Misrepresenting Darwin (Evolution)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, September 12, 2009, 21:50 (5360 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: "George has changed the title of this thread, but I am unwilling to do so, since his title diverts attention from my main point."-I only changed the title on my reply to "The Nature of Design" because that was the point I was addressing. I have no desire to misrepresent Darwin's views. He was a very honest man, and also considerate of the religious beliefs of his friends and in particular of his wife. Some people have tried to misrepresent his views. Edward Aveling visited him when he was quite old and tried to get him to admit to being an atheist. Lady Hope tried to put round the usual christian myth that he recanted on his death bed. I am a great admirer of Darwin, but because he said something doesn't make it true. He was a human, not a mystic oracle.-There are two articles that have been commissioned by the Wall Street Journal on "Where does Evolution Leave God". One by Karen Armstrong and the other by Richard Dawkins. You can access them through RD.net, together with other relevant commentary:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleTrollComments,4293,WHERE-DOES-EVOLUTION-LEAVE-GOD,The-Wall-Street-Journal-Richard-Dawkins-Karen-Armstrong,page1-Armstrong's idea of God is nothing like the theist evolutionary god that dhw describes in his post.-dhw: "This concept of a designer entails his/her/its devising the original molecules which were not only able to replicate, but also bore within themselves the potential for adaptation and beneficial, reproducible mutations. This potential was so enormous that eventually it led from relatively simple unconscious organisms to the astonishing complexities that go to make up the human body and mind. The latter process is acknowledged as the path followed by evolution, but for a theist it is simply not credible that those original molecules with their vast potential for change could have come into being by chance. Therefore they must have been designed. Therefore there must have been a designer."-This is just the usual "argument from personal incredulity", augmented by your personal idea that the molecules of life had this mysterious "potential". I see no need to postulate any such "potential". Variations are bound to occur naturally, and it is natural selection that decides whether they are viable.-dhw: "My point was that "over and over again, atheists imply that design and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive", and I also pointed out that "the nature of such a designer is outside the parameters of the argument." A deist God is still a designer."-I refer you to Richard Dawkins's argument in the above article.-dhw: "By "ultimate truth" I mean whether there is or is not a designer/God/universal intelligence of some kind."-Isn't calling this the "ultimate truth" rather begging the question? Why should there be such an imagined being?-dhw: "Again, the point I was making was that Darwinism should not be associated with atheism, since he himself saw no contradiction between evolution and design."-I'm afraid then you will be disappointed with Dawkins's argument in the above article.

--
GPJ