- ... Of course. But he fails in his/her demonstration and merely asserts the claim. I have never seen an actual demonstration of the necessary atheism ofMessage 1 of 233 , Mar 31 10:23 PMView Source--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Clare Wilson Parr <turandot1125@...> wrote:
>Of course. But he fails in his/her demonstration and merely asserts the claim. I have never seen an actual demonstration of the "necessary" atheism of the theory of evolution, either from a supporter or an opponent of the theory.
> The "atheist interpreter of evolution" refers to the Darwinian theory of
> evolution "to demonstrate that 'the theory of evolution' is necessarily
> The Darwinian theory of evolution, being _sufficient_ to "answerComplete balderdash. The (Darwinian) theory of evolution speaks to no ultimate concern whatsoever. Jim listed the following ultimate concerns:
> man's 'ultimate concerns'" is plainly atheistic.
> 1) Origin: Where did we come from?How many of these does the theory of evolution speak about? Not a one. Zilch, nada, nothing.
> 2) Identity: Who are we?
> 3) Meaning: Why are we here?
> 4) Morality: How should we live?
> 5) Destiny: Where are we going?
Darwinists who can't free
> themselves from the Christian habit of mind can _append_ God, an afterthought,So the atheist claims. But show me any proposition of the theory of evolution that substantiates that claim. There is none. Nothing but a lot of hot air supports the claims that the theory of evolution "slams the cosmic door to the Divine Foot."
> to Darwin's theory of evolution, as you do, and as you yourself have
> acknowledged, but that doesn't alter the fact that the Darwinian theory of
> evolution itself slams the cosmic door to the Divine Foot.
>No, but avoiding the issue doesn't support your claim either. What's deceptive here?
> It's hardly surprising that "you see nothing deceptive" about your own claim,
> now is there?
>Different people take different positions. Not every position I present is one I hold personally. But they are taken by various people who identify themselves as evolutionary creationists. Some evolutionary creationists, for example, believe that although the human race evolved from a common hominid ancestor, there was still a chosen couple known to us as Adam and Eve. Others hold that Adam and Eve are mythological personifications of humanity as a whole. Obviously these are contradictory positions, and no one holds both at the same time, but if I am presenting what evolutionary creation is about, I have to present both (as well as some intermediate theses)as all coming under the umbrella of evolutionary creationism.
> You've ever so helpfully substantiated [again] my contention that your
> OriginsTalk posts are riddled by contradictions.
Miraculous mutations are one way of suggesting how a chance process can be directed to divine purpose. It is not a position I prefer personally. I tend to align myself more with Van Til. But both are legitimate positions within evolutionary creationism.
>So, are you endorsing special creation at some point? If not, I will need a fuller explanation.
> Immediate: Having no intervening medium, _close_ in space and time.
> >I think ultimately we will find that no matter is divorced from spirit. All
> >of it embodies soul or is ensouled, however you choose to look at it.
> Which is panpsychism, panpsychism being another reductionist Darwinian
> absurdity, and a favorite of atheists and materialists: man "evolved" from
> inorganic matter; therefore the seeds of consciousness / spirit are embedded in
> inorganic matter; atoms are proto-minds / spirits. Yawn.
>Interesting to find these two sentiments only a few paragraphs apart. Yes, I like the Aristotelian/Thomistic notion that all creatures are ensouled. Not a common thought in Protestant circles which tend to restrict the idea of soul to the rational/human soul and so deny that any other thing is ensouled.
> All creatures _are_ ensouled: plants are "haunted" by vegetative souls, animals
> by "sensitive" souls, man a "rational" soul. Creatures, however, are animated,
> i.e., living, beings, not mere clouds of atoms.
>I don't see any reason to identify the soul with the intellect.
> Well, unless, you opine, a paragraph or two later, identifying soul and
> intellect is erroneous....
>Yes, and what difference would that make? Obviously we would lack technology and what we choose to call civilization. But what ___biological___difference would it make?
> Hello? The rational soul's "material repercussions" are manifold. Were man's
> not a _rational_ soul, the world we inhabit would be bereft of rational beings.
> The point is that the creature made in God'sObviously.
> image and after his likeness we call a human being / man IS _us_.]
>Reducing manWho is reducing anything? Referring to our anatomical similarities to our cousins as "dehumanizing" is an emotional reaction, like a child saying "Euehh!" on seeing a spider. The fact that we are taxonomically more like apes than like spiders doesn't make us any less human. We are still God's creatures, still made in God's image. It happens that God's image looks like an ape--because biologically we are apes.
> to an ape lookalike only betrays the typical Darwinist proclivity to dehumanize
> man.... Ho. Hum.
>Not at all. By citing only the phrases "a minor detail" ... "a happenstance in a history that might as well have left us out," in the context of your condemnation of Darwinism, you leave the impression that Miller agrees entirely with the position he outlines at the beginning of the section I cited. Namely:
> > >Fourthly, the phrases, "a minor detail" ... "a happenstance in a history that
> > >might as well have left us out," are Kenneth Miller's [_Finding Darwin's God: A
> > >Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution_ / Harper
> > >Collins / 1999], an "authority" you have often cited to underpin your
> > >"evolutionary creationist" theological claims.
> It's "very important to avoid" falsely accusing opponents of quote-mining.
> According to Wikipedia [one of your oft-cited references], "quote mining is use
> of the fallacy of quoting out of context, repeatedly employing misquotation in
> an attempt to skew or contort the meaning and purpose of the original author
> regarding a controversial topic." The p273 quotes you posted VERIFY that the
> phrases I quoted [excerpted from the previous page], are neither out of context
> or misquoted, but faithfully convey the author's "meaning and purpose."
> >But as the following paragraphs make clear, the case is NOT closed and this is not Miller's position.
> >"What follows from this, for skeptic and true believer alike, is a conclusion,
> >the logic of which is rarely challengedthat no God would ever have used such
> >a process to fashion his prize creatures. If it was God's will to produce
> >us, then by showing that we are the products of evolution, we would rule him
> >out as our Creator. Therein lies the value or the danger of evolution. Case
>Right. I was not using "independent" to mean "autonomous". Only to assert that the world is a genuine creation, and not, as some philosophies hold, an extension of the being of God.
> The Christian Creator has sustained the "material universe" and its living
> inhabitants every moment since the first second of the first day, so in fact
> the "material universe" _and_ its living inhabitants are utterly DEPENDENT upon
> their Creator.
> >The Creator of this universe made one in which our evolution over time was aIt is not an assumption, presumptuous or otherwise. It is an observation.
> >contingent possibility.
> That's your presumptuous assumption. So, "why" do _you_ make assumptions about
> what an omniscient, omnicompetent God will or will not do?
>Noting that the question has not been answered.
> >Is "Darwinian chance" something different from "chance"? Does it have special
> >characteristics that put it beyond the reach of God? If so, how does
> >"Darwinian chance" differ from "chance"?
> For the umpteenth time:
> material causes assume efficient causes."Final cause" I know is "telos" in Greek from which we get "teleology". It refers to the eventual purpose for which a thing is made, as a knife is made for cutting. While "efficient cause" I understand as the process by which the knife is made. Wood and mineral are the matter ("material cause" of which it is made, and the specific qualities by which we identify it as a knife are its "formal cause" or essence. I hadn't quite heard the causes related like this i.e. "efficient cause assumes final cause, final cause assumes First Cause" but I take it this is the Thomist formula.
> causes, being intentional and purposeful,
> assume final causes. A final cause
> assumes a First Cause.
>Darwinian evolution is the ONLY "scientific" theory thatDoes no such thing. You may find atheists making such claims, but you won't find any such thing in the Darwinian theory of evolution.
> formally / explicitly proscribes both final and first causes.
>DarwinianWhat is that supposed to mean? A coin lands heads up rather than tails, because it "just happens". An unstable atom emits an electron because it "just happens". A bit of DNA is miscopied because it "just happens". Really---what is unique about "Darwinian randomness"?
> randomness "just happens" because it happens.
Are you looking at evolution or spouting philosophy?
"Chance" = probability /
> likelihood. Darwinian randomness = having no pattern, purpose, organization, orIn the process of evolution, "random" = "chance" = "probability".
> structure; unplanned; without definite aim, direction, rule, or method; without
> a governing design, method, or purpose.
It would seem "Darwinian randomness" is nothing other than an overactive philosophic imagination.
> >All nucleotide substitutions are mutations. That is why those that produceYes, and substitutions are one type of mutation. "Mutation" is a generic term that refers inter alia to substitutions, insertions, deletions, inversions, transpositions, etc. "Substitution" is one specific type of mutation. Hence both phrases "synonymous nucleotide substitution" and "synonymous nucleotide mutation" are correct, with the first being more specific as to the type of mutation.
> >the same amino acid product are referred to as "synonymous mutations".
> Synonymous nucleotide substitutions are referred to as synonymous nucleotide
> Perhaps you were regurgitating typical sneering [and fallacious] DarwinistI don't know why you waste time with this sort of thing. It is always the same back-and-forth. Evolution is a process. Natural selection is a key part of the process. I have never claimed that natural selection is identical to evolution, but you bring the limitations of natural selection up as if I did.
> diatribes because even you can't deny plainly incontrovertible facts:
> Natural selection could, perhaps, explain the survival of species. But the
> claim that natural selection is autonomously creative, that it explains the
> origin, or arrival, as well as the preservation, or survival, of life's essence
> and types and orders is preposterous. Natural selection _culls_; the assertion
> that it's a creative mechanism is equivalent to the assertion that "appearance"
> can be exhaustively explained by "disappearance."
Natural selection is "creative" in the sense that it shapes a species. Mutations are "creative" in the sense that they shape character traits. If you are only thinking of character traits when you think of biological creativity, then obviously you cannot credit that to natural selection. But evolution is a species-level process and the shaping of species is a form of creativity too.
- ... Well, in fact *I* do see, clear as day, the difference between designing a system or process knowing there will be some negative consequences andMessage 233 of 233 , Oct 15, 2009View SourceOn 10/13/2009, gluadys wrote:
>> Second, according to you, it's the epitome of logic to claim:"Well, in fact *I* do see, clear as day, "the difference between designing a system or process knowing there will be some negative consequences and intentionally designing a negative event." That's precisely the point you don't see.
>> the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the panda's thumb, human goose-bumps and ear-wiggling, are not "incompetent, whimsical, cruel" *designs* but UNintentional *features* that "only an incompetent, whimisical or cruel designer would author;"
>> and then to claim in the next breath:
>> "God perpetrated fire, knowing it would burn down forests and homes and even be used to intentionally execute innocent women. God perpetrated atmosphere knowing it would produce hurricanes and tornadoes. God perpetrated tectonic plate motion knowing it would produce earthquakes and tsunamis. God perpetrated the structure of the atom knowing it would be used to produce nuclear bombs." And you "balk at God perpetrating" biological design "because it will produce" WHAT YOU HAVE DECIDED are "some strange biological features--features SOME MIGHT EVALUATE as cruel, incompetent or whimsical" [my emphases]....
>> I'd be awfully worried if you did "see a great deal of consistency in such [my] logic."
>You truly don't see the difference between designing a system or process knowing there will be some negative consequences and intentionally designing a negative event?
It is passing strange that a person who unambiguously admits that God designed fire, "atmosphere," "tectonic plate motion," and the atom at the same time intransigently denies that God designed mites, moles, and man.
>God designs fire knowing it will burn wood and flesh. But God does not intend that a house burn down killing three children in it. God intends, creates, firethe process. God does not intend, create, design a particular lethal fire.Again, you utterly miss the point, imagine a nonexistent disagreement and then argue with a figment of your own imagination. Moreover, you unconsciously admit the very point you think you refute: "the difference between designing a system or process knowing there will be some negative consequences and intentionally designing a negative event...." A giraffe, a panda, and a human person are biological *systems* [a biological system being "a group of physiologically or anatomically related organs or parts], and neither are the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve, the panda's thumb, human goose-bumps and ear-wiggling "events."
>I think that is a clear enough concept.
As has been pointed out to you more than a few times, the -contingent- spatio-temporal world we inhabit is *necessarily* imperfect, not a "Platonic heaven." Whether a person does or doesn't "like" one or the other of the giraffe's, panda's, or human being's biological parts is neither here nor there. What's here and there is that the giraffe, panda, and human being are irreducibly complex, astonishingly functional *wholes*. The whole that is a functional giraffe may *entail* a "15 foot long recurrent laryngeal nerve," just as the functional wholes that are pandas and people may *entail* the "biological features" you have decided are "strange."
>Just apply the same to evolution.Look, if you can't be bothered to read the message you edit and "reply" to, and if you "reply" to the words / figments you've put in my mouth, why bother to "reply?" I wrote:
First, I ask -again- that you quit putting words in my mouth. As anyone who has actually read my OriginsTalk messages knows, I DON'T, HAVE NEVER, "BALK[ED] AT GOD PERPETRATING *EVOLUTION,*" NOR HAVE I EVER "BALK[ED] AT GOD PERPETRATING *EVOLUTION* BECAUSE IT WILL PRODUCE SOME STRANGE BIOLOGICAL FEATURES--FEATURES *SOME MIGHT EVALUATE AS CRUEL, INCOMPETENT OR WHIMSICAL*." IT IS YOU, NOT I, WHO IS ONE OF THOSE WHO INSISTS THAT "SOME BIOLOGICAL FEATURES" ARE "STRANGE" AND IT IS YOU, NOT I, WHO IS ONE OF THOSE WHO DOES "EVALUATE" THOSE "BIOLOGICAL FEATURES" YOU'VE DECIDED ARE "STRANGE "AS CRUEL, INCOMPETENT OR WHIMSICAL."
Those who may actually understand what I've written -because they have comprehensively read what I've written *intending* to understand- will know that I am convinced that the argument from imperfection is fallacious. Period. The end.
>God intends, creates the process by which species evolve. God knows it will produce some strange >biological features. But God does not intentionally create/design a 15 foot long nerve where a 5- inch >one would do the trick.So, you *do* imagine you're "privy to God's methods."
>> >That would seem to imply that all character-traits of humans are strictly biological. Is that your position? Is that the position you think the theory of evolution requires?Does a cockroach or a kitty-cat or a chimp sin?
>> >What about the human characteristic of sinfulness? Is that biological?
>> The world according to Darwin is untainted by sin.
>Incorrect. The theory of evolution does not say that the world is untainted by sin. Nor that the world is tainted by sin. The theory of evolution does not comment on the existence or impact of sin.Darwin's theory of evolution explains sin away. A sin is a self-consciously, freely transgressive human act that estranges the human actor from God. Sin entails that there be universal, objective laws to self-consciously, freely transgress. Impulses and instincts aren't self-conscious, free, universal, or objective. Man's conscience is, according to Darwin, merely an "evolutionary imperative," a feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results ... from any unsatisfied instinct. And: "the ... origin of the moral sense lies in the social instincts, including sympathy; and these instincts no doubt were primarily gained, as in the case of the lower animals, through natural selection." It is man's *self-preservation instinct* that "*naturally* lead[s] to the golden rule:"Those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best and rear the greatest number of offspring."
Charles Darwin, _The Descent of Man_:
At the moment of action, man will no doubt be apt to follow the stronger impulse; and though this may occasionally prompt him to the noblest deeds, it will more commonly lead him to gratify his own desires at the expense of other men. But after their gratification when past and weaker impressions are judged by the ever-enduring social instinct, and by his deep regard for the good opinion of his fellows, retribution will surely come. He will then feel remorse, repentance, regret, or shame; this latter feeling, however, relates almost exclusively to the judgment of others. He will consequently resolve more or less firmly to act differently for the future; and this is conscience; for conscience looks backwards, and serves as a guide for the future. The nature and strength of the feelings which we call regret, shame, repentance or remorse, depend apparently not only on the strength of the violated instinct, but partly on the strength of the temptation, and often still more on the judg
ment of our fellows.
Man prompted by his conscience, will through long habit acquire such perfect self-command, that his desires and passions will at last yield instantly and without a struggle to his social sympathies and instincts, including his feeling for the judgment of his fellows.
The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals; but I need say nothing on this head, as I have so lately endeavoured to shew that the social instincts,- the prime principle of man's moral constitution - with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise"; and this lies at the foundation of morality.
According to Darwin, "morality" *is* utterly relative, mere social consensus.
>How could a biological theory make a statement about sin unless sin is biologically based?According to Darwin's theory of evolution, there is no sin.
>>Darwin's world is devoid of objective, universal moral laws, good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust.Considering that you can't even be bothered to _argue_ [as in premises to conclusions], but make one empty appeal to your own authority after another, and certainly never bother to proffer a citation, "proper" or not, your iterations certainly don't impugn my integrity or the validity of my arguments....
>I don't know about Darwin's world, but certainly his theory is devoid of moral laws. Biology is not a foundation of ethics. And as far as I am aware, Darwin wrote nothing scientific on ethics. (He had some private opinions on ethics of course e.g. he was an abolitionist. But I do not know that he connected those sentiments to his theory of natural selection.)
>> I have identified the publication and supplied a hyperlink at which the publication can be read from the first page to the last.
>And having now read the publication from the first page to the last, I have found in it no discussion of ethics and no foundation for an ethical system. All I have found over and over again is descriptions of biological species and (mostly) their sexual habits and how this can lead to/be explained by sexual selection.
>Your edifice of "Darwinian ethics" seems to be quite invisible among the scientific studies and theorizing. Do I need some sort of technique to bring out the invisible message? Maybe I should read only every third letter or something to break the code?
>I re-iteratealluding to a complete publication (unless it is very short) is not proper citation. Proper citation is a direct quote with chapter and page citation. Your inability/unwillingness to support your claim with a proper citation reflects the emptiness/falsity of the claim.