|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Darwinism Equal "No God"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
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, AW This message has been edited by AdminWounded, 15-Dec-2005 10:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I think they were errant in claiming it means there was NO creator. Well, I would agree that the evidence in anyway means there is no Creator, but that was their view of Darwin and evolution.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6023 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Hey randman,
Have you tried to find a transcript of the show? This could potentially be an interesting discussion, but I don't see the point if we can't discuss what was actually said. I checked Charlie Rose and found a discussion forum with topics regarding Wilson/Watson, but no transcripts. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. How does saying there is no designer assert atheism? Please provide the quote from the transcript where they said there was no creator. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
The transcript is available at a cost. $9.95 will get the transcript emailed to you.
At the top of the home page is a nav bar that lists "DVD/Tapes & Transcripts" Show date is 12-14-2005, Topic is " A LOOK AT THE LIFE & WORK OF CHARLES DARWIN" Asgara "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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... 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Maybe someone else saw it here at EVC forum and can comment?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024