Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I saw it too. Dawkins did in fact say there must be some “higher being” involved in the origin of biological life on earth.
I get to stop reading right there with the bringing out of the big atheist boogeyman. What will follow will inevitably be crap.
I like it! That phrase has a ring to it, kind of like ‘there are different kinds of and extents to miracles.’ I’m still waiting to see where/when the Angels are sequestered ... kind of think it is a temporally-less-limited thingie.
Stein was scripted and had the advantage that Dawkins was not expecting an adversarial interview due to having been intentionally misled about the nature of it.
I think you're right that he used the term "higher being", but I am as certain as I can be that he was not advocating the necessity of such, but only allowing it into hypothetical consideration after being pressed by Stein.
I think he did say that anyone that was capable of doing this must be operating on a level far beyond humans, and I think this is what you are remembering. The "must" is applied as a stipulation in the hypothesis, and by no means refers to a belief that the hypothesis "must" be true.
Where do you believe life originated from?
See the tagline in the post following yours.
Yes, and materialism seems to be his religion. It is a belief. Often it seems adhered to with a fanatic denial of the possibility of there being God because of an adversion to the very idea of having to submit to a moral judge. Maybe because one feels one can never measure up. Maybe because one loves his or her suicidal and destructive independence not realizing that one cannot exist harmoniously outside of His jurisdiction. It is a great hope that these individuals will come to there senses and realize that God is LOVE and can and only can fulfill their deepest need and true desire which is to be truly and completely loved. This can only happen when one submits to the Father through His holy and perfect son, Jesus Christ, who died to pay for all of one's sin thus making one acceptable in the sight of The Eternal Judge who must keep justuce. A universe without justice would die a horrible death as does the soul not submitted to justice through The God of justice.
Life is so amazingly and utterly complex and almost and even possibly nearly infatestimally minute in it's organizational levels that this "alien" would have to be God in order to perform it.
“A universe without justice would die a horrible death”
... and could never have come into being in the first place, IMO.
This begs the question, What is life?
Not to use that as a dodge, I will say that I have the highest confidence that life originated from spontaneous physical processes on the primordial earth. However, this is not the real mystery, and I think you Believers ( if I may presume ) make a great mistake in framing your beliefs in materialistic terms with the emphasis on the complexity of celluar processes, etc.
The mystery is not in our material existence, but in our subjective existence, of which science GIVES NO ACCOUNT WHATSOEVER, except to say it is dependent in some way on our material existence, which certainly seems to be the case.
But the direct experience we have of simple sensory sensations, let alone of objects, situations, and our own thoughts and emotions, does not have, and seemingly CANNOT have a materialistic explanation.
So "leave unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is my advice.
Yes, I see what you mean, though I hadn’t thought of God as “bumbling” so much as “experimenting.” Every day I’m asking His help in turning my will over to Him, yet I keep taking it back, in spite of the evidence that it’s better entrusted to Him. It’s easy to see my own bumbling and rebellion and to understand God maybe regretting making humans since we are so easily lured by the liar and our own desire. I see myself bumbling around and going two steps forward, three miles back, but I hadn’t thought of God really bumbling. Now I have to get back into Genesis and think about that, thanks!
So Stein puts to Dawkins a simple question, “How did life begin? .... Dawkins, however, frankly admits that he has no idea. “
So what if Dawkins has no idea? Does that make him dishonest? Why should Dawkins be reluctant to “admit” that he has no idea of how life began. Dawkins is a scientist. Science by definition only accepts evidence that can be observed by the senses. So speaking as a scientist, Dawkins does not believe that there is sufficient “sensible” evidence for the biblical creation story or for the “intelligent alien” theory to form a compelling scientific explanation for the introducion of life on this planet, even though he may be “forced to admit “ the possibility that this is what occurred.
The scientific method has saved humanity from starvation, has brought prosperity to the many and has allowed ordinary people to travel the world in almost perfect safety, and is on the verge of curing cancer. But due to political chicanery, science of late has been deemphasized in our schools. I’m all for religious discussion in schools. But it is anti-educational when a faith based theory is presented to kids in the guise of a “science.”
I once read in a book of "Last Words" of some prince or somebody who refused last rites on his deathbed saying ... "I am curious to see what becomes of the unshriven".
He's my hero!
... typing this I suddenly wondered if this guy wasn't some sort of torture monster or something, but thanks to the miracle of the internet, I find he was an Italian painter, Peitro Perugino ... OK!
Hence to say, "such events take place due to an irregular path" is the same as to say, "I do not know why they occur." The introduction of such lines is in no way superior to the "sympathy," "antipathy," "occult properties," "influences," and other terms employed by some philosphers as a cloak for the correct reply, which would be: "I do not know." That reply is as much more tolerable than the others as candid honesty is more beautiful than deceitful duplicity.
Galileo - The Assayer
I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins had this in mind.
That's right. Primordial life processes and structures must have arisen dynamically, in analogy to the structures of hurricanes and tornados, for example, and on the sun, such structures as spicules, sunspots, and prominences.
The spontaneous origin of these structures refute your categorical assertion that "design requires intelligence".
It isn't too difficult to envision some one with a long white beard scattering seeds across a very (very) large area in the hope or knowledge that SOMEWHERE in that space those seeds will take root.
-——No doubt He is having a good time. But He does have his regrets, as in regretting making humans after they rebelled. Reading the Old Testament, in a literal sense, one can’t help but think that God doesn’t always know what He is doing.....:) I say that tongue in cheek but still, give a careful slow read to Genesis.....from my humble meager human point of view, I sense a bit of bumbling. What this reveals though is how genuinely Free our Free Will really is.-——
All I see is a Lord who is laughing and having fun with his creation who has no understanding of how young it really is. There are twelve trees in the garden of eden and we tasted one and know the purpose of one more-—the tree of life. We may have just awakened to an incredible possibility that we have many stages to go.
I just believe the Bible is true and they believe, well, let's just say "something different". They keep going to "lighting and marsh gas" and space dust and comet ice, and so forth, and I say "Where did that come from?", and then "Where did that come from"?, and pretty soon they run out of fairy tales and give up. Stein is right. Something cannot come from nothing without a Creator. Life cannot come from non-life. Where did all the "Big Bang" material come from? Arguing with an atheist about the Bible is usually a loser, but universal rules are pretty reliable. What they do with it when confronted with the info is up to them. All the ID people want is a discussion. If, as I believe, there is a God Creator, then why can't even the possibility of His existence be discussed? How will anybody argue the truth, if the Truth is never allowed to be discussed? If there is a God Creator and He is dismissed out of hand, then we can never know the truth. It's like saying the sun rises in the east, but you can never even consider the sun rising in the east. You can posit the sun rising in several different directions, but you will never be right and never know the truth if you can't ever discuss the possibility of the east being the proper direction.
I believe this is why it says in Romans: 1 that "They are without excuse". It just seems so logical that matter came from somewhere. It just didn't appear without some Maker, making it. You can mix any chemicals you want together and add any foreign ingredients you want and never make it "alive". If it ever did, then who mixed them?
I think Romans 1:21-22 pretty much describes Dawkins and many of the atheists/evolutionists in this film and beyond. Actually, Romans 1 does a pretty good job of describing our modern day culture overall.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.