Evolution is a story

[Larniavc]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

False.

Next.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

False.

Next.

My you are very confident! Is your conclusion based on evidence? - if so, what evidence do you base this upon ?

 

[juvenissun]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

Do you really WANT to know the answer?
I don't think so.

 

[quatona]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

If I were out to invent a scientific theory that excludes God from man´s life, I certainly wouldn´t invent a theory that is in conflict merely with the god concept of one particular extremist religious fringe group.

 

[Larniavc]

My you are very confident! Is your conclusion based on evidence? - what evidence do you base this upon ?

ToE was invented by man but the fact that things evolve has very little to do with man.

Many Christians have no issue with ToE so it cannot be an attempt to sideline the role of the Christian god (or at least an attempt to sideline God that has any merit).

I'd go as far to say that the only people who think it sidelines God are Biblical literalists.

Most other folks are getting on with their lives.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Do you really WANT to know the answer?
I don't think so.

Yes, I most certainly do ! No point in posting here, after such a long time, if I didn't --- plus by my recollection of your participation in threads, that I most certainly warmly welcome your interaction

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

ToE was invented by man but the fact that things evolve has very little to do with man.

Many Christians have no issue with ToE so it cannot be an attempt to sideline the role of the Christian god (or at least an attempt to sideline God that has any merit).

I'd go as far to say that the only people who think it sidelines God are Biblical literalists.

Most other folks are getting on with their lives.

Thank you for your reply

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If I were out to invent a scientific theory that excludes God from man´s life, I certainly wouldn´t invent a theory that is in conflict merely with the god concept of one particular extremist religious fringe group.

Is it not also true that such a fringe group probably didn't even exist at the time ?

 

[Zoii]

This again?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

This again?

My apologies for boring you Zoii, but it is 'This again' --- will you please take me to your leader?

 

[quatona]

Is it not also true that such a fringe group probably didn't even exist at the time ?

Tbh, I don´t know how many people believed that God had literally hand-crafted A&E, or honestly took Genesis as a factual report that needed to be read literally, back when Darwin coined his hypothesis/theory.
Let´s assume - for the sake of the argument - that this was even a mainstream religious tenet, back then.
Seeing how Christianity had updated its god concepts due to scientific findings countless times before (yes, it always had taken a while...), it would still be naive for Darwin to believe that this wouldn´t happen here, too.

 

[Gene2memE]

--- invented by man

Evolution is a physical process (actually a long series of physical processes) that humans observe occurring in nature. We put a label on these processes in order to more easily conceptualise them.

Evolution is no more invented by man than gravity, electromagnetism, radioactive decay, general relativity or quantum mechanics were invented by man. It is a description of an aspect of reality.

--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Neither Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Wallace's On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type make any reference to evolution in mankind and the only mention of God is in the dedications.

The fact that the theory of evolution has bearing on the creation myths of some religions has no bearing on the actual scientific theory itself. The purpose of which was to provide a framework that better explains the observed facts of nature.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

Is a flim-flam artist who went into the professional reality-denial business that was started by his father. ICR is equal parts apologetics ministry and fund raising exercise first and second, and a research organisation a long, long way third.

It has been reduced to publishing "peer reviewed" articles in its own "journals" and those run by other creationist organisations, and putting out books through the vanity press.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

....
Seeing how Christianity had updated its god concepts due to scientific findings countless times before (yes, it always had taken a while...), it would still be naive for Darwin to believe that this wouldn´t happen here, too.

Yes, that is a very good thought - from what I remember, Darwin was fairly upset about how his work might impact upon the dominant Christian view of the time, and was part of the reason he felt deep concern about what it might do to the faith of some (?)

 

[Gene2memE]

It has a sort of a Richard Dawkins type style to it, thin on evidence

I'm not a Dawkins fan (you could probably call me a detractor), but really, thin on evidence? Dawkins has publishing credits on better than 50 peer reviewed articles and more than a dozen popular science books to his credit. Not to mention his popular media writing, and the hundreds of hours of documentaries and television shows, public speaking and debates on the topic.

When your evidence is that "thin", then you can call him out.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Evolution is a physical process (actually a long series of physical processes) that humans observe occurring in nature. We put a label on these processes in order to more easily conceptualise them.

Evolution is no more invented by man than gravity, electromagnetism, radioactive decay, general relativity or quantum mechanics were invented by man. It is a description of an aspect of reality.



Neither Darwin's On the Origin of Species or Wallace's On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type make any reference to evolution in mankind and the only mention of God is in the dedications.

The fact that the theory of evolution has bearing on the creation myths of some religions has no bearing on the actual scientific theory itself. The purpose of which was to provide a framework that better explains the observed facts of nature.



Is a flim-flam artist who went into the professional reality-denial business that was started by his father. ICR is equal parts apologetics ministry and fund raising exercise first and second, and a research organisation a long, long way third.

It has been reduced to publishing "peer reviewed" articles in its own "journals" and those run by other creationist organisations, and putting out books through the vanity press.

Wow! Thank you, Gene2memE

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm not a Dawkins fan (you could probably call me a detractor), but really, thin on evidence? Dawkins has publishing credits on better than 50 peer reviewed articles and more than a dozen popular science books to his credit. Not to mention his popular media writing, and the hundreds of hours of documentaries and television shows, public speaking and debates on the topic.

When your evidence is that "thin", then you can call him out.

Yeah, I didn't word that well. I meant to refer to the emotional content --- when he goes into articulate anti-God mode

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi Shemjaza,
Isn't the question a more general one '....invented by man....', rather than by Darwin. I mean we are many years along since his pioneering work?

I think if the original versions of the idea are expressed by someone who isn't anti-God and scientists who aren't anti-God work and expand on it to this day, it's impossible to conclude that its purpose is anti-God.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Jimmy,
A quick read through the Objections to Evolution > Evidence*, provides the following stanza, relative to : '....As biologists define macroevolution, both microevolution and macroevolution have been observed. ....' **/***

*- Objections to evolution - Wikipedia
**- Isaak, Mark, ed. (April 16, 2004). "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CB901: No Macroevolution". TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-03-31. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented. Published as Isaak 2007, pp. 87–88
***- Dawkins 2010, pp. 110–

Maybe you shouldn't read so quickly. You can often miss things that way. From my post:

. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .​

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Maybe you shouldn't read so quickly. You can often miss things that way. From my post:

. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .​

Okay, I am little confused by your earlier comments --- I'll need to rethink this
Sorry about that

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Okay, I am little confused by your earlier comments --- I'll need to rethink this
Sorry about that

No worries.