Misrepresenting Darwin (Evolution)
George commented under "Nature's IQ" that life "is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."-Why complexity should preclude design I really don't know. If anything, I would reason the reverse, but the remark set me thinking about this constant misrepresentation of evolution and indeed of Darwin. Over and over again, atheists imply that design and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive, so that theists are automatically seen as anti-science. This is true of fundamentalists, but one should not confine rational discussion to knocking down the fundamentalists. Nor, for that matter, should one equate querying aspects of Darwin's theory with rejection of the whole. The fact is that evolution is NOT incompatible with the concept of design, and hence with theism. The theist evolutionist argument is that the whole process was set in motion by a designer (and perhaps on occasions the designer may have intervened). The nature of such a designer is outside the parameters of the argument, which is based on the difficulty of attributing such complexity to chance. -This was also Darwin's point, and he knew a thing or two about evolution. In his autobiography (1876), for instance, he says that when writing The Origin, he had a strong conviction of God's existence because of "the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man and his capacity 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 intelligent mind ... some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." So much for design versus evolution.-How might it all work? He wrote the following to Asa Gray (1860): "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." However, he continues: "Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton."-There is always a point at which the atheist will remark that science has moved on since Darwin, and we now know a vast amount more than he did, e.g. about genetics. This is obviously true, but the progress of science has not taken us any further in the quest for the ultimate truth about life's origins. It is a distortion of Darwinism to claim that it has, and to associate it and him with atheism. He denied ever having been an atheist, and generally referred to himself as an agnostic. As always, though, he was scrupulously fair in his appraisal of the difficulties (both with his theory and with the question of God's existence). Here is an extract from a letter that was written in 1873 but is just as relevant today:-"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."-I find the last remark intriguingly cryptic, but would like to think that our duty entails continuing the quest even though the ultimate truth may be beyond our reach. Combine these quotes, and I think you have as clear a summary of the agnostic's position as you could wish for. Where, though, is the conflict between evolution and design?
The Nature of Design
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, September 11, 2009, 22:43 (5361 days ago) @ dhw
dhw takes up my aphoristic comment that "life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."-To be more explicit, what I mean by this is that something that is Designed by a Designer such as the artifacts found in The Design Centre in London or the machines found in the Science Museum or the Watch found on the Heath by Dr Paley, have an elegance and clarity and logicality and inevitability and, dare I say, simplicity, about them that are the characteristic that enable us to conclude that they were Designed by a Designer.-On the other hand the structures and systems found in Nature are messy, untidy, illogical, inelegant, tangled, in short complex, and indeed often unnecessarily complicated (e.g. the long routes taken by human nerves and ducts). These are the characteristics to be expected of something that has been produced as the result of chance and chaotic processes, i.e. has Evolved.-dhw writes: "The theist evolutionist argument is that the whole process was set in motion by a designer (and perhaps on occasions the designer may have intervened)."-Such a "designer" is not really a Designer at all, merely a lighter of the touch-paper, or setter off of avalanches. -dhw cites Darwin writing to Asa Gray (1860): "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." -This is Deism not Theism.-dhw claims: "... the progress of science has not taken us any further in the quest for the ultimate truth about life's origins."-As usual dhw is ignoring all that we have learnt about the development (I would say evolution) of the universe preceding the appearance of life. In particular the (natural) creation in the earliest generation of stars of the elements necessary for the (natural) creation of life. He is also ignoring all that we have learnt about the chemical structure of living creatures. All this is part of the "ultimate truth". -dhw writes: "It is a distortion of Darwinism ... to associate it and him with atheism. He denied ever having been an atheist, and generally referred to himself as an agnostic." -I agree that the evidence shows that Darwin towards the end of his life was an agnostic. Though the term was only coined in 1867 by T. H. Huxley. But this doesn't mean that modern followers of Darwin's ideas in their modern context have to be agnostics too.
--
GPJ
Misrepresenting Darwin
George has changed the title of this thread, but I am unwilling to do so, since his title diverts attention from my main point.-George compares the elegance and clarity of human artefacts with the structures of Nature, which he finds "messy, untidy, illogical, inelegant, tangled, in short complex". He regards the latter as "characteristics to be expected of something that has been produced as the result of chance and chaotic process, i.e. has evolved."-I know you hate mechanical analogies, but there is no escaping the fact that Nature's mechanisms work, and we have so far proved unable to emulate them. We can't manufacture life, reproduction, thought, consciousness etc. How do we know what kind of design is necessary in order to produce these phenomena if we can't produce them ourselves? There is simply no point of comparison. All that we know is that living things function, and no matter how messy, untidy, illogical etc. you may find them, all of your adjectives are subjective judgements. The objective truth is that the structures work. If a system works, and you can't fathom out how it came into being, maybe it's your concept of design that is faulty. -I wrote that the theist evolutionist argument was that "the whole process was set in motion by a designer (and perhaps on occasions the designer may have intervened)." You say that such a designer "is not a Designer at all, merely a lighter of the touch-paper, or setter off of avalanches." Then let me be more precise. 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. -Darwin wrote that he was inclined to "look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." You say this = Deism not Theism. Fair comment, and I should perhaps have said that evolution is not incompatible with theism or deism. 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.-You quite rightly point out that we have learnt an enormous amount about the evolution of the universe and about the chemical structure of living creatures, and you say all this is part of the "ultimate truth". Again, I should have been more precise. By "ultimate truth" I mean whether there is or is not a designer/God/universal intelligence of some kind. Science has got no nearer to answering this question. All its discoveries could be interpreted as showing how Nature works, or how God works.-You agree that Darwin was an agnostic (you are hardly likely to call him a liar), but "this doesn't mean that modern followers of Darwin's ideas in their modern context have to be agnostics too." Of course it doesn't. 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. You evidently do, which is why you wrote: "Life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved." I was merely quoting Darwin in support of my contention that the two theories are compatible.
Misrepresenting Darwin
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
Misrepresenting Darwin
This discussion began with George's statement that "life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."-This sets design against evolution as if they were mutually exclusive, and I've been arguing that the two theories are compatible. Darwin himself said so explicitly, and for this reason it is a misrepresentation of Darwin to associate his name (and "Darwinism") with atheism. The fact that many theists accept the basic theory of evolution should also make it self-evident that the two are compatible.-George: "I am a great admirer of Darwin, but because he said something doesn't make it true." Quite right. I'm not suggesting that because Darwin was an agnostic, we all have to be agnostics! Nor, of course, am I saying that either the theist or the atheist interpretation of evolution is correct. I'm merely pointing out that Darwin is a not insignificant opponent of your argument, which in your previous response seemed to be based on your apparent and possibly unique knowledge of how life looks when it is designed and when it is not designed. -I tried to explain why the two theories were compatible: i.e. a theist can argue that the original self-replicating molecules with their potential for variation were too complex to have come about by chance, and must therefore have been designed. Evolution followed (possibly with, possibly without intervention). Where is the clash between evolution and design? (He/she could also argue that the whole process of evolution is a vast experiment overseen by the divine scientist. Again, no clash.)-Your response to this was to refer me to two articles by Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins. You said that "Armstrong's idea of God is nothing like the theist evolutionary god that dhw describes in his post." This is simply because Armstrong doesn't deal at all with the false dichotomy of evolution versus design. She asks whether we can use evolutionary theory "to recover a more authentic notion of God" (who judges its authenticity, I wonder?), and comes up with a semi-mystic equation of religion with art, leading to an "attitude of wonder" which she shares with Dawkins. Her article is irrelevant to our discussion.-Dawkins ... not unusually ... bases his argument on a distortion: "Evolution," he says, "is the creator of life." No it isn't. "We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this [= Darwinian evolution] is the process that has generated life on our own planet." No it isn't. Darwinian evolution did NOT create or generate life. Darwinian evolution is the process that took over once life had been created/generated. Dawkins states his case as if it were based on scientific fact, but neither he nor you nor anyone knows how life was created/generated, and that (not Darwinian evolution) is the point at issue. While I understand your kinship with Dawkins, George, it baffles me that you can condone such misrepresentation.-You are, however, absolutely right when you say that my non-belief in the ability of chance to create/generate/bring into existence the immensely complex processes of replication and variation is an "argument from personal incredulity". If someone puts forward an argument for which there is no evidence and which seems to me to place undue demands on my credulity, of course I can't believe it. I don't believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator either, but I doubt if you'll dismiss that non-belief as "an argument from personal incredulity". -As regards variation, if all life evolved from the original self-replicating molecules, those molecules must have contained the potential for variation ... if they hadn't, nothing would have changed and there would have been no evolution. But in any case this makes no difference to the basic fact that belief in the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with belief in design.
Misrepresenting Darwin
by David Turell , Monday, September 14, 2009, 14:41 (5359 days ago) @ dhw
As regards variation, if all life evolved from the original self-replicating molecules, those molecules must have contained the potential for variation ... if they hadn't, nothing would have changed and there would have been no evolution. But in any case this makes no difference to the basic fact that belief in the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with belief in design.-Hear, hear!! Exactly my starting point in the research and reasoning I have done. And on point (I think) is the following bit of scientific comment on one of my favorite subjects, microRNA, which fits my theory exactly:-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19472371
Misrepresenting Darwin
by David Turell , Monday, September 14, 2009, 18:52 (5358 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, September 14, 2009, 19:28
This discussion began with George's statement that "life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved." > > This sets design against evolution as if they were mutually exclusive, and I've been arguing that the two theories are compatible. Darwin himself said so explicitly, and for this reason it is a misrepresentation of Darwin to associate his name (and "Darwinism") with atheism. The fact that many theists accept the basic theory of evolution should also make it self-evident that the two are compatible.-To quote Dawkins: "If we didn't know about life we wouldn't believe it was possible---except, of course, that there'd then be nobody around to do the disbelieving!" Ernst Mayr took a similar approach at the Wistar Symposium in 1967 which showed that evolution by mutation alone could not occur in the time alloted: "We are comforted by knowing that evolution occurred". Res ipse loquitor. Since when do we allow simple observation skills from stopping us from thinking, questioning, and investigating? The findings of epigenetics and microRNA's guiding and driving evolution raises the issue of a guiding code over-riding the basic and more simple DNA/RNA transcription code. I still maintain that the 'complexer' it gets, the more mutations are needed in a finite amount of time. How lucky were we to be here?
Misrepresenting Darwin
by David Turell , Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 14:24 (5358 days ago) @ dhw
Dawkins ... not unusually ... bases his argument on a distortion: "Evolution," he says, "is the creator of life." No it isn't. "We know, as certainly as we know anything in science, that this [= Darwinian evolution] is the process that has generated life on our own planet." No it isn't. Darwinian evolution did NOT create or generate life. Darwinian evolution is the process that took over once life had been created/generated. Dawkins states his case as if it were based on scientific fact, but neither he nor you nor anyone knows how life was created/generated, and that (not Darwinian evolution) is the point at issue. While I understand your kinship with Dawkins, George, it baffles me that you can condone such misrepresentation.- Here is a rather critical review of Dawkins latest book. The reviewer likes Kenneth Miller's book, which I think has misinformation:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327256.400-review-the-greatest-show-on-earth-by-richard-dawkins.html
Misrepresenting Darwin
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 22:24 (5357 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > If a system works, and you can't fathom out how it came into being, maybe it's your concept of design that is faulty. - I think somewhere... an engineer just died...-> I wrote that the theist evolutionist argument was that "the whole process was set in motion by a designer (and perhaps on occasions the designer may have intervened)." You say that such a designer "is not a Designer at all, merely a lighter of the touch-paper, or setter off of avalanches." Then let me be more precise. 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. > > Darwin wrote that he was inclined to "look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." You say this = Deism not Theism. Fair comment, and I should perhaps have said that evolution is not incompatible with theism or deism. 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. > > You quite rightly point out that we have learnt an enormous amount about the evolution of the universe and about the chemical structure of living creatures, and you say all this is part of the "ultimate truth". Again, I should have been more precise. By "ultimate truth" I mean whether there is or is not a designer/God/universal intelligence of some kind. Science has got no nearer to answering this question. All its discoveries could be interpreted as showing how Nature works, or how God works. > -That's because science is operationally agnostic. It can't work without Occam, and God is the ultimate in non-reductive thought.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
The Nature of Design
by David Turell , Saturday, September 12, 2009, 17:00 (5361 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw takes up my aphoristic comment that "life is far too complex to have been designed. It could only have evolved."-George's aphorism is the most twisted logic presented here. As we find life to be more and more complex, that fact requires the previous appearance of more and more mutations, if the stepwise claim of Darwin is correct. The more mutations in a passive system, the more time required and the more contingencies appear. This takes us back to the Wister Symposium of 1967 with the conclusion there is not enough time for enough mutations. We are finding that there is an internal code system with miRNA, iRNA, sRNA, etc. And we see epigenetics processes apparently have a huge, previously unsuspected, role. These are drivers, not passive, not like Darwin's at random, bumbling proposal. Did evolution create those drivers or is DNA designed to push evolution along its progressive path?
Misrepresenting Darwin
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 22:13 (5357 days ago) @ dhw
dhw--Good to speak to you again,-> I find the last remark intriguingly cryptic, but would like to think that our duty entails continuing the quest even though the ultimate truth may be beyond our reach. Combine these quotes, and I think you have as clear a summary of the agnostic's position as you could wish for. Where, though, is the conflict between evolution and design?-In my observation it is because this conflict is actually about Scientific Materialism vs. Mysticism; a battle that has been raging since the enlightenment, spearheaded by such thinkers such as Voltaire. As pointed out by you and many other people with calm heads, evolution and design are not mutually exclusive. There is an infinite number of metaphysical explanations that can coexist just fine. -What has happened, is that evolution was made synonymous with atheism, and design with creationism. The two sides certainly think they're arguing about the issue at hand, but they clearly are not. Most of Hovind's arguments are against atheism, not evolution--because to him evolution naturally leads to atheism and Nazism. (Though he conveniently forgets that Eugenics began in the U.S. and was imported to Germany.) In my "former life" as David says, most of my attacks against Design were attacks against creationism... again, entirely different. Most of my first months at this site was to figure out that you gents really did mean "Design" and not the pseudo-creationism touted by organizations such as "The Discovery Institute." -But to stay on topic, the arguments against design are only valid within the realm of scientific materialism. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia the "scientific materialism" article has been replaced and linked to "Naturalism," two ideas that are complimentary, but quite different from each other. Naturalism and Materialism are different philosophies indeed.-Naturalism will allow you to believe in the supernatural, and materialism--will not.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Misrepresenting Darwin
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!
Misrepresenting Darwin
by David Turell , Thursday, September 17, 2009, 14:46 (5356 days ago) @ dhw
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. -Today I tumbled upon a blog discussion at "First Things", a Catholic blogsite, (I look everywhere for discussions at the level of this website) and there is a sharp interchange about evolutionary psychology. Stephen M Barr, whose book, "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith", argues they are compatable. He is a prof of physics at U. Delaware. But he also supports making up theories that are commonsensable and that these theories are science!- http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/09/14/why-women-hate-snakes/- Note Barr's comment on 9/16. that is what I am referring to.
Misrepresenting Darwin
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 16:08 (5356 days ago) @ dhw
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. -Nietzsche scoffed at Kant by stating that it was impossible to be impartial. The fact that you have chosen to study a thing means that you have a drive to do it. Passion = action to Nietzsche. Science as a beast however is self-correcting. It can make mistakes, but it is important to note that it's only ever been other scientists that have corrected the machine. -> 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. > -Well, naturalism in all the formulations I've seen state "Supernatural events cannot be distinguished from natural events." Atheists interpret this as everything is natural, but scientists that I've worked with interpret it as you do: we don't know where to draw the line. I've run into formulations similar to what you have, but in most instances that is an atheist injecting their view into naturalism. -> 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!-The best argument fundamentalist Christians have against atheists is the one that atheists *hate* with the most ferocity... because it touches upon that nerve of unsurety that unsettles all but the strongest of hearts. -Atheism, when stated as "There is no God," and not "I don't believe in God," is just as much a statement of faith as "Jesus has Risen." I've said why myself before, but without actual knowledge no one can say either thing.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"