Misrepresenting Darwin (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 16:08 (5545 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.\"