THe emphasis on "potentially" doesn't change much it seems to me Mod. As you conclude, "it shook the roots of those with weak faith." Yes it certainly did. And they are celebrating this fact.
It shook those with weak faith, its an pretty much an observed historical fact. As athiests they were happy about this (seeing it as an advance for humanity). The point is that they use this kind of language quite a bit 'in my view' 'potentially' 'seems' etc.
I had a problem with this idea of a God who "interferes" but I think this relates to a conception of divine creation they had in those days {abe: Darwin's time, that is} that we no longer have. I don't know if they've updated their understanding of creationism. But otherwise I'm not sure I'm getting what you want noticed in this segment.
The God who interferes is more referring to the more modern theistic evolution I'd have thought. The things I was trying to bring to your attention?
1) Watching the show fills in a lot of gaps, most communication is lost without tone and body language.
2) Watson says '
I don't BELIEVE it at all.' - clearly his own view of things, not a logical conclusion from science.
Yes, of course, everything is an opinion, but his opinion is about an objective judgment of the logical conclusion from Darwin's work, that anyone who continues to believe in a designer (whatever they mean by that) is just terribly foolish (indicated by his headshaking) because the evidence is so powerful against such an idea
Its nothing to do with logical conclusions. To Watson it's 'just whacko' to think that a God interferes with DNA. To Watson, it is clear he doesn't think its necessary to posit such a thing any more than it is to imagine God interfering with radioactive decay.
The usual uninformed notion of what Christianity teaches at the least.
They didn't even address what Christianity teaches. He actually prefixed this with another subjectivism 'I think'. Its a simplification on humanities deep need for explanation.
And the usual seat-of-the-pants hypothesis about how religion originated, for which there isn't an iota of evidence.
He doesn't present it as something with evidence, he clearly puts it out as his opinion. Its only a few sentences prefixed with 'I think'.
Nor do I. Who said what they said was controversial? I don't know why there is any controversy at all
Randman seems to think it was controversial.
randman writes:
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.
In a sense so am I, although I guess believers are always offended at the aggressive way science supposedly disposes of belief
Science doesn't dispose belief, it just doesn't require it. Which is a good thing. I'd hate to think that relativity would be delayed because Einstein believed in the wrong God.
Well here we part company. To me it is open and shut that this is what they are saying, and the fact that you don't see it is probably the answer to the question why there is such a controversy about all this. I don't see how you DON'T see this is what they are saying.
The reason I don't see it, is because they don't actually say it, and I'm not big on putting words in peoples mouth. One of my big points here is that I was beginning to accept randman and you's interpretation of what was being said. Then I actually watched the show, and my impression of what was being communicated changed, in spite of my expectation.
I fear you have descended to a sort of jesuitical hairsplitting. They are so definite that Darwinism excludes a Designer I can't imagine why you feel the need to claim they are saying anything else.
Its not hairsplitting. They said that humanity was faced with a dilemma - the idea that there was potentially no designer. It's another scene that really needs watching to appreciate. In the end, watching the whole show it is clear that the distinction is definite. They are NOT saying that proper understanding requires rejecting belief, they are saying that belief is not required for proper understanding. The two things are very different.
You don't need to be supersticious to have proper understanding of maths. Maths doesn't reject supersticion.
Why did you expect to hear that? I wouldn't have expected that. I picture a couple of respected scientists just simply airing the views they've had all their lives, and they believe Darwinism made belief in a Designer impossible for a thinking person who understands what Darwin did. I find nothing at all controversial about that idea. It's what everybody I knew believed once upon a time.
I expected to hear that from the plain text that was being quoted at EvC and what was being said about it.
The controversy is over whether they really believe that Darwin put the permanent kibosh on belief in a Designer or not. I think they really believe that; you and others don't though it seems to me you have to resort to jesuitical nitpicking to make your case.
The question remains, if they thought that Darwin 'put a kibosh on belief' why didn't they say that? Why did they say that Darwinism puts humanity in a 'different light, namely as potentially having arisen by this...uncontrolled or un-designed process on our own on this planet, independently'. Why didn't they say '...namely because Darwin shows we have arisen by this uncontrolled or un-designed process on our own on this planet, independently' or something.
I'm not nitpicking and I'm not trying to make a case. Seriously, I watched the show and couldn't see anything like what randman was saying they were saying. That's what I was saying. Darwinism doesn't exclude God anymore than any other piece of science, Lord of The Rings, The Beatles, or fridge magnets.
I really recommend you watch the show before coming the conclusions about what they are trying to communicate. I'm sure you will happily admit your bias, you already think that Darwinism/evolution explicitly rejects God, so I'm not sure that you'll change your mind by watching the show.
The thing is, I don't care if evolution or Darwinism rejects God. I turned away from Christianity because it spoke nothingness into my soul and after experimenting with many other religions found one that actually resonated with my being. Approaching it from this angle (with a slight bias against the scientists by what had been suggested by randman), I changed my mind easily. They weren't saying what rand and you seems to think they were saying. I really looked hard for it, and my first post on this thread was from that point of view, it just isn't there on the tape though.
We have potentially got here without a designer.
No designer.
I don't believe that a divine being interferes with DNA evolution
When you look at DNA it seems whacko to think of anyone interfering
Everything seems much simpler without God.
These are not the words of people who are trying to tell you that Darwinism logically excludes the concept of God. They are the words of people who don't believe, and don't understand why people want to complicate science by trying to include an interfering God.
™ Version 4.2
