Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

Appeal to authority means nothing so what those men said does not mean anything as far as what science or any particular theory MUST say, specifically when that is not in the theory.Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but it does make the concept of a special designer as an explanation for speciation redundant.I think they were errant in claiming it means there was NO creator. The only thing they could say is it eliminates the NECESSITY of a creator as an explanation, and does limit the ways in which a creator may have created.Neither of those should pose a problem to a theist unless that theist is dedicated to a specific method of creation, like wanting to believe a hand was waved and things simply changed instantaneously.As far as abiogenesis goes, just to address that as well, that still does not remove the possibility of a creator, but simply increases the boundary where a creator is not NECESSARY as an explanation, as well as where his/her/their methodology would be limited in some way.Thus evo and abio can be considered bounds to theological descriptions. Or of course one could take it in the total opposit direction and say one is not limiting God, but rather eliminating all of our fatuous concepts of what God is and does and closing in on how he in fact works his miracles. Thus they become binding of our stupidity and ignorance, and not of God's miraculousness.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I'm depressed. I thought I did a decent job making a clear and nonoffensive response. Your reply essentially ignored all of my points.This is going to be my second try at going over it again. If you choose to ignore my point to reassert your position, I won't waste my time on any more of this... It may very well be their view. I am not going to get into an argument about what they actually said, or meant. From what you wrote (if it is true) then that seems to be what they meant. So let's run with that assumption.My point was, so what? There definitely are atheists which mistakenly believe that evolution and abio means God is disproved. That does not mean that is actually what evolution and abio mean for God, or what they say.For a guy that draws lines between Catholics and Protestants who use the same book, its hard for me to understand how you do not get that that may be true for science. There can be scientists, even prominent ones, who say things that are not accurate. My answer addressed this.Yes evolution alone would not remove Gods as they may have been instrumental in forming first life. Evolution only addresses diversity, and it may very well be true that we find mechanisms later which are guided (though clearly there are none that way now). Evolution does restrict the nature of how God makes changes.Abio would address initial creation, but also does not remove God.I said quite clearly and I will say it again. They only remove the necessity of using God as an explanation, not the possibility.In any case these do reduce the nature of how Gods act, that is it reduces the scope of where we should look for where they might be involved in effecting life. The Pope and all his Bishops and Cardinals are prominent Xians, do what they say say anything about what you think as a Xian?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Right... which to you does not mean what Xianity and Xian doctrine is. You view them as a group of people, though quite prominent, who express and errant interpretation of a set of statements.Now just move that idea over to what you saw. Only to their own adherents, just like the Pope and his men to their followers, but not to you and a great number of other Xians. I'm not going to get into a discussion of evolutionary theory with you, but you are not being accurate here. Yes there is no evidence that mutations MUST be from some random factor. There are plenty of evolutionary theorists that suggest there may be underlying mechanisms for mutations. And there are evo theorists which discount mutation as the sole source of change.The point is that right now there is no indication of external forces changing biological entities in some willful manner. Changes appear to be a product of mechanisms within the physical reproductive process.Could we learn more later? Yes. But we can't simply posit them as likely or known.I am an agnostic atheist and I am telling you that evolution and abiogenetic theory do not in any way shape or form act to deny Gods or aliens or whatever creative forces which can be imagined. It is simply that those entities are not necessary for the theories at this time.Anyone which uses such theories as "proof" that Gods don't exist are being inaccurate. And no such people instructed me in such conclusions throughout my science training, nor have any that I have heard (like Dawkins) changed my opinion about what it says or what the data is.At best you have shown that some atheists really do misuse scientific findings and theories... whoop dee do. That's why people should be careful when listening to anyone, including scientists.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh... isn't that what I said from my first post to you? I didn't even wait for the transcript and just assumed you were correct.Ned and I think some others did as well, and certainly Percy was doing so (I thought it was pretty obvious) once he had the transcript.Why are you making things out to be worse than they are? From my first post I went into that very subject. Among some, not all. But then that is true for many people. The next important question is what does that mean for their scientific work? And the answer is pretty much nothing.Newton had many prejudicial, unscientific thoughts. They did not interfere with some of his greatest works. It is in the way that science is conducted and NOT the background beliefs which are important.And if you disagree with that then you are disagreeing with the entire ID movement. That is one of their mantras, and it is within the transcripts by ID proponents at the Dover trial.You showed to guys saying some incorrect things on a tv program, do you have any evidence that it is within their work? If you claim you do not need to, you slit the throat of ID at the same time. It is surprising that such large figures would, but that just goes to show people can have some mistaken ideas and so one cannot make Appeals to Authority.That is why it is a Fallacy which is not part of the scientific method.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Presented where exactly? In the research? In the conclusions from the research? Or is it just in how it gets discussed by some people?Presented covers a large area.Also I have not seen you flesh out your thesis by drawing a connection between what these men have said and anything else. That they have said X does not inherently support your thesis. It certainly doesn't hurt, but it doesn't complete the job by a long shot.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)