"The danger of worshipping Darwin"

darjeeling

chozometroid wrote: »

Just to keep things in perspective, this topic is about the proponents of Darwin, not just evolutionary theory.

It's useful to remind ourselves of the factual basis of Darwin's theory and its present day incarnation before going on to talk about what 'evolutionism' and 'Darwinism' might be and whether anyone subscribes to them.

chozometroid wrote: »

Fair enough, but Darwin believed in abiogenesis, right? And this is a precursor to his theory of evolution.

Darwin speculated on possible ways that abiogenesis might have occurred. However, as I said before, abiogenesis - either in general, or in some particular version - is not a necessary precursor for evolution.

Evolution will occur as long as you have imperfectly replicating lifeforms that are in competition for finite resources. The theory of evolution describes the nature of the generational changes these lifeforms will undergo. The lifeforms could be created or the result of abiogenesis - it makes no difference.

chozometroid

darjeeling wrote: »

It's useful to remind ourselves of the factual basis of Darwin's theory and its present day incarnation before going on to talk about what 'evolutionism' and 'Darwinism' might be and whether anyone subscribes to them.

So, the present day incarnation does still say humans evolved from pond slime?

darjeeling

chozometroid wrote: »

So, the present day incarnation does still say humans evolved from pond slime?

This is a somewhat separate matter. We can't be certain if life on this planet originated just once or multiple times. However, evidence suggests a common origin for complex 'eukaryotic' organisms, including us and algae (your 'pond slime'?). The theory of evolution provides a mechanism for the branching of the tree of life that has led to us being very different from algae today.

CDfm

Darwin is probably the duracell bunny of biology. Its a pity that he is used in the atheism vs God debate in this way. His work is remarkable because not only for its ideas but how he wove the concept of time into it.

darjeeling

CDfm wrote: »

His work is remarkable because not only for its ideas but how he wove the concept of time into it.

His work is remarkable because it provided the underpinning theory of biology.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolutionism is the theory of evolution or the worldview based on the theory of evolution.

Ok, that is all I was asking.

Based on that though this statement

Evolutionism is a belief system that requires faith, and attempts to explain the origin of life, which either involves a deity, or denies the existence of one

is wrong.

Neither the scientific theory of biological evolution nor the acceptance of such a theory as being accurate is a belief system, it doesn't require faith, it doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, and it doesn't deny the existence of a deity.

Which is why I was assuming that isn't what you mean by evolutionism (I thought possibly the idea that life developed on Earth with no input from a supernatural deity, which is not actually what evolution states, nor would I consider that a doctrine, more the rejection of religious doctrine).

I get given out to when I go ahead and assuming they mean something, and I get given out too when I ask people clarify what exactly they means so I don't get given out to for assuming they mean something. Can't win.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

So, the present day incarnation does still say humans evolved from pond slime?

It doesn't mention "pond slime" given that life most likely arose in the oceans, rather than ponds, and was most likely not slime but rather hard clumps of molecules, but if you mean complex replicating molecules to man, then yes, the theory of evolution still proposes that, though exactly what very early life was like is hard to say as little fossil record remains.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Based on that though this statement

Evolutionism is a belief system that requires faith, and attempts to explain the origin of life, which either involves a deity, or denies the existence of one

is wrong.

Neither the scientific theory of biological evolution nor the acceptance of such a theory as being accurate is a belief system, it doesn't require faith, it doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, and it doesn't deny the existence of a deity.

Evolutionism is a worldview, so it is a belief system. Perhaps you would rather say the scientific method is a belief system, instead?

I was wrong in saying that it attempts to explain the origin of life. I admit I do lump the theory of evolution into what the people that support it also usually include with it, which is their origin of life beliefs. I have my doubts about how independent these beliefs are of one another, especially if you are referring to an atheist.

Wicknight wrote: »

I get given out to when I go ahead and assuming they mean something, and I get given out too when I ask people clarify what exactly they means so I don't get given out to for assuming they mean something. Can't win.

I see what you are saying. I'll just remember that's part of who you are as a poster, and include definitions where it's reasonable.

Just out of curiousity...
Do any atheists disagree with Darwin or Richard Dawkins?

Galvasean

chozometroid wrote: »

I have my doubts about how independent these beliefs are of one another, especially if you are referring to an atheist.

Well since atheists by their definition do not believe in God(s) you are going to be very hard pressed to find one that thinks an omnipotent superbeing created life.
I don't really see your point.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just out of curiousity...
Do any atheists disagree with Darwin or Richard Dawkins?

Lots of them disagree with certain aspects of their writings.

Zillah

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolutionism is the theory of evolution or the worldview based on the theory of evolution.

I am so sick of you smarmy Gravityists rubbing our noses in it. Yes yes physics is a 'harder' science, we're blind fools, I've heard it all before! You and the Photonics really tick me off with your "A world view based on gravity is the only consistent world view" and your "A viewpoint founded on the dual wave particle view of photons is essential to a balanced life".

Hivemind187

The irony of all this is religion started the row about evolution being atheistic.

"How dare you say my God doesnt exist!"

"Um ... I didnt ... I'm trying to explain how we get a divergeance of species and -"

"LIAR! I heard you! You specifically said that man evolved! Well god doesnt do evolving, he does creating - thats where he came from, god made him - I mean me ... and you - ha! - in his own image!"

"Ok ... but I wasnt saying anything about how life came to exist just the mechanism that got us to -"

"LA LA LA Your theory doesnt work ..."

etc

Hivemind187

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolutionism is a worldview, so it is a belief system. Perhaps you would rather say the scientific method is a belief system, instead?

That is almost willfully stupid and sounds more like rhetoric than any sort of useful question or statement.

chozometroid wrote: »

I was wrong in saying that it attempts to explain the origin of life. I admit I do lump the theory of evolution into what the people that support it also usually include with it, which is their origin of life beliefs. I have my doubts about how independent these beliefs are of one another, especially if you are referring to an atheist.

so you are openly admitting that your petty prejudices about beliefs in imaginary friends is clouding your ability to rationally comprehend explanations?

Well ... admitting you have a problem and all that.

chozometroid wrote: »

Just out of curiousity...
Do any atheists disagree with Darwin or Richard Dawkins?

Yes. Lots of them.

In fact, there are many scientists who disagree with things that both men have said and doubtless they would have or have welcomed this. It's called peer review and it helps to keep us honest without a confessional box.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Evolutionism is a worldview, so it is a belief system. Perhaps you would rather say the scientific method is a belief system, instead?

Neither evolution nor the scientific method are belief systems. They can feed belief systems with knowledge and facts, but that isn't really the same thing. You might get one person saying all life is just chemical reactions that evolved over time and has no value, and another person saying that all life is amazing series of chemical reactions that evolved over time and has huge value and should be protected. Two very different belief systems both feeding from the fact of biological evolution.

If by worldview you mean evolution simply shapes a view of how the natural world works and functions, then yes I guess it is a world view, in the same way gravity is a world view, or electronmagnatism is. But as Zillah points out we tend not to think of worldviews in this way.

chozometroid wrote: »

I was wrong in saying that it attempts to explain the origin of life. I admit I do lump the theory of evolution into what the people that support it also usually include with it, which is their origin of life beliefs. I have my doubts about how independent these beliefs are of one another, especially if you are referring to an atheist.

Well to be honest that could be because you seem to be coming to all this with the idea that all these things are supposed to contrast supernatural creation.

Natural theories of evolution and natural theories of how the process got started will appear similar is someone is focusing on the natural bit, ie the bit that doesn't include God.

But then that can be said of all current scientific theory. No scientific theory includes God, from how blood works to general relativity.

chozometroid wrote: »

I see what you are saying. I'll just remember that's part of who you are as a poster, and include definitions where it's reasonable.

Include definitions when you are using words such as evolutionism, world view, or belief system, that have varying meaning and that are not traditionally associated with the thing you are associating it with. It makes it clearer to see the thing that you are supposing.

chozometroid wrote: »

Do any atheists disagree with Darwin or Richard Dawkins?

The evidence for Neo-Darwinian biological evolution is so overwhelming it is hard to disagree that over all Darwin was right, but he got details of this theory wrong which is understandable considering it was 150 years ago, 100 years before we found DNA

Lots of people disagree with Dawkins on lots of different things. He has views on a whole range of subjects from genetics to memes to atheism

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

But as Zillah points out we tend not to think of worldviews in this way.

Somewhat obtusely I will admit. Glad you got it though.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Somewhat obtusely I will admit. Glad you got it though.

well as you did the easiest way to demonstrate this is to replace "theory of Neo-Darwinian biological evolution" with something like the "theory of capillary–gravity wave turbulence" and start saying that is a belief system and a world view and see how odd that seems

AtomicHorror

chozometroid wrote: »

Fair enough, but Darwin believed in abiogenesis, right? And this is a precursor to his theory of evolution.

Canard. Quack, quack.

Look, life could have fallen from the sky, bubbled from an undersea vent, been scooped from the Dust by God or forged by the Hammer of Thor. It would mean squat to the veracity of the theory of evolution. Darwin didn't know how the first life started. Given the understanding of chemistry during his lifetime he could not even have begun to hypothesise on the matter. He speculated on the formation of the first proteins, sure. But he knew nothing of DNA or RNA, nor how inheritance worked on a molecular level. He had the good sense not to make any solids claims about abiogenesis, because he just didn't know.

darjeeling

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Look, life could have fallen from the sky, bubbled from an undersea vent, been scooped from the Dust by God or forged by the Hammer of Thor. It would mean squat to the veracity of the theory of evolution.

It's funny that you see people in various corners of the web criticising the theory of evolution because it says nothing about the origin of life. This perceived omission, in their view, makes it a weak theory. Actually, though, the theory is strengthened through being more universal and less dependent on preconditions.

Perhaps the critics are really trying to attack the mysterious 'worldview' known as 'evolutionism'. It's been mentioned in this thread a few times, but I still don't know what it is. Anyone care to have a bash at describing it?

Myksyk

chozometroid wrote: »

So, the present day incarnation does still say humans evolved from pond slime?

I'm not sure there's a direct link back to pond life, though it always amuses me that creationists just have to choose something with a perjorative sounding name like 'slime' as an example of an early evolutionary juncture. I think it reflects their superficial take on evolution ... if I pick a horrible sounding thing then surely it will convince people that we just couldn't have evolved from THAT!!!

But yes we did evolve from the most basic of replicating molecules (possibly having a pond address at some stage in the process)! And when you think about it, isn't this just the most magnificent, awe-inspiring, mind-boggling journey one could imagine?

chozometroid

Myksyk wrote: »

it always amuses me that creationists just have to choose something with a perjorative sounding name like 'slime' as an example of an early evolutionary juncture. I think it reflects their superficial take on evolution ... if I pick a horrible sounding thing then surely it will convince people that we just couldn't have evolved from THAT!!!

But yes we did evolve from the most basic of replicating molecules (possibly having a pond address at some stage in the process)! And when you think about it, isn't this just the most magnificent, awe-inspiring, mind-boggling journey one could imagine?

I didn't use the term for the purpose of making it sound ridiculous. It actually seemed like a good word to use. Slime is actually pretty cool.
If "replicating molecules" sounds more dignifying to you, so be it.

Funny how you make a statement as if it is fact: "But yes we did evolve from the most basic of replicating molecules..."

It it were true...
No, I don't think it's a magnificent, awe-inspiring, mind-boggling journey. It's not magnificent, because it means we're just a natural process, and our "self" is of no signifigance. Perhaps it's awe-inspiring to look at how many billions of years it took. It's not mind boggling, because "something" was bound to happen through endless chances. I can think of better things.

Myksyk

chozometroid wrote: »

I didn't use the term for the purpose of making it sound ridiculous.

Of course not.

Funny how you make a statement as if it is fact: "But yes we did evolve from the most basic of replicating molecules..."

In science it is considered as close to fact as puts it beyond reasonable doubt.

It's not magnificent, because it means we're just a natural process, and our "self" is of no signifigance.

What a deeply troubling, cynical, depressing view. Why are we of no significance because we are the product of this wonderful natural process?

It's not mind boggling, because "something" was bound to happen through endless chances. I can think of better things.

I take it you're not easily impressed then?

Dades

chozometroid wrote: »

it means we're just a natural process, and our "self" is of no signifigance.

Speak for yourself!

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

It's not magnificent, because it means we're just a natural process, and our "self" is of no signifigance.

Do you believe it's more magnificent to imagine that rather than being part of an unbroken chain of life that stretches back over three billion years, that instead, we're actually brought into existence, and maintained there like puppets dangling from strings, by the whim of the god of the old testament?

chozometroid

robindch wrote: »

Do you believe it's more magnificent to imagine that rather than being part of an unbroken chain of life that stretches back over three billion years, that instead, we're actually brought into existence, and maintained there like puppets dangling from strings, by the whim of the god of the old testament?

Yes, it's more magnificent that God has created man, because He chose to do it. God is more magnificent than a mindless universe.

If man chooses to follow himself as his own god, he has sinned, and will die, as God is not under obligation to accomodate or provide life to those who are their own master.
So, man pays for sin himself, and dies, not spending eternity with God.
Or man accepts God and serves him willfully, gaining eternal life in heaven.

That is more magnificent than being some unbroken chain of life, as you say, which began more than 3 billion years ago. Why does the amount of time looking backwards matter? How does that make it more significant?
Wouldn't you also have to say it began an immeasurable number of years after some point in the infinite past?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Yes, it's more magnificent that God has created man, because He chose to do it. God is more magnificent than a mindless universe.

Why?

God can choose to do pretty much anything he wants. Nothing he does, by definition, requires effort, care or skill. He just does it. God creating humans is as "magnificent" as him creating anything else. A pencil for example.

If we think of the universe as just the product of an all powerful god, simply the product of a whim of his, then it looses all wonder, all awe, all magnificence. Nothing that happens in the universe is in any way impressive. It is all just a god snapping his all powerful fingers and just making everything up from nothing. For a god that is not hard. In fact nothing is hard for a god. Anything god does requires the least amount of effort imaginable.

The universe, and all existence in it, becomes as "impressive" as a 3 star Michellean chef boiling an egg or a Nobel prize winning physicist working out what 1+1 equals.

chozometroid wrote: »

So, man pays for sin himself, and dies, not spending eternity with God.
Or man accepts God and serves him willfully, gaining eternal life in heaven.

I think that was Robin's point about puppets. Personally I think eternity with God is over rated.

chozometroid wrote: »

That is more magnificent than being some unbroken chain of life, as you say, which began more than 3 billion years ago. Why does the amount of time looking backwards matter?

Because it is an unimaginable series of steps, each building upon the next in a gloriously massive complex chain of events, as opposed to one step that a god did that required no effort.

It is the difference between the Grand Canon and a hole in the ground someone dug with a JCB and some dynamite.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

Yes, it's more magnificent that God has created man, because He chose to do it.

I can't see or follow any logic in that -- can you clarify, please?

chozometroid wrote: »

That is more magnificent than being some unbroken chain of life, as you say, which began more than 3 billion years ago. Why does the amount of time looking backwards matter? How does that make it more significant?

Because my pedigree -- and your's too -- goes back through hundreds of thousands of species over hundreds of millions of generations over billions of years, each generation having managed, however tough it was, to live long enough to have kids, in a developmental progression of the most staggering complexity.

Given earlier conditions, the chances then that any of us would be here now, are, to all intents and purposes, zero. And nonetheless, we are here.

More amazingly still, of the ~3,500,000 years that have passed, it's only within the last 150 that life and culture have evolved to the point at which we are sufficiently self-aware, and sufficiently well-informed, to know where we came from and to be able to appreciate it.

All of these things (and there are plenty more) are remarkable privileges -- do you not agree?

chozometroid

robindch wrote: »

I can't see or follow any logic in that -- can you clarify, please?

It's magnificent because God is the original Supreme Being, and we were important enough for Him to create. That means He has intentions with regards to us.
Wicknight, it's not just something He did with no effort "on a whim." The fact that it did not take effort is pointless, because God experiencing resistance doesn't make sense.

robindch wrote: »

Because my pedigree -- and your's too -- goes back through hundreds of thousands of species over hundreds of millions of generations over billions of years, each generation having managed, however tough it was, to live long enough to have kids, in a developmental progression of the most staggering complexity.

Given earlier conditions, the chances then that any of us would be here now, are, to all intents and purposes, zero. And nonetheless, we are here.

More amazingly still, of the ~3,500,000 years that have passed, it's only within the last 150 that life and culture have evolved to the point at which we are sufficiently self-aware, and sufficiently well-informed, to know where we came from and to be able to appreciate it.

All of these things (and there are plenty more) are remarkable privileges -- do you not agree?

All of what you said is exactly why it is harder to believe in than God.

But to answer your question, I agree with your assessment based on the things you listed, as they are remarkable to read. It's kind of ironic you would use the word "privilege" though, as it refers to something given. I guess it was given by chance, the way you see it.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Wicknight, it's not just something He did with no effort "on a whim." The fact that it did not take effort is pointless, because God experiencing resistance doesn't make sense.

But that is the point.

How can you be impressed by something God did when God can do anything for an infinitely small amount of effort?

What exactly do you think we should be impressed by? Are you saying God could have messed the whole thing up but isn't it great of him that he didn't?

In fact we can't even be impressed that God created us at all because by the definition of God him creating us takes exactly the same amount of effort has him not creating us.

Anything God does is equally impressive or unimpressive depending on how you look at it. Him not creating us would be as impressive as him creating us.

I'm falling to see what in all of that we are supposed to say "wow, that was impressive" over?

Personally I think the whole idea of a god robs the universe of all wonder and awe. Everything is instantly reduced down to being fundamentally unimpressive.

That is not of course a reason to believe a god doesn't exist, any more than finding it hard to believe we evolved naturally is a reason to believe we didn't.

But the argument that life is more impressive because God made us, or the argument that if natural evolution is true we are "just" the end result of a chemical reaction that has been going on for 3 billion yeears, is one I don't understand at all.

cardshark202

I don't normally look in this forum, but given how infuriated I am by chozometroid's posts, thank 'god' I have never browsed the religious forums!

CDfm

cardshark202 wrote: »

I don't normally look in this forum, but given how infuriated I am by chozometroid's posts, thank 'god' I have never browsed the religious forums!

LOL -Ive just found out that memetics works really well with theology -you would love me:D

darjeeling

robindch wrote: »

Do you believe it's more magnificent to imagine that rather than being part of an unbroken chain of life that stretches back over three billion years, that instead, we're actually brought into existence, and maintained there like puppets dangling from strings, by the whim of the god of the old testament?

I would say I find the evolutionary version more persuasive. I'm more neutral on whether I'd prefer to be the result of evolution than divine creation - perhaps the preference has a touch of the elusive 'evolutionism' about it? I'll grant, though, that the creator gods currently on offer do all seem to show the traces of having been forged within the cramped confines of the human imagination, and are the less impressive for it.