Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

No, I can't. But I think that I can do naturalism justice with: "Things just are."

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)

quote:

---

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.

---

Science, and scientific theory, is advanced through working with what we do know rather than waiting until some unreachable time in the future when we will sometime have perfect knowledge of "all mechanisms for mutation".Thus far, all of the known mechanisms for mutations are random; at least, none of them have been shown to be directed, and certainly none have them have been shown to be other than naturalistically-driven.Similarly, we understand very little regarding gravity, yet we continue to use the knowledge we do have in the development of technology and in physics.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah, all of those sneaky, lying Biologists and their evil plan to deceive the world.Crashfrog's wife is either so stupid she can't tell that everything she's been learning and doing for the last 5 years or so is completely wrong, or she's part of the dastardly plan to convince the rest of the world that the hundreds of thousands of Biologists, Geneticists, and about a dozen other fields of life science professionals are really doing good science when they are actually all a bunch of fraudulent liars.quote:

Okay, let's go back to the OP. You're recollection is incorrect. Wilson's "lengthy statement" was maybe 20 seconds, and it wasn't a statement but a reply to Rose asking what was Darwin's most significant accomplishment. And after Watson's concurring comment, "That there was no designer," it wasn't Wilson who spoke again, but Rose, who said, "That there was no creator." Wilson's very next comment was to pay a compliment to Watson, saying that he felt the discovery of the structure of DNA was right up there with Darwin's uncovering of the mechanisms behind evolution. Wilson never said that "life had 'risen autonomously'", and the discussion was never about the origin of life.So in light of this, let's examine your next comment: Wilson's and Watson's brief replies to Rose's question at the very beginning of the program were not addressed to the question of how life arose. Darwin's theory of evolution did not address the question of the origin of life. It addressed the question of the origin of species. Wilson, with Watson concurring, was saying that Darwin's most significant accomplishment was more socio-cultural than scientific. Unraveling the mechanisms behind evolution was a towering scientific accomplishment, but it had a significant social and cultural impact that extended far beyond scientific circles. Origin of Species was a best seller in its time.But it's minor point that you're wrong that the discussion ever touched on the origin of life. You're primary point is that these scientists believe that the theory of evolution implies that there is no God, and these scientists, Watson and Wilson, do absolutely believe that, as is made clear in this portion of the interview: So a transcript of the interview strongly supports the primary premise of your OP, that Darwinism implies "No God". They don't get specific, so it's hard to uncover any shades of meaning, but the comments were made in the context of the Creation/evolution controversy, so by "No God" they could mean "no Christian God of the Old Testament." Or they could mean "No God at all." I don't know, I'm not familiar with Wilson's and Watson's religious beliefs.A more accurate scientific statement would say that the theory of evolution provides no scientific support for the account of creation in the Old Testament and that from a scientific perspective it suggests that it is extremely unlikely to be an accurate account of events.And so I think you've satisfactorily proven the primary primise of this thread. If you want to discuss other things like the randomness of mutations then I think you should open another thread.--Percy

no, that's not right. because naturalism is about a search for natural explanations, something your description leaves out.the point is that it's not a proper use of occam's razor.

---

אָרַח

"it does itself"How does that not cover the search for natural explanations? it's one noun form simpler than the other, doesn't rule out anything discoverable, insists that the truth is theoretically knowable, and summarizes the science synthesis in one sharp note.

Percy, let's get the facts straight. One said "no designer" but in a longer statement (compared to the "no designer" comment, and another summarized and just said "No Designer." It's pretty darn clear what they meant. I don't have the transcript, but I remember the word autonomously, but what does it matter since you admit he also used the term "independently." The intent and meaning is clear. Why deny it? I recent years, evos have worked very hard to separate spontaneous generation from the whole evo myth story, but it was part of the myth-making from the beginning as it is today as evidenced by the comment "independently." OK, I hadn't read down this far before making the posts above. I think we agree then, and are on topic with the OP. Let me say I agree that one can accept ToE and accept a Creator, Designer, God or whatever. I completely disagree with their analysis.At the same time, I think they are expressing the philosophical underpinnings of evolutionary theory; that evolutionary theory is essentially a philosophical assertion defining the data rather than the other way around, and that the evidence for and against evolution has historically been non-objective due to this belief system of prominent evos who have had such an influence in science from Darwin's time until today. As such, evolutionism is a hybrid of scientific and religious beliefs.If you want to argue it need not be, I agree. At the same time other than a very few evos like Michael Ruse, I don't see any impetus within the evolutionist community to divorce it's anti-religious prejudices and philosophical underpinnings from the science side, and imo, the science is thus deeply corrupted. That assumes you know what the Old Testament says. Imo, the account of creation in the OT is fully consistent with several different models. The simple fact of the matter is the OT is incomplete and imprecise in some areas which were not the purpose of the Law. For example, the Big Bang is very consistent with "Let there be light..".The way I see it science is in a primitive state, not fully caught up with the word of God, and so scientists, reasoning from imperfect knowledge and from faulty understandings of the Bible, make egregious errors in their claims.The truth is the Bible is not inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution (except it's atheist claims and claims of randomness) nor with Young Earth Creationism. The Bible is not sufficiently detailed to exclude one or the other, except the random and atheist claims of evos, which are not empirically-based anyway, but are philisophically-based.

It would seem that one can't even agree with you without starting an argument.--Percy

Come on Percy. I admitted that I hadn't read your whole post but was responding as I read it, when the first comments came out.And you were reluctantly agreeing, still stopping to point out first that in your opinion, I was wrong, when basically you were getting around to saying I was right in the OP.I commend you for having the courage to admit these guy's stance here, something few others have been willing to do, but shouldn't their stance just be admitted to up-front. The MO on this board for most of evos here tends to be to contest every fact, however small, in an attempt to thwart any critic's argument. That doesn't promote any discussion and basically produces a very hostile response, ever more so as it becomes clear the evo response is less than genuine.What I would hope for is more evos to come out and blast their fellow evos for this practice and say, hey, let's move past challenging the obvious and admit, yep, these guys think Darwin's contribution is to suggest no God or no Designer, and then get into the relavance of that.I think it's patently obvious there is considerable prejudicial, unscientific reasoning among prominent evolutionists that form the primary bulk of support for evolution.Am I wrong to try to push the conversation to considering that?You've got to admit that it is suprising to hear such prominent evos make such a public claim on the significance of Darwin.

Hey, Rand, I agreed with you awhile ago to. These "guys" think that thre is no god. They think that one of the reasons why someone might think a god exists is closed by the evolutionary explanation. There, is that clear enough. I agree with you on that.I also agree with them.I told you; if you don't like people using things we learn as an attack on your small god then don't stuff him into gaps that can be closed. It is no wonder that you (plural) give the real Christians the heebeegeebees.And I disagree totally with your paranoid ravings that the reason for evolutionary science is to attack your god. That is just a side affect that you have created. Frankly, I don't give a damm.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-17-2005 11:07 PM

Another all-fluff and noise and no substance post from Ned. You're on a roll man,...heck, even defending "the real Christians" now.

I notice that your responses have absolutely no content. You choose not to point out where there is anything wrong with what I say.Do you think that you aren't preaching a god-of-the-gaps theology? Do you understand what the weaknesses inherent in that are?Those Christians that I defend are also ones that I know best and act most like the Christ is supposed to have wanted. It isn't only your science, logic and reading abilities that are wanting.

I have never preached a God of the gaps, and as far as the fossil record, which you seem intent on inserting here, the so-called gaps are so wide, more like 99.99%, that it is insulting to label the missing data as mere gaps and imo, quite dishonest to do so since the gap terminology suggests that a sizeable percentage of the "links" have been found when the exact opposite is the case.If by gap, you merely mean unexplained stuff, once again, you are completely wrong, as usual. First, showing where evos use false data is not arguing gaps but correcting ignorance and error. Secondly, as far as God is concerned, I take the opposite stance and believe and state that He uses all mechanisms. That is, in fact, what cavediver objects to; that I see God's principles in nature such as quantum mechanics.

Even if the ToE is thrown out, anyone with half a brain can see you are making a god of the gaps.You wan't your god to fill the 'gap' left over by throwing out the ToE. That's nice. But why not fill it with another god?Why not have a theory that Invisble Gnomes 'pop' things into existance randomly? And that QM is gouverned by an irate penguine in another dimension. Those seem like nice theories to me. Much more interesting than some sky man.This message has been edited by Yaro, 12-18-2005 01:24 AM

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.