Misrepresenting Darwin (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 08:38 (5356 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt has made some important observations which I'd like to comment on. (By the way, Matt, I do follow all the other conversations, but prefer not to join in unless I have something that might be worth saying. Your exchanges with David are extremely interesting for me.)-Matt: What has happened, is that evolution was made synonymous with atheism, and design with creationism.-Spot on, and the result has been muddled thinking on a monumental scale. The fundamentalists on both sides are simply incapable of removing their blinkers. Dawkins' equation of evolution with abiogenesis ("Evolution is the creator of life") is just one example, but it is an insidious one because it gives the impression that science supports atheism. In your other post, you observe that "science is operationally agnostic". Right again, but some scientists are not. -One needs to establish a balance here, though. Science should be objective, but I see no reason at all why scientists should not draw their own subjective conclusions from their studies. I have total respect for David, whose scientific studies have led him to believe in design, and for George, whose scientific studies have led him to believe in chance (plus the natural laws). But no-one should claim that science supports their beliefs, and beliefs should not be allowed to influence science. Science has to be neutral. -I'm not sure that your distinction between naturalism and materialism would stand up in a philosopher's court, since philosophical naturalism quite specifically does not allow for the supernatural, but the term has so many applications that it's quite difficult to pin down. There is even, I believe, a field of religious naturalism. Different 'isms' often mean different things to different people. However, your statement that "the arguments against design are only valid within the realm of scientific materialism" will do for me. Materialism starts out from the premise that there is nothing beyond the physical world, and that of course is a statement of belief, not of scientific fact. -You wrote that initially you had to "figure out that you gents really did mean "Design" and not the pseudo-creationism touted by organizations such as the "Discovery Institute"." When we opened up this site, it was castigated on various atheist websites as a cover for creationism. Once they'd seen the critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion, they simply didn't bother to follow the arguments through. I seem to remember George saying some time ago that originally he had logged on in order to counter any creationist arguments. Fortunately for us he was open-minded enough to read on, and despite the many clashes, the result has been reasoned debate instead of the vituperation that is the hallmark of fundamentalism. Apart from Mark (I do wish he would make a comeback), we have had the same irrationality from religious believers. I recall an email sent directly to Clare (who publicized the website) by a Christian who said he didn't need to discuss anything since he already knew the truth. Ah, that's the spirit!