|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Darwinism Equal "No God"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Both of them said the significance was that "there was no Designer."
I didn't see the program, but would not be surprised that Watson and Wilson would say that. I think we should distinguish between what Watson and Wilson say on the one hand, and what the theory of evolution says on the other. The theory itself makes no statement at all about God. However, the existence of natural processes that can create the diversity life does greatly weaken the appeal of the Paley style of argument for a creator. It perhaps doesn't fully destroy that argument, since there is still the unsolved problem of abiogenesis. Certain flavors of Christianity do run into clear problems with science. The YEC principles are clearly refuted by physics and geology. We don't even need to look to ToE to see problems for YECs. Old earth creationism is not ruled out, but might be on shaky ground. A theistic evolutionist can always credit God with directing the random mutations, and doing so in such a manner as to guide the evolution of the creatures He wanted will still allowing mutation to appear undirected. The problem for old earth creationists is that if God created the birds and tbe bees, he also created malaria, pneumonia and other diseases. We see a unity of life, which make it pretty hard to find a basis for crediting God with the good creations, and blaming satan for the pathogenic creatures. Apparently biologists are more likely to be atheists than other scientists, but it is not obvious to me that ToE is the whole story. I think it has partly to do with the fact that biologists are particularly likely to see the cruelty and suffering in the natural world, from disease, predation, etc., and I suspect many find that incompatible with traditional Christian views about God. A deist's God, one that created the universe to set thing in motion, but then abstained from further interference, would seem to be completely untouched by anything in the sciences. But this is not the type of God that most Christians believe in.
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.
I don't see the problem here. These are two men expressing their opinions. Scientists should have as much right to hold personal opionions as does anybody else. If they were putting these statements into biology textbooks, you might have reason to complain. But they were just presenting their opinions during an interview.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Apparently, some of Haeckel's data was valued within embryology long after it had stopped being used as evidence for evolution.
Why do you consider that a legitimate criticism of evolution? Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
randman writes:
Your Haeckel argument was pretty thoroughly debunked in Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up..... Richardson was referring to the use of Haeckel's work in embryology, and you have misconstrued that as use to provide evidence for ToE. Heck, even Richardson admitted Haeckel was believed, relied upon, and that his depictions were fraudulent. There is no debating this, except with people like you that would swear the sky was orange if you thought it would help protect your "faith" (ToE). The dishonesty of creationist arguments makes a far stronger case against God than evolution could ever do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The claim of a phylotypic stage is an argument used in support of evolution.
It has been used in the past. But at best it provides very weak support, far too little to settle the issue. Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr, so are you admitting it has been used, or is used, or are you going to go back to denying it ever was used to argue for evolution?
It would help if you could learn to read. As far as I can tell, it may have been used in some early textbooks to support evolution. I have never denied that. What I denied was your reading of the Richardson article.
Seems somewhat absurd for you to claim I was thoroughly debunked when you alternately agree with me and then disagree.
You were thoroughly debunked in your attempt use Haeckel as an argument against evolution.
The truth is everything I have written on Haeckel has been thoroughly and amply substantiated, and your comments claiming otherwise are just foolish grandstanding denying the obvious.
The obvious truth is that you are hopelessly confused. Your posting on Haeckel was mostly your misconstrual of the use of Haeckel in embryology, as if that were use for supporting ToE. That you fail to recognize this only demonstrates how confused you are. Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Evos use Haeckel's data in defense of evolution for 125 years, and now you deny it.
I haven't seen the evidence. What I have seen suggested that evos stopped using it quite early, but it continued to be used in embryology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
What evos stopped using it?
How can I answer that, when I don't know who did use it.
What the heck do you mean they stopped using?
I am going by comments such as this (from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html:
The "law of recapitulation" has been discredited since the beginning of the twentieth century. Experimental morphologists and biologists have shown that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between phylogeny and ontogeny. Although a strong form of recapitulation is not correct, phylogeny and ontogeny are intertwined, and many biologists are beginning to both explore and understand the basis for this connection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Nwr, yep, it was discredited very early on, but evos kept using it well until at least 1997, and I suspect some still do.
It was used until at least 1997 in embryology. I haven't seen the evidence of it being recently used in evolution. I think part of your confusion, is that you are unable to clearly distinguish between evolution and embryology. Aren't we way off topic here? Impeach Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It is used in embryology as an example of evolution. It's directly related to evolutionary claims.
Embryology is a separate subfield of biology. Sure, embryology depends on evolution. Just about everything in biology is connected to evolution. But evolution does not depend on embryology. This is still off-topic. I won't respond to further on this diversion. Impeach Bush.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024