Opinions on this quote

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
"I will not accept that [creation] philosophically, because I do not want to believe in G-d. Therefore, I choose to believe in taht which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

--George Wald, Nobel Prize winner. Author of "Biochemical Science: An Inquiry Into Life"
 

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
"spontaneous generation" here refers to the theory of abiogenesis, which is not the same as the theory of evolution. My opinion on the quotation is that Dr. Wald is incorrect.

Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you could answer a couple of mine. What is the point of this thread, and where did you find that quotation?

EDIT: It is, however, worth noting that "spontaneous generation" is precisely what a literal interpretation of the Bible says happened (minus the evolution part that Dr. Wald believes followed).
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
"spontaneous generation" here refers to the theory of abiogenesis, which is not the same as the theory of evolution. My opinion on the quotation is that Dr. Wald is incorrect.

Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you could answer a couple of mine. What is the point of this thread, and where did you find that quotation?

The point...pure curiosity...

cause you know that curiosity killed the
11.gif


I found the quote at a seminar I went to on Evolution v Creation...it was in my notes....
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
These are a couple of other quotes I managed to glean from the net:

"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46​

He has correctly identified the only two answers to the question of the origin of life. Either it was by divine fiat (special creation) or it was purely naturalistic causes. There is a minority view among scientists that the only alternative to evolution makes sense scientifically. Dean H. Kenyon cowrote a popular book on the concept of Biochemical Predestination. When he was unable to refute the arguments he encountered by a student he embraced scientific creationism. He wrote the textbook that was rejected in the Dover public schools 'Of Pandas and People' for being a creationist publication. This perspective has come to be known as Intelligent Design and probably the closest thing to creationism the scientific communitte has embraced since Darwin.

For more on Dean Kenyon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_H._Kenyon

There are only two alternatives to the question of the origin of life. George Wald died in 1997, he now knows that the alternative of God as the agent of the creator of life is the correct one.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Or this one:

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else's home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no long feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, so we are the kingdome, the power, adn the glory forever and ever."

Jeremy Rifkin, "Algeny" 1983 Page 244
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
mark kennedy said:
This perspective has come to be known as Intelligent Design and probably the closest thing to creationism the scientific communitte has embraced since Darwin.
You have a very odd definition of "embraced", that it would include a metaphorical defenestration of Intelligent Design by the scientific community.

EDITED FOR VOCABULARY.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
Or this one:

"We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else's home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no long feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, so we are the kingdome, the power, adn the glory forever and ever."

Jeremy Rifkin, "Algeny" 1983 Page 244
Woah, woah, let's slow down a second. You still haven't answered my question of why you're posting these quotations in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
ummmm yeah...I believe I did ;)
Obviously you missed my follow-up, then. I'll quote it for you so you don't have to scroll up:
Dannager said:
I have difficulty accepting that your intentions behind this were based on pure curiousity, but for the moment I'll run with it. Pure curiousity to find out what, then? What people thought of the quote? Why are you interested?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
Obviously you missed my follow-up, then. I'll quote it for you so you don't have to scroll up:

The quotes are all from respected scientists...who support evolution. So of course, I'd like to know how TE's accept these quotes...

Thanks for the courtesy of the quote:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
The quotes are all from respected scientists...who support evolution. So of course, I'd like to know how TE's accept these quotes...

Thanks for the courtesy of the quote:thumbsup:
I respect these scientists' science. I disagree with their personal beliefs. I have a feeling that the rest of the TEs out there will give you the same answer. Is that all you wanted to know?
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
I respect these scientists' science. I disagree with their personal beliefs. I have a feeling that the rest of the TEs out there will give you the same answer. Is that all you wanted to know?
Well...I was hoping for more of a breakdown, but I'll settle for your answer :)
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
Well...I was hoping for more of a breakdown, but I'll settle for your answer :)
A simple breakdown would go something like: science is expected to be separate from personal belief, especially with respect to religion. The more unbiased with respect to things that are outside the realm of science that a scientific discovery is, the more likely it is to be accurate. I'm sure that the scientists you quoted conducted science as most scientists do - agnostically. Their personal beliefs, then, are irrelevant to me when it comes to their science.
 
Upvote 0

Gwenyfur

Legend
Dec 18, 2004
33,284
3,326
Everywhere
✟66,698.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Constitution
Dannager said:
A simple breakdown would go something like: science is expected to be separate from personal belief, especially with respect to religion. The more unbiased with respect to things that are outside the realm of science that a scientific discovery is, the more likely it is to be accurate. I'm sure that the scientists you quoted conducted science as most scientists do - agnostically. Their personal beliefs, then, are irrelevant to me when it comes to their science.
How then do you explain that many creationist scientists lose their jobs once they become convinced of the Creator?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
What do I think of the quotes? They show that even really smart people can say really stupid things once they step beyond their area of expertise.

I knew a great auto mechanic, he could rebuild or repair anything on a car in record time and for far less than anyone else I knew, but he was a Moon-hoax theorist. So when he talked about my car and what I needed to get done with it I listened, when he talked about NASA or the Moon I tuned him out.

I do the same with many scientists, I love to listen when they talk about what they do (science) but when they get onto the subject of theology or other areas outside of their field I tend not to listen or put much stock into what they say.
 
Upvote 0

Dannager

Back in Town
May 5, 2005
9,025
475
38
✟11,819.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Democrat
Gwenyfur said:
How then do you explain that many creationist scientists lose their jobs once they become convinced of the Creator?
Creationist scientists could lose their jobs (though I can't recall seeing any evidence of this) when they are no longer able to remain agnostic towards science and thus no longer able to produce unbiased results. More succinctly, scientists don't lose their jobs because of their beliefs; they lose their jobs because they are unable to separate their beliefs from their work.
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you want a detailed response, this kind of quote is particularly interesting to me because:

1. They show that a significant part of YEC maneuvering concentrates around discrediting the opposition. Why should I care if evolution is something atheists believe in? An atheist might say one day that "germ theory shows that we don't need God to explain diseases" and you wouldn't see Christians boycotting antibiotics (or, even scarier, some Christians just might ... ). Evolution seems unsavoury after being shown to be believed by atheists precisely because there has already been a subconscious value judgment against evolution regardless of who believes it.

There is a Chinese story about a man whose axe went missing and who suspected his neighbour for stealing it. Every move the neighbour made seemed suspicious and shady and at every step and every greeting the neighbour seemed to be hiding something. One day the man found the axe somewhere in his house, and instantly his neighbour seemed nothing like a thief and perfectly like a decent good man again. ... Creationists are only concerned about evolution's atheist proponents because they've already decided beforehand that evolution is bad. This is evident because their selective processing pays no attention to the many Christians who believe in evolution too.


2. It shows precisely why evolution is considered a science whereas creationism is considered religious. A scientific view of reality is an objectively agreeable view of reality that can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured. This scientific view of reality is a view that can be agreed on irrespective of belief or perspective.

Note that I have never said and will never say that a scientific view of reality is a complete view of reality. A scientific view of reality alone is a view fit for a machine. As sentient, numinous-aware humans we have a metaphysical view of reality overlaying our scientific view of reality. However, the key property of a scientific view is that it can be agreed on and reconciled with from within multiple differing metaphysical views. The atheist and the Christian agree that apples fall downward.

And so why do I say that evolution is science? Because it can be believed regardless of one's religion. It can be observed and believed by atheists, by Christians, by Muslims, etc. Whereas creationism as it currently is only makes sense within particular metaphysical frameworks e.g. God-of-the-gaps frameworks, omphalos/maya frameworks. The spectacular irony about scientific creationism is that if it is truly scientific it must be something even the atheist can believe in, a clear contradiction to the beliefs and aims of all major "scientific" creationism organizations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Praxiteles
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gramaic

Sinophobic
Sep 20, 2005
1,488
45
39
Greater Los Angeles
✟9,413.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Gwenyfur said:
"I will not accept that [creation] philosophically, because I do not want to believe in G-d. Therefore, I choose to believe in taht which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

--George Wald, Nobel Prize winner. Author of "Biochemical Science: An Inquiry Into Life"

As a Christian, I feel sorry for this person because he doesn't believe in God. BTW, wasn't "spontaneous generation" the old belief that living organisms evolved from dead organisms?

Gramaic
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.