The universe

[pudmuddle]

"Blind chance?: Charles Darwin acknowledged “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity.” His contemporary defenders dismiss that view, vigorously opposing Intelligent Design theory instruction in public school science classes."

http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2003_Aug_Pg1.htm

 

[Arikay]

Yes, darwin was a theist most of his life (I believe that changed at one point though).
However, Inteligent Design and The belief that God created are NOT the same thing.

The article:
http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2003_Aug_Pg1.htm

"His encounter with Darwin in college led to that decision. “After a year of college, I went home and denied my faith to my parents,” DeRosa said. “There was a point where I became so rebellious that I yelled out ‘no God.’”"

Ah, yes, the inevitable attempt to label Evolution as Atheist. Sorry to hear that our friend lost his faith. However, his faith must have been weak to begin with, since Evolution Does Not say God didnt create.

Evolution does not Equal Atheism.
(strike 1 for our article )

"What students don’t know, because their public school instructors can’t tell them, is that evolution is a theory without a factual foundation."

Hmm, I remember being told about Evolution being a scientific theory, there of course, is a difference between a normal theory and a scientific theory. And Evolution does have a factual foundation, for those willing to learn.

False and unsubstantiated claims, amounting to "its just a theory"
(strike 2 for our article )

"Biochemist Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, said evolution was a “… highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence….”"

Ah, yes. Because a short, false quote, from a book written by a creationist in 1985 has what bearing on reality today?

"Evolution claims, for example, that life evolved from molecule to man by a series of biological baby steps"

And there ya have it folks, evidence that our article does not understand evolution. Evolution does not claim that life evolved from molecules (non life) that would be abiogenesis.

A false version of evolution.
(strike 3 for our article )

"tiny mutations over millions of years. There is no historical evidence for that claim."

Really? I have heard about a lot of evidence, where exactly is this article looking?

"“irreducible complexity”"

IC has been pretty much falsified. Just recently there was a computer program that Evolved "organisms" (bits of code) using Evolution, and I believe in over 50% of the runs the organisms Evolved IC parts.

A look at Behe's IC,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

[snip]

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

"Biochemist Michael Denton, in his book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, said evolution was a “… highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence….”"

Ah, yes. Because a short, false quote, from a book written by a creationist in 1985 has what bearing on reality today?

Actually Denton was a medical doctor and not a biochemist when he wrote Evolution a Theory in Crisis. I read the book when it first came out and concluded that he was writing about biochemistry and evolution without understanding either. Now that he has done a lot more research and has a better understanding of both he has changed in tune in Natures Destiny and now promotes the strong antrophic principle with evolution not only being allowed but inevitable.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Arikay]

Very interesting. So there is an Irony about them using a quote from Denton.

 

[lucaspa]

"Blind chance?: Charles Darwin acknowledged “the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe . . . as the result of blind chance or necessity.” His contemporary defenders dismiss that view, vigorously opposing Intelligent Design theory instruction in public school science classes."

http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2003_Aug_Pg1.htm

Notice we are not given a source of the Darwin quote, so we can see what the full quote is.

1. Neither Darwin nor modern science view the universe as acheiving its present from by blind chance. Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are NOT chance. We need a smiley for "strawman".

2. ID is dismissed because not because it mentions deity, but because every time it makes a statement that can be tested, the statement is shown to be false by the data.

Theistic evolutionists obviously think the universe is not a result of blind chance, but the difference between evolution and ID is about HOW the universe got this way. ID requires that the IDer directly manufacture certain parts of the universe. Quite frankly, they say there are "gaps" in the connections between the processes discovered by science.

Whenever they make specific statements about these gaps, we can show that the gap does not exist.

ID is worse theology than it is science. No Christian should EVER endorse a god-of-the-gaps theology.

 

[lucaspa]

Now that he has done a lot more research and has a better understanding of both he has changed in tune in Natures Destiny and now promotes the strong antrophic principle with evolution not only being allowed but inevitable.

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm

The Frumious Bandersnatch

The IDers at ARN were quite nonplussed when Denton came out with his new book. Somewhere on ARN is a discussion of the book and the IDers don't know how to answer Denton's arguments.

 

[pudmuddle]

Notice we are not given a source of the Darwin quote, so we can see what the full quote is.

1. Neither Darwin nor modern science view the universe as acheiving its present from by blind chance. Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are NOT chance. We need a smiley for "strawman".

2. ID is dismissed because not because it mentions deity, but because every time it makes a statement that can be tested, the statement is shown to be false by the data.

Theistic evolutionists obviously think the universe is not a result of blind chance, but the difference between evolution and ID is about HOW the universe got this way. ID requires that the IDer directly manufacture certain parts of the universe. Quite frankly, they say there are "gaps" in the connections between the processes discovered by science.

Whenever they make specific statements about these gaps, we can show that the gap does not exist.

ID is worse theology than it is science. No Christian should EVER endorse a god-of-the-gaps theology.

I didn't endorse any theology, I merely posted a link I think is interesting.
And you can kindly refrain from telling me what theology to endorse.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Darwin quote in question is from his autobiography. I found the excript at http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

The entire paragraph in question is as follows:

Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.

So Darwin was an IDer. Big whoop. He believed in God as a "first cause." How this beefs up the anti-evolution crusade is a mystery, since evolution has nothing to do with first causes.

Notice that last sentence, which was left out of the OP's quote:

"When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist."

Well, that more or less buries the "evolution is Atheism" nonsense once and for all, doesn't it? Want to guess why this line was omitted in the OP's link?

Must have been a hard day of digging down at the quote mines...

 

[JohnR7]

The Darwin quote: I deserve to be called a theist

Then Darwin goes on to say:

I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic

Will the real Charles Darwin please stand up.

 

[Arikay]

Are you sure you read what he said?

He first says,

"...and I deserve to be called a theist.

This conclusion[6] was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."

So, as we can see, he was a theist when he wrote the Origin of Species, but he slowly turned to agnostic.

He then says,

"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic. "

Which is the same view science has. That although he have some ideas for first cause, its very hard for us to see beyond the big bang, and to see what first started everything.

Then Darwin goes on to say:



Will the real Charles Darwin please stand up.