No truth, belief, or faith? Hmmm… Human consciousness and conscience cannot ultimately come from mindlessness. Mindlessness can only bestow the illusion of consciousness and conscience – the illusion beauty and love – the illusion of any design we believe to see in nature. If our exsistance were to ultimately come from mindlessness, then everything we believe about ourselves and what we see around us is false.
Moreover, to know these falsehoods about oneself, one must be a sort of diviner or prophet. So what do these prophets of falsehoods say about our exsistance? To paraphrase:
- Dawkins - we are merely lumbering robots doing the bidding of selfish genes created by a blind watchmaker in a universe of blind pitiless indifference without good or evil.
- Rosenberg – we have an illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world - we live with the myths that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning - and that there is a person “in there” steering our body.
- Provine - no ultimate foundation for ethics exists - no ultimate meaning in life exists – and human free will is nonexistent.
- Pinker - brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth
- Dennett - Darwinism is like “a universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view.
- Ruse - ethics is an illusion created by our genes to decive us – morality is an adaptation – and evolution is a religion.
So, if you make evolution into some sort of religion, the it is by all definitions a false one.
Darwinism (unlike ID) doesn’t even exclude anything. It allows for convergent evolution (statistically impossible), stagnant evolution (you mean to tell me that for 500 million years there could be no improvement to the horseshoe crab?), punctuated evolution (everything stays the same for a real long time and then evolution kicks into high gear and it all happens so fast there’s no record of it having happened at all), neutral evolution (the blueprints for marvelously useful structures get created in unexpressed DNA by random shuffling, until one day voila, the gene is turned on and the structure appears fully formed). In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another. This is science? It’s not even a sound religion.
- Laszlo Bencze
"So far as we laymen know, state of the art today is well beyond simple 1950s Miller-Urey, but still far from recreating basic tools of cellular reproduction."
388 posted on 6/21/2017, 9:35:57 AM by BroJoeK
"evolution requires no truth, no belief, no faith and certainly nothing supernatural."
Quack waddle...
"far as we laymen know, state of the art today is well beyond"
...that's a pretty faith-filled DUCK!
Seems to me Transhumanist/Postgenderist/Techocrat kids these days are gonna be in for a bumpy ride once the natural punitive/corrective fail-safe against STEM-worship, described in Romans chapter 1, kicks in... again.
The captain has illuminated the seat-belt sign. Please extinguish all smoking materials!
But none of that has anything to do with science generally or evolution theory specifically.
If you are hereby suggesting that God is essential to creation, I don't for a minute disagree.
But the theory of evolution, so far as it goes, remains both observed and/or confirmed.
Remember, it's the theory of evolution, not theory of everything.
Heartlander: "...to know these falsehoods about oneself, one must be a sort of diviner or prophet.
So what do these prophets of falsehoods say about our exsistance?
To paraphrase:"
Sure, many if not most scientists are atheists and atheism is their religion, I don't dispute that.
But not all scientists, many very famous scientists are/were very devout.
More important, science strictly defined does not require atheism or any other religion.
And by strictly defined I mean methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism simply assumes that whatever supernatural actions God takes cannot by definition be studied scientifically.
Such work is left to theologians & philosophers.
Heartlander: "In evolution anything goes and contradictions live in happy harmony with one another.
This is science?
It’s not even a sound religion."
I disagree, but readily accept that basic Darwinian evolution theory does not answer every conceivable question somebody might throw at it.
Nevertheless, basic theory of speciation through descent with modifications and natural selection remains both observed and/or confirmed.