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

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

Well, I would agree that the evidence in anyway means there is no Creator, but that was their view of Darwin and evolution. Well, I disagree wholly. First off, assuming common descent is true, which is a big assumption imo, there is still the issue of how the first life formed and where the universe came from. Unless those questions are definitely answered, ToE says pretty much nothing, in terms of the science, about the Creator. The fact such prominent evos view the evidence as conclusively atheist is very telling about their state of mind, which does color one's perception, imo.As a favor, in a few minutes, could you look on this thread under General Reply, as I want to address both you and cavediver in one post.

One of their points is that evolution is random: "that natural selection acts upon random mutations" and that life arose "autonomously."This really cuts to the heart of evolutionary theory. What they were emphasizing was not that common descent could occur, but that it occurred unaided, without a Designer, and autonomously. Leaving aside abiogenesis, a form of spontaneous generation, for a minute, let's consider the random assertion.There is no evidence for the random claim. The truth is we don't know yet all of the mechanisms for mutations; nor all of the physical principles governing that arena such as whether QM is involved as some assert, and frankly have not determined to what degree mutations are random.As such, half of the evolutionary equation is not empirical.What evolutionist scientists have done is assume random mutations, and then with a sort of sleight of hand, defined science in a way to exclude any possibilities except their assumptions from being true.For all we know every single mutation in the universe is governed by God. There is no evidence whatsoever of randomness, but evos claim that only explanations that agree with randomness are acceptable, and so assert evolution has proved, more or less, there is no Designer when in fact, it is nothing but a bald-faced assumption.In fact, the more we learn, the more we see non-random properties in mutations. We find that certain patterns are predisposed already to mutate according to a certain pattern, thus showing a pre-existing underlying design, which is the exact opposite of evo's random claims.Evolution, as these guys see it, is basically a faith or anti-faith position. The faith statement is that mutations occur randomly, and that is coupled with a militant belief that no explanations that challenge that basic faith assertion are allowed. As such evolution is more faith-based than empirically-based.

I view it as a frank admission of what imo is a faith-based statement asserting an unproven claim of randomness as the basis for modern biology.

That would still be an error. On what basis can they deny that ToE is a form of divine handholding, that evolution is the Designer's method? By claiming there is no Designer, they are asserting that a Designer could not have planned for evolution to be the agent for forming lifee. The No Designer claim is explicitly atheist, and imo, their statements were a frank admission evolution is faith-based or anti-faith based. (Should have put this in the other reply btw).

Maybe someone else saw it here at EVC forum and can comment?

Are mutations random if they were planned for?

If they were planned for, they are not totally random.Btw, you always like to bring up the fact you are a Christian, but that is a vague term. Without some details, it's somewhat meaningless. Do you believe, for example, in life after death? In a consciousness that survives outside the body?How about believing the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and lives today? Or that he and others did miracles, etc,...?I don't want to get the thread off-track so a quick answer will do, just to clarify a little what you mean by "Christian"?

Who cares if our theory has unsubtantiated claims as it's basis? I mean who the heck cares?

Btw, proof of God's existence is not the issue. Personally, I think the same Bible already states we do have incontrovertible proof of God's existence, but that's a theological issue.The issue here is more narrowly defined to science, and asserting randomness is philosophy.

One more tidbit. If you are not willing to qualify in what way you are a Christian and thus support your point, maybe you should quit stating that on science threads.

jar, stating you are a "Christian" without showing a willingness to explain what you believe is meaningless, and no, you don't qualify as someone representing Christianity just because you say so.Let's do a hypothetical. Let's say you are a "Christian" in the sense that Thomas Jefferson was. You believe in Jesus' ethical teachings but reject all of the miraculous stuff. Well, imo, I'd day Jefferson was a heathen; a great man in many respects but still not really a Christian. So if Jefferson were here today and inserted the statement, "as a Christian I have an obligation to correct you", I think it's acceptable to question that and ask in what way are you a Christian.In other words, if you are not willing to substantiate your claim, then why do you keep maintaining it? Heck, this is twice now you could not even bring yourself to admitting whether you think there is consciousness after death.So let's quit with the pretense, shall we?

No, I just honestly question why jar always inserts that he is a Christian on science threads and then refuses to qualify that. It really doesn't even matter for this thread if he is a Christian or not.But at the same time, someone always saying, I am a Christian and it is my Christian duty to correct you, well, I think that's a bunch of hot air, meaningless crap, and so I am calling him on it.If the guy cannot even admit whether the soul exists, imo, his "I am a Christian comment" is worthless.

I agree. Let's drop the issue of jar. Btw, I initially just ignored his first post for the very reason I suspected it would not lead anywhere fruitful.Back on topic, does it not strike anyone that claiming Darwin's contribution was that there was no Designer is inserting religious, or anti-religious dogma into the debate.However, on the concept of random, I do think it is relevant because these guys were saying because mutations are random, there is no Designer, but there is really no empirical basis for claiming randomness here. Mutations occur. To say they only occur randomly is asserting a presupposition.