Posted on 09/11/2008 9:55:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sept 10, 2008 — Astrobiologist David Deamer believes that life can spontaneously emerge without design, but he thinks lay people are too uneducated to understand how this is possible, so he gives them the watered-down version of Darwin’s natural selection instead, which he knows is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. That’s what he seemed to be telling reporter Susan Mazur in an interview for the Scoop (New Zealand). Is the lay public really too dense for the deeper knowledge of how evolution works?...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Do atheists have some other account of how we got here? Please share it with us.
Yeah, right, you’ve NEVER heard an atheist use evolution to justify his belief in naturalism sans Creator.
There are a couple of possible conclusions to be reached - you don’t know the topic, or you’re lying.
William Provine, to name one famous atheist:
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day “
two responses, none even approaching a cite. MrB appears to have copy/pasted one, but didn’t cite it.
Holding your hands over your ears, stamping your feet, and screaming that you can’t hear us?
Actually, if you were half as smart as you evos think you are,
you’d maybe understand from reading the post that the citation was from
William Provine’s keynote speech at the 1998 Darwin Day.
The creation account is not dogma nor is it doctrine. It’s the account of creation related to us by God.
Relating a factual account of something does not qualify as doctrine or dogma.
Yes, I understand what dogma is and when science is trespassing into it.
Science is trespassing into dogma when it destroys the career of those scientists who dare to speak up against it.
What explanation of where we came from and how we got here to atheists adhere to?
If it’s not the ToE, then what is it?
It seems to me that if the odds of something exceeded 10 to the third power it was considered impossible. Would you consider this to be correct?
And a whole lot of people who aren't.
By that reasoning, then we shouldn't be having the ToE being taught either. Why favor one over all the rest?
Because one is science and the others are theology. Both are taught in universities, each in their proper place.
Right now, the only reason that it's being taught in schools is because of the abuse of the judiciary. It's being forced on an unwilling public through litigation by those who think that they are the intellectual elite.
Keep telling yourself that.
Just what would be the reaction of the evos if the creation account of the Bible was the only creation account allowed to be taught in schools because of the same underhanded techniques? (You really don't need to bother answering that.)
But I will. I don't agree that requiring the teaching of science in science classes is underhanded.
I think you're misunderstanding my viewpoint because I'm not saying that at all. I think most Christians would say that "science" in general is on pretty solid ground. However, most Christians would disagree that evolutionary theory is on the same footing as other disciplines. Not the science involved with the theory, but the conclusions drawn from the data. When it comes to evolution there are clearly different ways to interpret that data and this is true even among evolutionists.
If I'm reading your comment correctly, you have completed this course of study yourself, and that truth has been revealed to you and you have embraced it. You now submit that it is the responsibility of the rest of us (or at least those that would pursue any interest in science) to complete that same course of study, and arrive at and embrace those same conclusions.
Not at all. I wasn't talking about science at all. I was talking about religion and specifically old earth versus young earth theories of creation. I wasn't making the case that scientists needs to study the bible to understand science although I think it would be helpful for scientists to study the bible. To be honest I think it would be extremely beneficial for everyone to really study the bible. Do I think I'm right? Of course or I wouldn't be advocating it. Am I going to get upset and have a snit if someone doesn't agree? Of course not, and especially if they've made a dedicated honest effort.
Since biology is not my profession, I am not equipped to determine exactly where the threshold of possibility is, but we can rest assured that the general odds against special evolution are sufficient to demolish the idea.
I’m not saying that all people who believe in evolution are atheists, people are free to believe any creation account that they choose, but all atheists have no alternative as to how we got here other than the TOE. Hence, the TOE is the creation account of the atheist. If it’s not, please provide us with whatever account it is that atheists have that otherwise explains how the universe came into being and how life arose.
The ToE is being taught in the schools, not by the choice of most of the populace. There are myriads of lawsuits brought against schools and school boards every time the parents in a community dare to speak their mind and state that they wish to have creation taught in schools as well as evolution. Forcing one’s unsubstantiated belief in evolution to the exclusion of all others, on others, through litigation is the abuse of the judiciary.
Lacking detailed knowledge of what forms your viewpoint, I’ll have to take your word for that.
Biology is my profession.
What is so “special” about “special evolution”?
Evolution happens.
If I took a single bacteria, allowed to to form a colony, then plated that colony on ten different petri dishes and subjected them to ten different stresses would they not EVOLVE to counter these stresses?
This adaptability of life due to the ability to select from genetic variation has been seen in thousands of experiments.
In fact one of the responses of these bacteria to stress is to UPREGULATE genes that will increase the mutation rate and DOWNREGULATE genes that will repair mutations.
Why would they want to do so?
I don't know if I would agree that most Christians would disagree, but I understand that many of them do. I don't have a problem with them disagreeing with it, and offering alternative interpretations of the data and physical evidence, and theories based on those interpretations.
What I do disagree with is the attempt to exempt those theories from having to provide evidence and being submitted for peer review by the scientific community before they are accepted as valid.
You have a particular interpretation of the account of creation in Genesis, and you test theories and interpretations of evidence and data against that standard. You assume that account to be scientifically authoritative, and believe that should be acceptable to anyone else as a test of the validity of those theories - even in the absence of any physical evidence to support it, or the presence of evidence to the contrary.
Science is trespassing into dogma when it destroys the career of those scientists who dare to speak up against it.
You just blew away your own argument.
You say you find them equally dogmatic because there is no "modern day evidence" to support either one so both are equally a matter of faith. We can play the semantic game of what does and doesn't constitute "evidence" all day and never be any closer to agreement. You don't have to accept the the physical evidence exists at all. You don't get to declare it non existent or off limits to scientific inquiry.
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.