fact many believers have fallen for the theory does not change the fact of what it is, and why it has been advanced so vociferously.The truth is a lot of what evos asserted is totally unproven. We still don't know, for example, to what degree mutations are random, and according to these guys, this random aspect of mutations is the core of Darwinism and evolutionary theory.This message has been edited by randman, 12-15-2005 09:33 PM

It might help if you said who these two leading evolutionists were upfront.*ABE* I see that it was James Watson and Edward O. Wilson, I would stil appreciate it if you put this in the OP as people won't neccessarily read admin comments once this becomes a thread.*/ABE*I don't see this really being suitable for 'Biological Evolution', how about putting it in 'Miscellaneous topics in Evolution/Creation'. I think that the first of your reasons might prejudice the thread into sliding off into a discussion of abiogenesis, similarly some of your other objections are merely the topics of a lot of extant threads.I think the essential question of whether Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory in anyway constitute some sort of disproof or contra indicatory evidence for the existence of God, or any intelligent designer, is a very valid one. At the moment however I think you have couched the central issue in unneccessary statements about random mutatons and abiogenesis.Could you remove this extraneous material and focus the OP a bit more clearly on the central issue of whether Evolutionary theory must be considerd to have a philosophical or metaphysical impact on the concept of god/God/ID.TTFN,AWThis message has been edited by AdminWounded, 15-Dec-2005 10:53 PM

Miscellaneous is fine. However, these 2 ideas stem from what these men claimed. They specifically mentioned that Darwin's contribution was not that evolution occurs, but that it occurs randomly. That was the big emphasis in their response to that question along with the "No Designer" comment.Abiogenesis was not mentioned by name, but that biological life arose autonomously was. I think these 2 points need to stay, imo.I will add the scientists' name to the OP because it is important to see that their opinion probably carries a bit of weight, and that this is not a critic of evolution describing "what the significance" of Darwin and evolution are, but evos themselves.I guess what I am proposing is that evolution is all about trying to disprove there is a Creator, is founded upon unproven assumptions, and thus veers off of valid science.You won't get much debate from me if evos here claim evolution can be true and a Designer at the same time, but considering the age and stature of the men mentioned in the OP, I think it's important to understand that the concept advanced by Darwin has indeed been seen as something that undercuts any notion of God or a Creator, and as such, is more of a philosophy first that defines the evidence ahead of time rather than an empirical-based science.This message has been edited by randman, 12-15-2005 09:40 PM

I will promote this. I have my reservations since I have no idea what these two men actually said on TV, and I have heard dissenting opinions.I would once again ask you to try and focus on the central topic and not drag this thread off onto things which are already under discussion on other threads. If you wish to address evidence for abiogenesis or random mutations the appropriate threads are available for you to do so.TTFN,AW

Thread copied to the Does Darwinism Equal "No God"? thread in the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.