[_ Old Earth _] The Distinctively "atheist" element of Darwinism

[BobRyan]

When Darwinist evolutionists attack I.D evolutionist over the subject of "Design" they unwittingly expose the "distinctively atheist" element of their position.

In Romans 1 Paul claims that EVEN the unbelieving Pagans "see through that" to the point that they are "without excuse".

Thoughts?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is not uncommon (on THIS board on these very subject threads) to find Darwinists making the following arguments.

1. Complaints about science data discovery – science report – science research being done by a non-Athiest – in fact a Christian (or at least a jew, Christian, hindu, agnostic) “one who does not censor I.D thinking like we do†– and theiir response is "so we can reject it because a Christian did it and it was unfavorable to Darwinism".

2. That data discovery, that science reportin, that science projects are “sponsored by a non-atheist†– in fact a Christian or “one who does not censor I.D thinking like we do†– so we can reject it.

3. That I.D evolutionists should be opposed for “following the data where it leads†particularly IF it “leads to a conclusion in favor of designâ€Â.

IF we were to “level the playing field†then we would have to “protect†real science from the junk-science methods listed above – by…

1. Discounting all research and reporting done by “atheists†or “funded by†atheist organizations.

2. Highlight the “distinctively atheist†element of the Darwinists argument as they oppose I.D on the very point that Romans 1 applies to ALL pagans.

In Romans 1 Paul argues that godless “pagans†are “without excuse†because the things seen In NATURE testify to THEM regarding the “invisible attributes of Godâ€Â. This is the VERY point that Darwinists attack when they censor scientists opposing Darwinism and rally pogroms against I.D evolutionist scientists who dare to speak out. In so doing they unwittingly expose the “stinctively atheist†element of their argument. So while the Darwinist may not themselves be atheist in every case – yet they sell-out to a distinctively atheist argument “at all costs†as if there were no higher standard.

 

[BobRyan]

Darwinian Evolutionism:

A distinctively atheist set of religious doctrines and dogmas unwittingly expressed through a thin façade of hijacked science terms wrapped around a hollow junk-science core of both hidden and unmasked hoaxes, exposed frauds, logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith.

Having already started a thread on the second part of that definition for Darwinian evolutionism (the junk-science core -- topic) this thread is to focus on the first part of the definition.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

QUESTION: What do you say to the argument that some people are raising now that it's all very well for evolution to be the mechanism once you have a self-replicating structure like DNA -- but how do you get that complex structure in the first place? Maybe DNA is the work of God?

MR. DAWKINS: It's a different argument to say how did the whole process start - how do we begin with the origin of life? The origin of life -- the key process in the origin of life was the arising of a self-replicating molecule. This was a very simple thing compared with what it's given rise to. By far the majority of the work in producing the elegant complexity of life is done after the origin of life, during the process of evolution. There does remain the very first step -- I don't think it's necessarily a bigger step than several of the subsequent steps, but it is a step. And it's a step which we don't fully understand -- mainly because it happened such a long time ago, and under conditions when the Earth was very different. And so it's not necessarily possible to simulate again the chemical conditions of the origin of life. There are various theories for how it might have happened. None of them is yet fully convincing. It may be that none of them ever will be, because it may be that we shall never know fully what the conditions were. But I don’t find it at all a deeply mysterious step.

Now see - every once in a while Dawkins makes sense! (Given his starting premise which is that "atheist darwinism is actually true")

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

It's not really surprising that atheists and creationists agree on science; both agendas require that science and faith be incompatible.

But Christians know that they are both wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok - so you don't want to call it "Atheist Darwinism" -- I have you down then as "a no" for that vote.

Now did you actually want to make an argument in favor of your position?

Otherwise the "yeses" have it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hey I found this post --

This is mainly for BobRyan, since he either missed it or ignored it. He uses the phrase extensively, and after numerous requests not to use it (because it's stupid) he has not.


Sorry, darwinism has NOTHING to do with any sort of origin myth. It has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis.

If you want to argue against abiogenesis, then do it. Just don't go on rants about "atheist" darwinism that has nothing to do with any myth what-so-ever. I could very well be an atheist and a darwinist, and I could have NO opinion on how life was started due to lack of evidence. It would make more sense to call the people you want to argue against simple "abiogenesis supporters." That's the position that actually has a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Neither atheism nor darwinism necessarily has any sort of explanation for the origin of life, and that's why i'm getting so annoyed with your constant use of the phrase. It's not applicable.

I'm an atheist and I believe in a general notion of evolution, yet I have absolutely no position on the origin of life. If you want to be intellectually honest, direct your argument towards people who actually have a position on the origin of life!

Clearly the Atheist DArwinist quoted in my previous posts -- would differ with you on your notioni that "abiogenesis" is the ONLY hint we have about the atheist nature of Darwinism.

In fact this entire thread so far has spelled the problem out in triplicate because the problem is in the "DESIGN" question.

You saw the part about Romans 1 -- right?

You also saw the part about I.D evolutionists being attacked by Darwinian evolutionists PURELY on the issue of Design -- one that in Romans 1 is declared to be SOOOO clear to godless pagans that even "THEY are without excuse" for as the text says "the invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made" -- SEEN by those godless pagans in the case of romans 1.

So when the Darwinists attack I.D evolutionists ON THAT VERY POINT -- they expose the "distinctively atheist" element of their position.

The point remains.

And Dawkins agrees -

Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

I'm not an atheist, Bob, so I don't buy your argument. For a Christian, there is no conflict between evolution and God. It's just the way He does it.

Dawkins wants to make science incompatible with God because he doesn't like God. You are helping him.

Probably not a good idea, Bob.

 

[Dunzo]

Dawkins wants to make science incompatible with God because he doesn't like God.

Oh, and you were going so well!

 

[Barbarian]

It's true. Dawkins is quite hostile to God. Why do you think he behaves like a creationist, sometimes?

 

[Dunzo]

It's true. Dawkins is quite hostile to God. Why do you think he behaves like a creationist, sometimes?

How can be hostile to a god if he doesn't even believe it's there?

Actually, on second thoughts, you're absolutely right. Dawkins has pointed out (and rightly so) that the Christian God is, and I quote, "the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

 

[BobRyan]

"substance" still seeking in vain for "substance" among those who want to "deny-all" in the realm of Romans 1 declaring ID as "fact" even for godless pagans and of course prominent atheist Darwinists THEMSELVES admitting to the distinctively atheist element in Darwinism.

Those who seek to "avoid substance" on this topic while 'continuing to attack ID evolutionists" are being "transparent" to the unbiased objective reader in their posts --

Now why do you suppose they would want to make that compromise so apparent to all? What do they can by that?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not an atheist, Bob, so I don't buy your argument.

More importanly "you're not following the point".

My argument is not that the Christians are themselves atheists who are devotedly following the atheist darwinists as they attack the Romans 1 principle and attack both Christians and non-Christian in the ID evolutionist group -- the argument is that they have "unwittingly" follwed their atheist darwinist leaders INTO a distinctively atheist course of action in their attacks upon others.

For a Christian, there is no conflict between evolution and God.

For the Bible-believing Christian who actually read Genesis 1 and Romans 1 -- there is a HUGE problem for they see clearly that even godless "pagans are WITHOUt excuse for the INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE".

I notice that you would rather repeat "your opposition" to the points raised rather than respond "substantively" to any of the actual points raise. Is this also your approach with I.D as well??

hint: Probably not a good idea.

Bob

 

[Dunzo]

Why don't you understand that Darwinism doesn't exist anymore? Not to mention that one doesn't have to be an atheist to be an evolutionist! Quite simple!

 

[BobRyan]

As "already posted" I never claim that you have to be an atheist to unwittingly follow the atheist darwinist leadership into a "distinctively atheist" argument against Romans 1 and ID evolutionists.

See the first three posts here for details.

Feel free to actually respond at any time to the points raised.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since Jay appears reluctant to actually come to this thread and respond to the points raised --

I will "help him".

Jay said
That post more belongs into my older thread, "God did it," the end of human inquiry?

I don't see how your statements are really backed up. This is one major claim with not very much substance backing it up:

Again -- no real "substance" in your post -- you simply say "I don't believe I don't accept I prefer atheist darwinism" -- which is good for saying what your preference is -- it is not "compelling" however to the objective unbiased reader.

Have another try at it.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jay

[quote:1d718]Quotes Bob
"My argument is not that the Christians are themselves atheists who are devotedly following the atheist darwinists as they attack the Romans 1 principle and attack both Christians and non-Christian in the ID evolutionist group -- the argument is that they have "unwittingly" follwed their atheist darwinist leaders INTO a distinctively atheist course of action in their attacks upon others."['/quote]

You mostly make vague assertions here. I don't even know what the last sentence really means; it's that vague.

That is the part where you would need to read Romans 1 to compare it to the "design" argument.

See? logical objective substantive compelling review and comparison. That is what makes for a good response. Attention to details.

It is easier to say "I am confused" and "I am in a fog about the relationship between those two points" without actually looking at the data being referenced -- but the unbiased objective reader will have a hard time seeing your response as anything but "defensive at all costs".

Why not take a more objective -- eyes open -- approach to finding a solution?

Jay said
You don't really specify which part of Romans 1 you're referring to, but I imagine it's the one about creation and those "professing themselves to be wise" becoming fools.

[/quote:1d718]

How about the part that says that the godless pagans are "WITHOUT EXCUSE for the INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been MADE" and contrasting that to the much more modest "Design" argument of ID?

How about then "noticing" that to attack that much MORE modest statement (as ALL atheist darwinist do - and as some Christians do in following after them) is to take a "distincticely atheist" position with respect to the argument in Romans 1.

you know -- "the obvious".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jay said

It's a pretty wild assertion to say that Christians are "attacking" Romans 1 by having one perspective about the creation of the world and not taking genesis literally. By having a different opinion and arguing for it, I fail to see why this is an "attack" on others. Arguably, there is more attacking going on against evolutionists by the Christian crowd supporting ID.

1. Is it your argument that Moses was "teaching DARWINISM in Gen 1-2:3"????? or Exodus 20:8-11???

Is that how Atheist Darwinist say "Darwinian Evolutionism"? do they really use the exact words "SIX days you shall labor and do all your work... FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and ALL that is in them"???

I do not think there exesists sufficient "spin" in the much-anticipated attempt at eisegesis on your part for Exodus 20:8-11 or Gen 1-2:3 to get that spun around to "Darwinism" NOR do I find any atheist darwinists "using that language" to say "DARWINISM did it".

You are "imagining" success in Gen 1 for the atheist darwinist POV -- where there is none!

2. Secondly the issue with Romans 1 IS NOT that the godless pagans were "reading genesis and getting a different result than darwinists do today". You have missed the point entirely.

The Romans 1 issue is that those with NO BIBLE were doing much better at "seeing the invisible attributes of God" than atheist Darwinists claim to do today. And the argument is that IF THEY were "without excuse" how much more the atheist darwinists and those that follow them?

I still don't see how this has much to do with the purpose of this thread, that "Atheist Darwinism" is a phrase whose arguments are generally inapplicable to.... well.... atheists who believe in evolution.

The I.D scientist that profess evolutionISM are at LEAST able to sign up to the level of "truth" that the pagans were "Without excuse" for ignoring in Romans 1.

By contrast the believers in atheist darwinism and those who follow them - are seeking to oppose I.D EVOLUTIONISTS on a much more MODEST point (that would be 'more basic') than those pagans in Romans 1 are "without excuse" for ignoring.

The phrase doesn't involve anything with abiogenesis

Not according to the prominent atheist darwinist high-priest - Dawkins. According to Dawkins (as you surely read in his quote above when refusing to post on THIS thread) the whole thing starts with a "self replicating molecule" -- good luck with that.

And notice that Dawkins also admist that this first step is by no means LARGER than many of the subsequent steps in the storytelling of atheist darwinism.

I.D "by contrast" has the luxury of "following where the data leads" NOT ONLY does it NOT need to avoid God making a single cell -- it also does not need to ignore God at all. It is free to simply LOOK at the evidence and "follow where it leads" without the "THERE IS NO GOD" starting point for all atheists.

The VERY POINT essential to the atheist position is the VERY point attacked in the I.D position. "NO DESIGNER".

This contrast only gets clearer as you seek ways to ignore the details.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's true. Dawkins is quite hostile to God. Why do you think he behaves like a creationist, sometimes?

I don't think he ever claims creationism at all -- seems like he always claims atheist darwinism -- just like those Christians that follow him in it.

Where did you find him claiming Creationism?

Do you consider God to be a "creationist"?

Moses a "Creationist"?

Do you EVER find atheist darwinism expressing Darwinian doctrine in the form "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the HEAVENs and the EARTH the SEA and all that is in them"??

Do you read the Bible on these topics at all?

Just curious.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

QUESTION: What is your response to the view that some Christians are putting forward that God is the designer of the whole evolutionary system itself?

MR. DAWKINS: In the 19th century people disagreed with the principle of evolution, because it seemed to undermine their faith in God. Now there is a new way of trying to reinstate God, which is to say, well, we can see that evolution is true. Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true. So we smuggle God back in by suggesting that he set up the conditions in which evolution might take place. I find this a rather pathetic argument. For one thing, if I were God wanting to make a human being, I would do it by a more direct way rather than by evolution. Why deliberately set it up in the one way which makes it look as though you don't exist? It seems remarkably roundabout not to say a deceptive way of doing things.
But the other point is it's a superfluous part of the explanation. The whole point -- the whole beauty of the Darwinian explanation for life is that it's self-sufficient. You start with essentially nothing -- you start with something very, very simple -- the origin of the Earth. And from that, by slow gradual degrees, as I put it "climbing mount improbable" -- by slow gradual degree you build up from simple beginnings and simple needs easy to understand, up to complicated endings like ourselves and kangaroos.
Now, the beauty of that is that it works. Every stage is explained, every stage is understood. Nothing extra, nothing extraneous needs to be smuggled in. It all works and it all -- it's a satisfying explanation. Now, smuggling in a God who sets it all up in the first place, or who supervises the details, is simply to smuggle in an entity of the very kind that we are trying to explain -- namely, a complicated and beautifully designed higher intelligence. That's what we are trying to explain. We have a good explanation. Why smuggle in a superfluous adjunct which is unnecessary? It doesn't add anything to the explanation.

QUESTION: What do you say to the argument that some people are raising now that it's all very well for evolution to be the mechanism once you have a self-replicating structure like DNA -- but how do you get that complex structure in the first place? Maybe DNA is the work of God?

MR. DAWKINS: It's a different argument to say how did the whole process start - how do we begin with the origin of life? The origin of life -- the key process in the origin of life was the arising of a self-replicating molecule. This was a very simple thing compared with what it's given rise to. By far the majority of the work in producing the elegant complexity of life is done after the origin of life, during the process of evolution. There does remain the very first step -- I don't think it's necessarily a bigger step than several of the subsequent steps, but it is a step. And it's a step which we don't fully understand -- mainly because it happened such a long time ago, and under conditions when the Earth was very different. And so it's not necessarily possible to simulate again the chemical conditions of the origin of life. There are various theories for how it might have happened. None of them is yet fully convincing. It may be that none of them ever will be, because it may be that we shall never know fully what the conditions were. But I don’t find it at all a deeply mysterious step.

Now see - every once in a while Dawkins makes sense! (Given his starting premise which is that "atheist darwinism is actually true")

Bob

Was that post hard to follow?

Bob