Theoretical origin of life; new earliest? (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 05, 2017, 13:28 (2606 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As for Darwin, he proposed a chance evolutionary process which dismisses God out of hand. The issue is 'chance' or 'randomness' at the root of evolution not the process itself. My comment above covered that point.

dhw: Darwin never dismisses God out of hand. He was so anxious to avoid having his theory misinterpreted that in later editions he frequently refers to the Creator, and emphasizes that his theory is NOT atheistic. I have frequently quoted these passages, and will do so yet again if you want me to. We both disagree with his hypothesis concerning random mutations and gradualism, but the reason why you find that hypothesis atheistic is that it does not conform to your insistence that God controlled every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to keep life going until he produced the human brain. The idea that chance governed the COURSE (as opposed to the genesis) of evolution could simply mean that was how your God designed it. Opposition to your hypothesis does not automatically mean that the opponent "dismisses God out of hand".

DAVID: You have recognized Darwin did not mention a creator in his first edition. He was forced to do so later because of the reaction to his theory. This is the commentary from many reviewers.

Nevertheless, he only argues that random mutations are the means by which evolution progresses, which does not “dismiss God out of hand”. It only dismisses your contention that God controls everything.

DAVID: The atheists use of Darwin is not due to my reaction in accepting god. I'm simply reporting how they use Darwin. And I see how that use conforms to his theory.

Of course they use his theory to suit their agenda. But the theory itself does not “dismiss God out of hand”.

DAVID: I understand your theory that God might have allowed chance. I just can't believe that if He bothered to do all the creating, He would then give up control over the course of events. But the possibility of chance allows for atheism; that is obvious.

Indeed it does, just as it allows for theism – but the fact that you can’t believe your God would create a spectacle whose unpredictability would add to the interest and wonderment does not mean the theory “dismisses God out of hand”. It simply means God's methods and motives do not conform to your interpretation of them.