Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 7 of 298 (269923)
12-16-2005 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-15-2005 4:13 PM


First off, I have to echo Holmes' sentiments. He summed up my own view perfectly.
Both of them said the significance was that "there was no Designer."
Secondly, using the theory of evolution to assert atheism, that there is no Designer or Creator
Did they make a distinction between Designer and Creator? Or did they only use the term Designer? It could be that they are simply denying a divine hand-holding of creation as it progresses...
If they are suggesting that "Evolution suggests that God does not exist", then they are severely mistaken. However, it is not an uncommon attitude amongst non-theistic scientists I have known. But then I know just as many theistic scientists.
I think the problem comes when theists spend too long hanging onto one element of creation as obvious proof of God's hand in the matter. When a naturalistic explanation is forthcoming, there is a natural backlash amongst the non-theists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-15-2005 4:13 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 12:16 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 14 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 12:21 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 23 of 298 (270042)
12-16-2005 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
12-16-2005 12:48 PM


Re: divine hand-holding?
Who cares?
ROFL
If you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter.
Couldn't put it better myself!
Sorry Randman, no disrespect, but this is the crux.
What happens the day we find incontravertible proof of our God's existence? What happens to Heb 11v1?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 12-16-2005 12:48 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 1:29 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 25 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 1:31 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 30 of 298 (270054)
12-16-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by randman
12-16-2005 1:29 PM


Re: divine hand-holding?
Who cares if our theory has unsubtantiated claims as it's basis?
Mutations appear random to scientific observation. Does this mean they are random from God's POV? Not necessarily. I don't know. I have no way of knowing. Hence, who cares? I have my science. I have my faith. Simple as that.
I can almost imagine God running the universe, allowing it to come up with whatever advanced biological organisms it can muster, and God then using them as the vessels of the souls He distributes out. Just think, we could all be walking cuttlefish creatures
Sorry, this is a science forum... I'll be quiet now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by randman, posted 12-16-2005 1:29 PM randman has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 90 of 298 (270445)
12-18-2005 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by randman
12-18-2005 12:10 AM


Re: Responses
That is, in fact, what cavediver objects to; that I see God's principles in nature such as quantum mechanics.
True, I see God's principles AS nature and AS quantum mechanics. Anything else smacks of the Wizard of Oz hiding behind his curtain, operating the levers. I also do not believe God has greasy hands, and thus I do not believe He leaves fingerprints.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by randman, posted 12-18-2005 12:10 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 12-18-2005 1:58 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 105 of 298 (270537)
12-18-2005 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by randman
12-18-2005 1:58 PM


Re: Responses
The greasy hands comment shows biased, unobjective and emotional reasoning.
No, I just use it as a counterpoint to the more usual watchmaker's scratches, or artist's brushstrokes.
I think part of the problem is you relate anything that is spiritual as some sort of magic or something
I regard anything that is spiritual as precisely that: spiritual... not physical.
I understand your position and it makes perfect sense... except for one slight problem. There is zero evidence of the universe working this way. We have theories at both ends of the length scale spectrum that measure up to observation to incredible degrees of accuracy, without having to take any account of some form of spiritual interaction. One of these theories is probably out most advanced form of QM. I just do not see the spiritual realm connecting so blatently to the physical world.
This is a new God of the Gaps, trying to find room in our physical theories for a spiritual connection. You have centred upon QM as the hiding place for this conncetion, yet its presence is not shown in any experiment ever carried out, nor in any theoretical work. You are free to hope that as the precision of our experiments grows, this presence will be revealed. But don't be too surprised if you find others hard to convince and yourself alone in this hope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 12-18-2005 1:58 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 12-18-2005 3:52 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 124 of 298 (270790)
12-19-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
12-19-2005 2:15 PM


Darwinism hints at atheism.
Only naively.
Abiogenesis hints at atheism.
Only naively.
Big Bang theory, however, hints at a Creator.
Only naively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 2:15 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 2:26 PM cavediver has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024