Darwin and Gray

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, one is talking about the personal opinion of one man,


[/ QUOTE ]

This is my last attempt. The one man was the man most responsible for the theory. And he more than disagreed that evolution was divinely guided. He believed that biologicaly diversity could be completely explained by his theory, that natural selection and its results were undesigned. There's no other word for it but atheism. It's true that he sometimes wavered in that he had no explanation for beauty, etc., and he described himself as an agnostic. But if you maintain that the universe and it's apparent design is wholly attributable to natural causes with no divine purpose, intervention or design that is indistinguisable from atheism.

[David Sklansky]

Once again both sides are confused. If evolution could account for what we see, it does decrease the chances that some sort of designer exists. At least as far as life on Earth is concerned. It is simple math that stems from the obvious fact that if evolution cannot account for all life then that designer is more likely. On the other hand there is no way of calculating how MUCH the fact that evolution COULD account for life means that it DID account for life. In other words even if you evolution can't be disproved doesn't mean its the true explanation.

The second question, the one that actually concerns Not Ready, is whether the truth of evolution implies God didn't have a hand in it. The answer is again no.

This is all logic 101.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand there is no way of calculating how MUCH the fact that evolution COULD account for life means that it DID account for life.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is new. Something Bayes can't handle. Wow.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again both sides are confused. If evolution could account for what we see, it does decrease the chances that some sort of designer exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Methink you're a bit confused if you think anyone denies that. However even if evolution can account for everything we see it doesn't imply atheism which is Notreadys fear.

and even if we cannot account for everything we see with evolution it doesn't imply theism. Further even if evolution cannot in principle account for everything we see that doesn't imply theism either.

Though we can always make up some ps and qs.

chez

[LCposter]

I think JHawk nailed it on the head when he noted that one problem in this discussion is the presumption that contradicting the Genesisl story of creation implies atheism. Certainly theists can still attribute much to God (e.g. creating souls, rewarding good and punishing evil, rewarding faith, even being actively involved in daily human events) without requiring that He divinely guided the progression of the universe or the development of varied species of life.

If it seems contradictory, imagine God as a gardener who planted a seed and takes pleasure in watching it grow. He can actively water the plant or let nature takes its course.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
The one man was the man most responsible for the theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
The opinion of one man, even the man responsible for the theory, does not matter as to what the theory says. Darwin believing (notice the verb choice) that evolution implies atheism carries no more weight than you believing it does. The authority of science does not rest with scientists, only with verifiable, objective evidence.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think JHawk nailed it on the head when he noted that one problem in this discussion is the presumption that contradicting the Genesisl story of creation implies atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its the same mistake oft repeated with pascals's wager. Many religous folk think its their version of their religon or no god.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

However even if evolution can account for everything we see it doesn't imply atheism which is Notreadys fear.


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. The point is atheists say it does, preach that it does, teach that it does. The point is that the conflict is due to that stance by atheists. You can show all day long why they are wrong to be dogmatic about atheism. But if they continue to preach and teach it you shouldn't be surprised when there's a conflict.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The authority of science does not rest with scientists, only with verifiable, objective evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really tiresome. Tell it to Dawkins, et al.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

However even if evolution can account for everything we see it doesn't imply atheism which is Notreadys fear.


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. The point is atheists say it does, preach that it does, teach that it does. The point is that the conflict is due to that stance by atheists. You can show all day long why they are wrong to be dogmatic about atheism. But if they continue to preach and teach it you shouldn't be surprised when there's a conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]
so complain about the stance taken by these atheists.

Don't say that Darwinism implies atheism but agree with us that it doesn't and save your criticism for those atheists who wrongly say it does. I'll sign up for that campaign, as far as I can see just about everyone here agrees about it.

chez