Thread: The Expanding Universe and Intelligent Design

Originally Posted by darth omar

I think you missed his. He was saying [to the effect] that 'evolution-doubting' isn't confined to ID'ers or Creatioists.

Lynn Margulis is a prime example of a notable evolutionary biologist who has severe doubts about Darwinism.

I think she called it 'a twentieth century religious sect'.

The lie that any but a tiny handful of fringe characters in scientific fields support ID has been debunked repeatedly - most amusingly by Project Steve. Nothing in your post addresses the post of mine you are supposedly responding to. Margulis' criticisms are of gradualism and are similar to points made by steven jay gould in his support for a punctuated equilibrium model of evolution. She has no doubts that evolution is a fact but she believes symbiosis rather than natural selection to be the main engine of evolution. Of course she also believes AIDS is not a virus but a variation of syphilis so she is s fringe voice on more than evolution.

Originally Posted by JustDee

Absolutely. He is an atheist that uses evolution to propagate his atheism. The science exist outside of his use of it and its the science that proves the point whether you are an atheist or not.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The theory of evolution does not support atheism. Religious faith in a supernatural being is not amenable to any scientific debate since scientific enquiry by definition addresses only natural phenomena and causes. So I see no way that evolution can be used to "propagate" atheism.

Originally Posted by timj219

I'm not sure this is accurate. The theory of evolution does not support atheism. Religious faith in a supernatural being is not amenable to any scientific debate since scientific enquiry by definition addresses only natural phenomena and causes. So I see no way that evolution can be used to "propagate" atheism.

The scientific evidence for evolution proves evolution. The proofs of evolution are a part of the argument and not the whole argument, but they definitely do help. Does evolution alone disprove the existence of god? No. It is a piece of the collection of evidence that does.

Originally Posted by JustDee

The scientific evidence for evolution proves evolution. The proofs of evolution are a part of the argument and not the whole argument, but they definitely do help. Does evolution alone disprove the existence of god? No. It is a piece of the collection of evidence that does.

I find that very interesting. Exactly how does a discipline which by definition only examines natural phenomena and natural causes disprove the existence of a supernatural being?

Originally Posted by timj219

The lie that any but a tiny handful of fringe characters in scientific fields support ID has been debunked repeatedly - most amusingly by Project Steve. You continue to illustrate my points in a way I could never do.

Actually, Darth is right: You can't see it because your firm faith in naturalism blinds you to what I was saying. But the fact is, you don't have to be committed to Intelligent Design to see many of the flaws in Darwin's theory.

For example, both Charles Darwin and his mentor, Charles Lyell, believed that when seeking causes for past events, we should be looking for causes currently in operation. Darwin violated that in his theory of evolution... something he recognized later in his work (but did not disavow the result of it).

Further, your chronic statements that something that has been asserted here "has been debunked repeatedly" is laughable as a construct of argument. FTR, and just so it's been said so that you are without excuse, you saying it doesn't make it accurate.

Originally Posted by JustDee

Absolutely. He is an atheist that uses evolution to propagate his atheism. The science exist outside of his use of it and its the science that proves the point whether you are an atheist or not.

“There is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first life.” –Richard Dawkins

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all? -Richard Dawkins

Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.-Richard Dawkins

But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. -Richard Dawkins

It is my observation of Richard Dawkins that his hatred of theology (and/or God) derives from some past harsh experience. His virulence against it blinds him to exploring truth regardless of the source but, of course, pursuing truth is clearly not his aim... as you note, propagating atheism is.

Originally Posted by Good1

Actually, Darth is right: You can't see it because your firm faith in naturalism blinds you to what I was saying. But the fact is, you don't have to be committed to Intelligent Design to see many of the flaws in Darwin's theory.

For example, both Charles Darwin and his mentor, Charles Lyell, believed that when seeking causes for past events, we should be looking for causes currently in operation. Darwin violated that in his theory of evolution... something he recognized later in his work (but did not disavow the result of it).

Further, your chronic statements that something that has been asserted here "has been debunked repeatedly" is laughable as a construct of argument. FTR, and just so it's been said so that you are without excuse, you saying it doesn't make it accurate.

I certainly don't need you to point out that evolutionary theory - like every scientific theory - has flaws. But the flaws will be addressed through scientific inquiry - not religious mumbo jumbo.
I've supplied links to sites that debunk the nonsense you've posted here. And I've quoted Behe and discovery institute statements that explicitly expose ID as non science and as a strategy for the spread of a particular religious dogma. I know you will never read any of the sites I suggested to you. And as I've said I have no problem with your decision to remain ignorant of science. My only problem with creationists is the disrepute they bring on all people of faith by using the admitted lie of ID to promote their religion.

Originally Posted by timj219

I find that very interesting. Exactly how does a discipline which by definition only examines natural phenomena and natural causes disprove the existence of a supernatural being?

By consistently examining each supposed example and proving it wrong. Every time someone claims god did it evidence is found to the contrary. Or you can just keep moving the bar and narrowing the gaps to provide space for god despite continuing evidence to the contrary. How far will you bend god to keep believing in its existence?

How narrow will you make the gaps for god before you can't see them anymore?

I don't particularly care if you realize it. I stopped giving a shit a while ago because the arguments are always the same and they never prove a thing.

What would the purpose of god be?
What would the purpose of a designer be?
Can things be explained without relying on superstition? If they can then why insist on reworking reality to make it fit "your" preconception that there just has to be a god.

Originally Posted by Good1

There is one chance in There is only one chance in 10 to the 164th power variations of amino acids of finding a functional protein by chance. Yet "you" would rather have faith that chance did it than have faith that an intelligence outside of ourselves did it.

Chance and physical conditions aren't the same thing. The chance in favor of amino acids assembling into a functional protein may indeed be 1 in 10^164 given all possible variations of the amino acids alone but the amino acids had other chemicals and energies present during very long time spans. No designer was needed, a low probability which is made lower by not knowing all the variables in place is not evidence of design.

Originally Posted by JustDee

The scientific evidence for evolution proves evolution. The proofs of evolution are a part of the argument and not the whole argument, but they definitely do help. Does evolution alone disprove the existence of god? No. It is a piece of the collection of evidence that does.

Science shows how physical reality functions it no more proves or disproves the existence of gods than misplaced notions of irreducible complexity demonstrate the hand of god.

Originally Posted by Good1

It is my observation of Richard Dawkins that his hatred of theology (and/or God) derives from some past harsh experience. His virulence against it blinds him to exploring truth regardless of the source but, of course, pursuing truth is clearly not his aim... as you note, propagating atheism is.

It is my observation that this is one of the prime answers to atheist from believers. I have heard it over and over again. You don't believe in god so you must have had something bad happen to you and blamed god. It can never be that the person observed and studied until they came to the conclusion that god was unreal. It always makes being an atheist a reaction instead of an action.

Why don't I believe in god? I don't believe in god because years and years of searching failed to reveal any evidence other than wishful human thinking. I started out as a believer. In fact, I started out as what would now be considered Holiness. As I grew older and learned more I discovered that many of the things I had been taught were false. I branched out into different forms of Christianity trying to find god because I desperately wanted justification for my beliefs. As the gaps became smaller and smaller I branched out into such things as Hinduism, paganism and universalism trying to keep my faith in god. Never, not even once, despite how much I prayed or meditated did anything remotely resembling god become apparent to me. Eventually, I started thinking that there was something wrong with me personally since I couldn't perceive any thing supernatural and so many people said they could. It took me years to realize that perhaps, just perhaps, the reason I couldn't perceive anything that there wasn't anything to perceive.

So much wasted time and wasted energy and wasted money all to backup my faith that there just had to be a god-force out there. Guess what? There isn't and everyone who insist their is are just deluding themselves.

So I set myself a task. There are so many problems that need solving with actual solutions that people wasting time on religious answers are doing humanity a disservice. I will counter the claims of the religious with facts and logic whenever possible. I doesn't matter whether the believers will accept it. What matters is countering the lies.

What Darth Omar claims as evil I claim with pride. I am an atheist. I am a humanist. I am a materialist. Why, because these are the facts. There is no need for god, or any designer, as an explanation for the existence of the universe or life.

I have the backup of testable and provable evidence. The religious believer does not. They only have evidence that relies on "faith" or "supernatural" which isn't any evidence at all.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Chance and physical conditions aren't the same thing. The chance in favor of amino acids assembling into a functional protein may indeed be 1 in 10^164 given all possible variations of the amino acids alone but the amino acids had other chemicals and energies present during very long time spans. No designer was needed, a low probability which is made lower by not knowing all the variables in place is not evidence of design.

The name escapes me at the moment, but at least some experimentation was done to see if irradiating (as I recall, electrically charging) inert gasses could result in the creation of an amino acid.

It did, indeed, create two or three amino acids... but the gasses that were energized weren't any that were likely around at the point of creation AND creation of amino acids is not the real issue: Getting them to arrange themselves into a functional protein is the issue against which the odds are stacked.

So we're not really talking about physical properties here. As I've said previously, "you" are willing to put your faith in the 1 in 10^164 probability that something will happen by chance, I'm not.

Originally Posted by timj219

I'm not sure this is accurate. The theory of evolution does not support atheism. Religious faith in a supernatural being is not amenable to any scientific debate since scientific enquiry by definition addresses only natural phenomena and causes. So I see no way that evolution can be used to "propagate" atheism.

notwithstanding your self-serving definition of science, we should STILL be willing to follow the evidence to wherever it leads us.

"you" shut your inquiry off at your predetermined wall that you have labelled "philosophy" and, thereby, at least potentially miss a lot of evidence.