[_ Old Earth _] What is so "atheist" about Darwinism?

[BobRyan]

Jay has asked that the points I gave in the first 4 posts of my first thread
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31978&start=0
- be compiled here into a single post.

The 4 post summary

1. Darwinists rejection of Romans 1 in their pogroms against I.D scientists -- has exposed a "distinctively atheist element" in their arguments on behalf of the false religion - Darwinism.

Notice that Romans 1 specifically states that godless pagans "ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" because the "INVISIBLE attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE". I.D scientist stop far short of the "invisible attributes of God" in simply "ADMITTING" to the DESIGN that is SEEN. Yet atheists would "need" to attack I.D scientists even at that far more modest level than the one that the PAGANS of Romans 1 could "clearly see".

2. Darwinists trying to "dismiss any science" that is brought to us by a christian or any science research FUNDED "by a Christian organization" would "deserve" the balancing response of discounting any data they bring being promoted by an atheist or being funded by an atheist source.

Clearly such methods are not "science" they are religious and show the true character of the religious jiihad that atheists are waging.

3. The "working definition" for darwinian evolutionism' as I have used it on these threads.

4. Richard Dawkins argues for the same "Atheist center" in Darwinism that I have shown to exist in that junk-science based religion.

Point 1 above is left as an exercise for the reader.

Point 2 above

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 “distinctively 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.

Point 3 above -- the "working definition" for Darwinian Evolutionism.

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.

Point 4 above

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.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

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 “distinctively 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.

1-2) There's an old phrase that comes to mind. "It's difficult to understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding it." Christian organizations wouldn’t fund something that supported a secular view of the world. Conversely, scientific organizations wouldn’t fund something that supported an “intelligently designed†theistic view of the world. The difference, however, is that the theistic (ID) view is not scientific and lacks testable criteria. At best, there are scientific theories that have greater foundation which disagree with ID’s necessary conclusions. So yes, the reason scientists are skeptical of Christian funded work is the heavy bias that accompanies it. This is similar to the tobacco research centers funded by conglomerated tobacco or global warming scientists funded by the oil companies. This has little to nothing to do with “atheist Darwinism†as a motivation for being skeptical of their work. It has everything to do with a questionable source of funding that influences the outcome of their work.

3) Data does not lead to “design by intelligence†unless you define precisely what criterion determines “design by intelligence.†Otherwise, it’s merely “I can’t explain this effectively.†Not being able to explain something with current information does not lead one to “design by intelligence†by default like so many Christians appear to assert. The rest of this section of your post is dependent on this assumption, which in itself needs argumentation. You can’t just assume it.

Point 3 above -- the "working definition" for Darwinian Evolutionism.
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.


Point 4 above: (dawkins quote)



Bob

3) Holy loaded language batman!

This isn’t a definition of Darwinian Evolution. This is your opinion of Darwinian Evolution, and it’s lacking in substance. Each one of these assertions in your “definition†needs a ton of argument to even begin to say it without people laughing at you, which by the way, I am.

I especially like the part where you assert “hidden†hoaxes. By definition, you wouldn’t even know if it was a hoax if it were hidden. Either it’s not a hoax, or you’re admittedly making unsubstantiated claims here.

This, once again, has nothing to do with “Atheist Darwinism†and its inapplicability as a phrase to what you’re typically using it in.

4) In the interest of reducing length, I’ll spare quoting the part on Dawkins again. It appears you completely missed the point he was making anyway. The whole idea was that he’s an atheist to a mainstream Christian view. Attempts at smuggling in God are superfluous more than anything else. The word “God†would be synonymous with the order and preconditions that scientists already postulate, so it would be a meaningless addition. The effort itself merely illustrates an unyielding desire to say God exists even in the event that it is completely unnecessary within the situation. It would further eliminate the scientific desire to pursue what could have possibly caused that order other than God. Assuming it “was†God, we haven’t learned anything other than “we should stop asking questions past this point.†Assuming we merely say order, we pursue the question “why†and continue this line of questioning to better understand the universe. Dawkins continually makes the point that “God†as an explanation is the end of human inquiry. So in summary it’s this: At best, God as an explanation doesn’t do anything, and we don’t search any further. At worst, we stop searching for answers that can be found, and we miss out on a more meaningful explanation of the universe. Ironically, if the latter is true, the Christian apologetics would chime in and further say God did “THAT†as well when it was found.

To address your point directly on this part: The Christians would be merely assigning the word “God†to what scientists are already doing. According to the Christians themselves in this discussion with Dawkins, Darwinism itself would be a product of God and not wholly atheistic!

The fact that Dawkins wants to keep a theistic God out of the affairs of science doesn't mean that he thinks believers can't have religious interpretations on scientific affairs. It becomes a problem when religions try to butt in and say that science is wrong because of the religion or tell science that "God" is a valid answer for any scientific line of questioning. Science is not allowed to do these things. No praised scientist does this, religious or not. You might notice that all of the famous religious scientists speak cryptically about finding out the "nature" of God. They don't speak presumptuously about God, but merely use God as metaphorical language for natural things we don't understand and pursue. They do not assert "God" as an answer, because it's a non-answer that does not serve to advance human knowledge. You may as well say, "Just because."

Science does not and cannot make any statements about a supernatural being outside the realm of testability. The unwillingness of science to allow God into the explanation of the origin of life is not a product of atheism so much as a product of science itself. God as an explanation is synonymous with "Questions stop here." (If you want to argue that ID isn't about that, we already have a thread going.)

Regardless, as I was saying, "Atheist Darwinism" is a fairly ridiculous phrase.

 

[Barbarian]

Bottom line? Darwin wrote that God created the first living things. That Bob considers that to be atheism is very telling.

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Bob

 

[jwu]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Bob

[emphasis mine]
Just wondering...do you have a source of Darwin saying that his theories made him lose his faith

 

[Barbarian]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Since Darwin's last recorded words, shortly before his death, on the subject were that he was "leaning toward agnosticism", I'd have to wonder where you got your idea. As far as his theory was concerned, he wrote that God created the first organisms.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, the last sentence from "The Origin of Species."

Bob considers this to be atheism. And now, it's becoming clearer why he thinks the way he does...

 

[Jayls5]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Bob

Wow BobRyan, nice cop out there.

Maybe you'd like to respond to my post, or are you going to ignore it like the other thread again and passively dismiss it?

 

[BobRyan]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Since Darwin's last recorded words, shortly before his death, on the subject were that he was "leaning toward agnosticism", I'd have to wonder where you got your idea. .

1. "Quote" something accurately to make your case.

2. My position stands -- the evolutionis doctrines of Darwin lead to the collapse of his faith = the end of his acceptance of the Christian Bible.

3. The attacks by Atheists and some very confused Christians against non-Christian scientists - evolutionists who ACCEPT the "basic principle" of I.D shows the truly atheist element of Darwinism.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Bottom line? Darwin SAID he gave up on God and the bible because of his faith in Darwinism. That "Barbarian" does not find that to be atheism is "very telling"

Since Darwin's last recorded words, shortly before his death, on the subject were that he was "leaning toward agnosticism", I'd have to wonder where you got your idea. .

1. "Quote" something accurately to make your case.

2. My position stands -- the evolutionis doctrines of Darwin lead to the collapse of his faith = the end of his acceptance of the Christian Bible.

3. The attacks by Atheists and some very confused Christians against non-Christian scientists - evolutionists who ACCEPT the "basic principle" of I.D shows the truly atheist element of Darwinism.

Bob

Ahh I see

1) The quote applied. It accurately made his case.

2) Your position doesn't stand, given the fact that the quote directly refuted it and you have nothing substantial to offer against it other than your own opinionated assertions.

3) I'm running out of patience for this bull.

Stop avoiding entire responses to things. Stop avoiding direct quotes that contradict what you're asserting.

 

[BobRyan]

Hint: Say something "substantive"

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[
1-2) There's an old phrase that comes to mind. "It's difficult to understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding it."

Indeed - government grants to atheist darwinist projects -- research comes to mind -- but I did not thing you were objective enough to bring that up.

Impressive that you would bring out a self-defeating point against your own position.

So yes, the reason scientists are skeptical of Christian funded work is the heavy bias that accompanies it.

Hint -- that is exactly the problem with the distinctively atheist religious positions in darwinism.


That is WHY ID is so unnacceptable to them-- it rejects the shackled-limits of atheist religionists "by definition".

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Jay

3) Data does not lead to “design by intelligence†unless you define precisely what criterion determines “design by intelligence.†Otherwise, it’s merely “I can’t explain this effectively.†Not being able to explain something with current information does not lead one to “design by intelligence†by default like so many Christians appear to assert. The rest of this section of your post is dependent on this assumption, which in itself needs argumentation. You can’t just assume it.

By way of "evidence"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

Jay

3) Holy loaded language batman!

Say something substantive.

Jay
I especially like the part where you assert “hidden†hoaxes. By definition, you wouldn’t even know if it was a hoax if it were hidden. Either it’s not a hoax, or you’re admittedly making unsubstantiated claims here.

This is where you reveal the blinders-on deny-all subjectivity you are using in your devotion to the junk-science basis for Darwinism.

1. Piltdown man - over THREE DECADES of fraud
2. Neandertal dating claims - over THREE DECADES of fraud
3. SIMPSON horse series - over FIVE DECADES of fraud
4. Haeckles "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny" DECADES of fraud
...

With many DECADES of fraud going "unnoticed" until they are finally "exposed" how many EXISTING frauds are simply in their EARLY DECADES of fraud not yet exposed.

Hint - we "begin to see a pattern".

Jay
4) In the interest of reducing length, I’ll spare quoting the part on Dawkins again. It appears you completely missed the point he was making anyway. The whole idea was that he’s an atheist to a mainstream Christian view.

An interesting "gloss over" of the details. Dawkins claims HE is a devoute Atheist -- why not allow yourself the "freedom" to watch the Expelled movie and see for yourself?

Jay
Assuming it “was†God, we haven’t learned anything other than “we should stop asking questions past this point.â€Â

Wrong.

Admitting to "design" in Michael Angelo's painting does not stop us from studying it.

Admitting to "design" in a signal intercepted from Russia does not stop us from "stuyding it".

Admitting to "design" in an airplane captured from some foreign nation does not "stop us from studying it".

This is all just "obvious".

hint: The fact that devotion to atheist darwinist doctrines requires "denial of the obvious" is also "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader.

Jay
The fact that Dawkins wants to keep a theistic God out of the affairs of science doesn't mean that he thinks believers can't have religious interpretations on scientific affairs.

You have reduced yourself to arguing about what Dawkins "will allow others to think".

My point is that Dawkins HIMSELF admits to the blatant contradiction between the doctrines of Darwinism and the concept of a Creator God (no matter WHO's god you choose). As Dawkins likes to call him -- "the flying spaghetti monster".

Whether Dawkins also wants to "censor the thoughts" of all humans on the planet is not the subject of discussion. The point is that Dawkins sees clearly the contradiction between Darwinian dogma and acceptance of a Creator God. Dawkins clearly views this as atheist vs non-atheist "war" in his words.

Jay
Regardless, as I was saying, "Atheist Darwinism" is a fairly ridiculous phrase.

You have to first deal with the "salient point" of the argument to then rush to that conclusion.

The salient point is NOT ONLY that Atheist darwinists like Dawkins, Provine, Huxley and Darwin admit to this contradiction BUT ALSO the attack on fellow evolution scientist who will tolerate ID discoveries shows a DISTINCTIVELY ATHEIST model for Darwinist "believers".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

[
1-2) There's an old phrase that comes to mind. "It's difficult to understand something when your salary depends on you not understanding it."

Indeed - government grants to atheist darwinist projects -- research comes to mind -- but I did not thing you were objective enough to bring that up.

Impressive that you would bring out a self-defeating point against your own position.

I started responding to the whole post you just made, and then I decided against it. I will not continue to discuss things with you if you're going to pull things out of context like that. I explained specifically why they do this, and you skipped this explanation overtly. I have no motivation to discuss something with you if you're not going to discuss it.

Let me know when you want to be a big boy and respond to what I actually say instead of pull quotes out of context for your strawmen.

 

[BobRyan]

I can not be blamed if your own quotes highlight the flaws in your own arguments.

Next.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

I'm sorry. Did you say something? HAHAHAHAHA.

I wouldn't know because no longer shows what you say on this forum, but I'm going to speculate and say that it didn't address any arguments or things of mine you skipped over (as usual). Don't bother responding though, I'm done with you now.

Pulling things out of context is sweet, except when everyone realizes you have done it and it ruins your credibility. Bye.

 

[Barbarian]

Quote" something accurately to make your case.

You have no sense of irony at all, do you Bob? You've been caught fiddling with quotes so frequently, no one even reads all that stuff you spam the board with, anymore.

We're just going to have to differ on this one. Darwin's attribution of the creation of life to God is not "atheism", no matter how much you want it to be.

2. My position stands -- the evolutionis doctrines of Darwin lead to the collapse of his faith = the end of his acceptance of the Christian Bible.

Nonsense. As you see, at the very time he wrote his book, he was a confirmed theist. And BTW, he put that in a later edition of the book, not the first edition, so we know that he didn't become an atheist. (Late in life, long after he went on to other things, he said he was "leaning toward agnosticism)