Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

No, Randman, I am not wrong. I am sorry if your children's encyclopaedia failed to put spontaneous generation in context, but it is a type of abiogenesis, now disproven, that held that living matter sprang spontaneously from non-living matter, such as that feces give rise to flies or that dirty water gives rise to microbes. By your use of the term I was unsure whether you were unfamiliar with the history behind spontaneous generation, or if you were being derisive by claiming that modern biologists hold to a long-ago disproven theory.You said you looked it up in a 1990's Worldbook, so here is the definition from WorldBook Online: How is it possible that they could be so right in 2005 and so wrong in that long ago era of the 1990s? Hmmmm. I did agree with you, and still do, about the basic premise of your opening post. Both Wilson and Watson do appear to believe that the theory of evolution leads to the conclusion that there is no designer who directly created the first life or who interfered with life chemistry to cause evolution. Whether or not they believe it means there is no creator is not something they addressed in the program.But as nwr made clear, and as I assumed you already understood or I would have pointed it out myself, there are many scientists who believe in both God and evolution. Almost none of these God-believing scientists believe that God controls evolution (Behe is an example of a scientist who does).You seem to be mistaking my agreement with your premise to be in some way absolute. I wrote a lot of words, and I quoted Wilson using the word "potentially" when he first stated his belief that evolution implies "no designer". I pointed out to Jar that your title shouldn't be interpreted as fully defining the topic, that your OP should serve that purpose, and I remind you of the same thing. I definitely do not agree with the thread's title.But I do agree with much of what you said in the OP. Despite your errors in insisting they talked about the origin of life and in terms they didn't use, and despite you're wandering off your own topic, your basic point that some scientists reach atheistic conclusions from evolution is accurate. But that doesn't include all scientists by any means, and you seem to keep forgetting that we're talking about the socio-cultural impact of evolution, not the science of evolution.--Percy

An appeal to Occam's reputation/popularity eh? I am not necessary, when it comes to washing your underwear. It doesn't mean I don't exist, or that you can infer my none-existence. Fair enough? (The universe won't fall apart if you/anyone agrees with mike). The razor alone, doesn't allow you to infer God is overall, unnecessary. Just that he is not necessary when it comes to evolution.God might not be required for evolution. True. Therefore he is not parsimonious WHEN looking at evolution. Therefore I am not arguing against Occam's razor. But Occam's razor doesn't allow you to conclude anything other than what is unparsimonious in the particular instance.Example;I am not required, and I am un-parsimonius, when it comes to washing your clothes.For all you know, if there was no God, then genesis and evolution could not occur. (cow and sandwhich example in my previous post).God not being necessary equates with me not being necessary in the washing of your underwear. It might be Occam's razor, but does it matter?

If you are looking for evidence for God, you are not going to find it in TOE.Or anywhere else, for that matter.

I never denied the fraud. How many times do I have to agree that the fraud occurred before you understand? Are you that obtuse? I was the one that informed you that the year the fraud was revealed was 100 years earlier than you were claiming! Obviously I admit the fraud occurred.Take it to an appropriate thread and I'll agree with you another dozen times - though I'm sure you'll still argue with me...But back on topic...I don't think you ever answered me on that question I asked you twice (instead you started Haeckeling). The Pope, a prominent Christian, supports the theory of evolution, and it's clear that he means there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

​

You just don't want to own up to that, for some reason.Do you care what the Pope has to say? Or do you make up your own mind based upon evidence?

If you are looking for evidence of No God, you are not going to find it in the ToE, or anywhere else for that matter.

I guess you can say that God works in mysterious ways, but wouldn't you want a little evidence?

They might well mean that, but they might not. I'm sure there are some scientists that do mean "no God" when they say "no Designer", and Wilson and Watson may well be among them, but there was nothing that Wilson or Watson said in that program that leads unambiguously to that conclusion.The point you're trying to make is that evolution leads to atheism, and the fact of the matter is that while that is true for some, it is not true for others. Someone said in a recent post that perhaps what you 're arguing isn't that Darwinism equals "no God", but that Darwinism equals "not your God", and I echoed the same sentiment earlier when I said that Wilson and Watson definitely believe that evolution falsifies the God of the Old Testament. I think you and Faith are in agreement when you say you believe that those who accept both evolution and God are not true Christians.--Percy

I know. I read your outline.I asked you to reference an assertion in that outline.Please provide reference for your claim that Darwinism caused millions of Christians to lose faith. Wrong.Science is the study of the natural world.God is supernatural. I definitely need a reference on this claim. Please provide an instance where scientists have studied God. I never said theologians made him up - maybe you should reread my previous post. The theologians in question put a limit on God's abilities because they themselves have simplistic minds. Said theologians mislead their followers by suggesting that the fact the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that fact that evolution takes place, somehow negate God. Neither is true, obviously. Do you have so little imagination and faith that you think God is too much of a simpleton to incorporate evolution into His creation? And how exactly, praytell, would that work in a practical sense?

A better effort at staying on-topic would be appreciated.This message has been edited by Admin, 12-19-2005 06:32 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Rose didn't ask about the scientific significance of Darwinism. He just asked about the significance. Obviously, both Wilson and Watson thought the socio-cultural effects more significant than the scientific ones. There is no doubt that they're not speaking scientifically. If you go to the scientific papers of Wilson and Watson you won't read anything about designers or creators or God. What they stated on Rose's program are their personal non-scientific opinions. This would be an interesting topic of discussion if you would like to propose a thread for it. It's off topic here.--Percy

I am not sure of your Christian beliefs. However, a prominant belief in Christianity is that God does not cause you to do things in your life yet knows what you will do.I cannot speak for jar either, but perhaps this is close to what he means. God created the universe with it's laws and then allowed it to continue on its own. He knew that we would be a result but did not interfere with the process.God created the universe and, by His hand, we and everything else became.I know, OT, but I couldn't get in on the great debate.

You are wise to be skeptical. Once again Randman is in error. Watson and Wilson definitely did not state that the significance of Darwinism was the claim of no Designer. Obviously they wouldn't say this since Darwinism makes no such claim.I transcribed the relevant parts of the broadcast. A short portion appears in Message 63, but here it is again: I presented a longer transcript of another relevant portion in Message 79 that I won't reproduce here.--Percy

Well, on a personal level, I am convinced God does exist. I am just willing and able to say that my convinctions are irrelevant, objectively, as my personal experiences don't prove God.Sure, I'll admitt that it would be nice to have evidence. But then I wouldn't need to believe I suppose.

Thanks for catching me up, Percy. It seems that so many on the creo/ID side can spot a tentative term a mile away when it is attached to a statement they disapprove of, yet can ignore tentativity completely when it suits their purpose.By the way, I think you recently made an important statement worth highlighting: Hopefully randman and Faith understand the difference.

Yes, it would. And what do we find with TOE?We find a world in which in order to survive life forms have to feed on other life forms. We find a killing field.

---

We are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.--Matthew Arnold