I think you're missing the point. I'm not sure what Randman has been arguing, but from my own reading of the transcript it seems clear to me that Watson and Wilson are not speaking personally but logically, basing their view on their understanding of what Darwin showed. YOu can argue with their logic if you like, but it isn't just a matter of them giving a personal opinion. They are saying that Darwin actually showed that there is no need for a Designer. Later they qualify this to eliminate a personal God who "interferes" in the biological processes, which may leave it open for a less personal God in some capacity or other.
no, you don't seem to get what i mean, i mean from thier view it is a logic impossiblity,its still a view point its not carved in stone and my point is they do not speak for all evolution scientists, they think there is no designer, but its only two people
my point is this is dithering over someones views to make it look like this is how everyone thinks in this field
I think there are arguments against this, but just as stated, what they are saying doesn't allow that anyone else could rationally believe in a creator God.
yes, so what?, this has never been a problem for anyone. i think this topic is degenerating into circles
™ Version 4.2
