Was there a defining moment for you?

Dave!

kelly1 wrote: »

Seems to me that many of the top scientists in biology and cosmology have come to the conclusion that there is design behind life (DNA) and the laws of nature. The more they learned, the more their wonder grew.

Seems to me you are wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

Greetings Apoch. Again I'd ask how does an understanding of evolution tend towards to atheism? It doesn't answer the big question of how life came to be and why anything at all exists.

Wow the big question seems to change with scientific discovery doesn't it? Have you given up on the Big Question of how the abundant variation of life has come to being from humble beginnings? Perhaps because of Charles Darwin?

One of the major factors (I suspect) contributing to religious belief is the apparent 'design' in nature, and the question of how do all of these animals and plants come into being. Well since that has been explained by natural selection, that's one less reason to believe in god, surely? Makes sense to me.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Seems to me that many of the top scientists in biology and cosmology have come to the conclusion that there is design behind life (DNA) and the laws of nature.

<bangs head on table>

You've been reading the book that Roy Varghese ghostwrote for Antony Flew again, haven't you?

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

Seems to me you are wrong.

I said nothing about God. I only mentioned the word "design".

Dave! wrote: »

Wow the big question seems to change with scientific discovery doesn't it? Have you given up on the Big Question of how the abundant variation of life has come to being from humble beginnings? Perhaps because of Charles Darwin?

I have no problem with evolution.

Dave! wrote: »

One of the major factors (I suspect) contributing to religious belief is the apparent 'design' in nature, and the question of how do all of these animals and plants come into being. Well since that has been explained by natural selection, that's one less reason to believe in god, surely? Makes sense to me.

Natural selection doesn't account for the origins of life, does it?
Can science explain the origins of DNA?

robindch wrote: »

<bangs head on table>

You've been reading the book that Roy Varghese ghostwrote for Antony Flew again, haven't you?

And what if I have? Roy wrote the preface. How do you know that he was the ghost writer? Or are you showing your bias?

Anyway, did I make a false claim/statement?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Roy wrote the preface. How do you know that he was the ghost writer?

Because when he was interviewed, Flew could remember little of the writing the book, let alone what was in it.

kelly1 wrote: »

Or are you showing your bias?

No, I'm showing honesty. More on Varghese's ghostwriting of that book here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

kelly1 wrote: »

Anyway, did I make a false claim/statement?

Yes, you did. Almost no professional biologists or cosmologists believe that an "intelligent designer" designed the universe, though you you will find many creationists propagating the lie that there is. Eighth commandment and all of that.

.

Dave!

kelly1 wrote: »

Natural selection doesn't account for the origins of life, does it?

Photosynthesis doesn't account for the sky being blue.

See what I did there?

kelly1 wrote: »

Can science explain the origins of DNA?

It can certainly try anyway. But then genetics is a relatively new field (the genome was only sequenced in 2003 AFAIK), so I don't see why it should be able to explain something that's not even fully understood yet?

Tyler MacDurden

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Tyler, interesting account there.

Just wondering how curiosity about the working of the universe leads to atheism. Seems to me that many of the top scientists in biology and cosmology have come to the conclusion that there is design behind life (DNA) and the laws of nature. The more they learned, the more their wonder grew.

Hi Kelly. I think you'd agree that, as our knowledge of reality has grown through science, humanity's idea of its place in the cosmos has changed utterly. Unpalatable as it might be to some, we're not special, we're not at the centre of everything, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

In light of this reality, to think that we have a direct line to a being that created it all is astoundingly vain. And why anyway should that which we have not yet explained be god-shaped by default?

We could go around in circles here arguing to and fro, but atheists will always bring you back to the lack of evidence. Dusty, ancient books of indeterminate genesis lacking even internal consistency just don't cut it as evidence for us.

apoch632

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Tyler, interesting account there.

Just wondering how curiosity about the working of the universe leads to atheism. Seems to me that many of the top scientists in biology and cosmology have come to the conclusion that there is design behind life (DNA) and the laws of nature. The more they learned, the more their wonder grew.


Greetings Apoch. Again I'd ask how does an understanding of evolution tend towards to atheism? It doesn't answer the big question of how life came to be and why anything at all exists.

It doesnt attempt to answer the beginning of life or why. Its only how. But since I agree with the theory of evolution. Humans as a species are not "finished" so to speak. We may improve or spawn a new species. But we are not a finished design. There is further stages to go

Its pretty hard to reconcile that (for me anyway)with the idea of religion that we are God's chosen creatures. His favourites so to speak. And why would a god a perfect being (if he/she/it exists) make something that is an intermediate. It logically doesnt add up for me.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Because when he was interviewed, Flew could remember little of the writing the book, let alone what was in it.No, I'm showing honesty. More on Varghese's ghostwriting of that book here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

That article, if true, is a bit disturbing. Makes Mr. Flew appear to be dishonest about the authorship of the book.

That aside, I think the book makes good arguments for the existence of a Creator/Designer. e.g. He appeals to the anthropic principle and dismisses the multiverse theory because it just moves the problem up a level. I think the discussion on DNA is convincing too. Have you read the book?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

That aside, I think the book makes good arguments for the existence of a Creator/Designer. e.g. He appeals to the anthropic principle and dismisses the multiverse theory because it just moves the problem up a level. I think the discussion on DNA is convincing too. Have you read the book?

I've read a few excerpts of it which showed up on the internet a while back, and they're the usual creationist fare which I've debunked many times before. It's not worth debunking them again, especially since rebuttals to all of the tiresome old chestnuts I've seen, and I presume all the ones I haven't, can be found quite easily on the internet.

kelly1 wrote: »

That article, if true, is a bit disturbing. Makes Mr. Flew appear to be dishonest about the authorship of the book.

Well, from that description and others, Flew seems to be suffering quite badly from senile dementia.

Rather than concluding that the ill Flew was dishonest in claiming he wrote the book, I wonder if it's perhaps more fair to suggest that Mr Varghese -- who is not reported to be senile at this time -- simply took advantage of a very old man's illness to make him the "conversion" mascot amongst christians that he has become since the publishing of the book?

Or do you believe that Mr Varghese is entirely innocent of any dishonesty, and innocent of any intention to be dishonest, and that the senile Flew is fully to blame for letting another man write a book with his name on the cover, and then forgetting that he had?