What is striking is that Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion, denies basic knowledge of Darwin's beliefs on these subjects. Why is this striking? Because Dawkins has labelled his professional career position as an "evolutionary biologist" and it would seem likely that at some point Dawkins probably read The Origin of Species. It may be that Dawkins may be in a state of denial and he does not realize what he has read. By comparing Darwins' actually writings with Dawkins' statements about Darwin, it's possible to examine the discrepancies and offer possible reasons for them.
Darwin's beliefs about God
Charles Darwin outlined his personal religious beliefs and spiritual condition in a personal letter to John Fordyce dated 7 May, 1879 that has been saved for posterity: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. ...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[1]
Darwin's beliefs about the origin of life
Darwin wrote both publicly and privately on the subject of the origin of life. Considering the relative dates of the private letters and public writings can help to shed light on the true beliefs of any writer. One would logically conclude that an author's last written work on a subject reflects the author's final opinion. The following quotes are arranged beginning with the most recent ones at the top of the list:
1872: The sixth edition of Darwin's classic work was published in 1872, and is considered the 'quintessential version' by many. For the sixth edition, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. In the conclusion of the 6th edition Darwin specifically used the word "creator" to define the one who "breathed" the first breath of life into living beings on Earth: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[2] The 6th edition of the Origin of the Species was the final edition and is usually considered the 'quintessential version' of the work. The phrase "breath of life" is a phrase straight out of the Bible in Genesis 2.7.
1871 - In a 1871 letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin wrote, "It is mere rubbish to talk about the origin of life; one might as well talk about the origin of matter."[3] Darwin here compares the origin of life with the metaphysical question of the origin of matter. To this day, scientists cannot explain the origin of matter as an ingredient of the time-space continuum. In his statement Darwin is implying that these types of questions are extremely difficult to answer from a purely scientific perspective. Probably because these questions of actual origins cannot be scientifically recreated and tested.
In the same letter Darwin wrote, "But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[4]
Darwin's phrase, "But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive..." indicates that Darwin tended to believe the law of biogenesis is a fact of life. In 1864, Louis Pasteur announced the official results of his scientific experiments proving the law of biogenesis. His announcement was summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life"[5] Pasteur had begun to challenge the popular idea of spontaneous generation in the late 1850's and he was also unfavorable towards the concept of macro-evolution.
1859: Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859. In all the conclusions of all the editions, Darwin attributed the first source of life to divine agency as opposed to abiogenis: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."[6] This shows that the concept of divine agency as an origin of life was the standard conception for Darwin, not the exception.
Darwin's views on scripture
Charles Darwin prefaced the The Origin of Species with this quote from Francis Bacon: 'Let no man ... think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy...'[7] The "book of God's word" signifies the importance of scripture. The "book of God's works" signifies The Book of Nature, as a testimony of God's creation. The acknowledgement of divinity and philosophy in the preface acknowledges the fact that Darwin understood his theory of evolution should be understood within a larger context. Not only that, when coupled with the conclusion of the book, we see that Darwin did not reject divine agency in creation, he saw it as compatible. And he proposed that the divine creation of life was the springboard by which evolution could take place.
Dawkins' revisionism excuse
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins stated, 'I'm not a historian, but I'll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our universe that completely rejected supernatural agents."[8] As noted in the quotes listed in the previous section, Charles Darwin clearly did not 'reject supernatural agents' because his official and longstanding opinion on the subject of life's beginning offered that life began through divine agency. Why is Dawins misleading people? Dawkins has defined himself as 'evolutionary biolgist' and he has most likely read the Origin of the Species at least once. So we can ask, "How did Dawkins miss the truth about Darwin's obvious quotes?" This may have to do with his cultic views on evolution and Darwin.
Dawkins' cultist porno for Darwin
When interviewed in a TV series in 2006, Dawkins stated, "Thanks to science, we now have such an exciting grasp of the answers to [profound] questions, it's a kind of blasphemy not to embrace them."[9] Blasphemy is defined as a contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity. The worship of anything but God is basically idolatry. According to Dawkins, if we don't embrace his god and the kinds of answers he offers, then we are committing blasphemy. The problem is that Dawkins' answers are often blatantly false.
Dawkins' memetics has been labelled as pseudo science in both James W. Polichak's Memes as Pseudoscience and The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Jaroslav Peregrin has described the bizarre animal mind reading that Dawkins and Krebs proposed: "Krebs and Dawkins (1984) pointed out that ...evolution will produce creatures that will be able to "read minds" of other creatures, i.e., predict what these creatures are about to do."[10] Peregrin offers that evolutionists do not actually believe in minds, but, nevertheless, the pre-crime ESP ability will supposedly arrive someday throught the magic of evolution. Evolution News pointed out that Darwin had a much more cautious and objective approach to science than Dawkins:
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened."[11]
William Lane Craig outlined why the conclusion of Dawkins' The God Delusion does not logically follow from the premises.[12] An article at Atheist Delusion exposes 11 logical fallacies committed by Richard Dawkins.[13] Despite all the obvious flaws in his writings, Dawkins remains the best-selling venerated 'high priest' of atheism. How can this be explained? Between his grandiose claims and his underlying worshipful attitude towards science and Darwin, Dawkins' writings seem to have become a kind of addictive pornography for intellectually and spiritually unfulfilled atheists.
Is Dawkins intentionally lying for Darwin or basically deceived himself?
Technically speaking, a lie is a lie when a person is conscious of telling an untruth. It's possible to tell untruths while not being aware of it. In professional psychology this condition is known as simple denial and is defined as such: "Simple Denial - Unpleasant facts, emotions, or events are treated as if they are not real or don't exist."[14] On November 11, 2010, in a videotaped interview, Dawkins was asked for the strongest proof of evolution. Amazingly, all he could offer were some astoundingly incorrect falsehoods. For example, he stated, "So, in the case of FOXP2, if you count the number of letters that are different between humans and chimpanzees, it's only about 9."[15] But the actual number of different characters equals 328,892. Evolution News described why this falsehood was such a "whopper".[16] I outlined a number a falsehoods Dawkins made in an interview with Wendy Wright.[17] Dawkins may be aware of his falsehoods and he may be also be in a state of simple denial regarding the truth. Verse 2 Timothy 3.13 predicts a world of increasing lies, wherein men are "deceiving and being deceived."(NIV). The scriptures state that people who reject the evidence of God's existence are in a state of spiritual blindness.[18] Dawkins words and sense of denial seem to confirm the scriptures. Unfortunately, the type of revisionism Dawkins offers is part and parcel with the revisionism in most secular institutions today.
References
[1] Darwin Correspondence Project, Darwin to John Fordyce (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-12041)
[2] N.Y. Times, An Original Confession, (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/an-original-confession/)
[3] Encyclopedia of Science, Darwin, Charles Robert (1809–1882), (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/DarwinC.html)
[4] Ibid.
[5] Answers in Genesis, Louis Pasteur’s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/louis-pasteurs-views
[6] same as [2] check!! N.Y. Times, An Original Confession, (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/an-original-confession/)
[7] GOD AND THE BIG BANG - AND OTHER ARGUMENTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND FAITH, http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~carling/god&bb1.html
[8] Dawkins, Richard, The God Delusion, 2006, online version, (p 143), (http://books.google.com)
[9] Charles Darwin - Metaphors and Myths, Part 1 - Metaphors and Myths, (http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/dar1.html)
[10] Rules and Evolution, Jaroslav Peregrin, Pg 6. 12/2012
http://jarda.peregrin.cz/mybibl/PDFTxt/531.pdf
[11] Evolution News, For Darwin Day: False Facts & Dawkins' Whopper, (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/for_darwin_day_false_facts_and043691.html)
[12] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p.121, see online, Reasonable Faith Forum, http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493
[13] Atheist Delusion, Critique of Dawkins with Michael J. Penfold, (http://www.atheistdelusion.net/)
[14] Internet of the Mind, Subconscious Mind - A List of Defense Mechanisms
(http://www.internet-of-the-mind.com/list_of_defense_mechanisms.html)
[15] YouTube, Dawkins Caught Lying for Darwin, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYik52Y5rI)
[16] Evolution News, For Darwin Day: False Facts & Dawkins' Whopper, (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/for_darwin_day_false_facts_and043691.html)
[17] Templestream, Why Atheists Fear Debate, (http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-atheists-fear-debate.html)
[18] 2 Corinthians 4.4, (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20corinthians%204&version=NIV)
Search terms
What is idolatry? What is abiogenesis? What is biogenesis? When did Louis Pasteur prove biogenesis? When was On the Origin of Species written? How did life begin? What did Darwin believe about God? Was Darwin an atheist? What is historical revisionism? What is the strongest proof of evolution? Dawkins reinvents Darwin, lying for Darwin, porno for Darwin, porno for atheists, intellectual porno, Darwin quotes, Dawkins quotes
Ad hominem attack and a red herring. This has nothing to do with a proof of "God". Furthermore, you are not even interested in correcting your libels. I also wish you did not get your info about evolution from creationist sites, their distortion of facts has become a tradition.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete>Ad hominem attack and a red herring. This has nothing to do with a proof of "God".
- I'm not sure why everyone who posts at this blog seems to believe every article is supposed to be a proof of God. Can you explain this to me?
It seems to be the only thing you do on your site. Every single article I have seen so far, has been either promoting christianity or trying to discredit other points of view (even if you have only a vague understanding of them and I mostly creating straw-man arguments).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to libel, last time you refused to debate until the end about the fascist/nazi issue because you were "not interested" and left your accusation of a flip-flop intact. Not a very honest stance in my mind.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete>last time you refused to debate until the end about the fascist/nazi issue because you were "not interested" and left your accusation of a flip-flop intact.
Look at the comments of "The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle"
I wrote, 1. Evolution offers that species and races become improved through natural selection.
2. The primary definition of racism offers that certain races are superior to other races.
3. Therefore, evolution is inherently racist.
It's really very basic logic. Theism offers that human value is not based merely on materialist qualities. (Dec 14, 2011 11:55 AM)
Then you wrote, "P.P.S. Being superior in one or two fields does not make a race any more valuable than another one." (Dec 14, 2011 03:15 PM)
...and I answered you:
"Now you are starting to sound like a true God believer. :)"
Note - then I then asked you a question that you did not address:
"Do you believe all humans are equally valuable? Do you believe the elderly are as valuable as the young? The less intelligent are as valuable as the smart, the deformed as valuable as the healthy? The poor as valuable as the rich? If so, why? (Dec 14, 2011 09:19 PM)"
When did I write what you are now accusing me of?...
"last time you refused to debate until the end about the fascist/nazi issue because you were "not interested"
I plainly addressed your questions but you did not address mine! It seems you are into historical revisionism, as Dawkins is.
Anonymous, Having more intelligence or more strength does not make a race "superior" according to theism because human value is has a different basis.
As I wrote in the previous article, according to theism humans are valuable because we are all created in God's image. We are "created equal" as the US DOI states.
Atheism does not have this and so "superiority" in intelligence or strength may be considered literally "more valuable" and elitist, i.e. racist.
BTW I did change that article by adding comments about Fascist Italy, but, perhaps you are right in implying I should add some more comments. Perhaps some of these comments to further clarify why it seems Dawkins flip-flopped.
If you do a little research, you'll see that the Christianity promoted by Hitler was a mockery of true Christianity and it's sole purpose seemed to be to deceive the conservative people into following along:
Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God--yet the military's belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")!
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian
BTW - we see the same type of deception happening today in the US with 'Christian politicians' convincing Christian conservatives that waterboarding and other forms of abuse are basically acceptable...
Look at the comments of "The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle"
DeleteI wrote, 1. Evolution offers that species and races become improved through natural selection.
2. The primary definition of racism offers that certain races are superior to other races.
3. Therefore, evolution is inherently racist.
Actually, "evolution" does not offer an opinion on "improvement". It offers a view of change and adaptation.
People have used evolution to justify racism. People have used Christianity to justify racism. Racists use theories like a drunkard uses a lamppost -- more for support than illumination.
Atheism does not have this and so "superiority" in intelligence or strength may be considered literally "more valuable" and elitist, i.e. racist.
And Christianity has, in some of its sects, belief in predestination -- that some souls are already damned.
Throughout this reply, you make frequent use of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy -- from both sides.
Please note "an atheist may" -- in your own words. Notwithstanding any internal beliefs in human equality (which some atheists do have), you're just saying "Some people of class X might believe Y."
And I'd agree with that.
I'd also note that some people of class Z (self-described Christians) believe Y. But you're prepared to describe them as so-called Christians elsewhere. Tarring all atheists with the sins of one, while forgiving Christians by excluding those who hold beliefs you don't like is fallacious reasoning.
Mr. Warden, I am kinda at a loss to understand your reasoning about supposedly inherent racism of evolution.
DeleteYou'd need first to estabilish that evolution does hold that those improved "species and races" are indeed superior to other species and races.
Without that, your conclusion is a non-sequitor.
Maybe this analogy will help you understand your mistake, Mr. Warden: dolphins can swim faster than humans - does it mean that dolphins are superior to humans? And vice-versa: humans can run faster than dolphins - does it mean that humans are superior to dolphins?
Imnotandrei- People have used Christianity to justify racism...And Christianity has, in some of its sects, belief in predestination -- that some souls are already damned.
Delete- These are illogical summations. Christianity places more value on the spirit than physical qualities.
Kazeite - You'd need first to estabilish that evolution does hold that those improved "species and races" are indeed superior to other species and races.
Simple. The definition of superior is "better" It is better to survive than not to survive, therefore, as Darwin wrote, some races are "favored" - English spelling "Favoured" defined as..."preferred, special, chosen, favourite, selected, recommended, pet, of choice, singled out, best-liked, fave (informal..."
I agree with comments that my definition of evolution must be qualified as Dawkins' brand of evolution, the kind that does not allow any religious overtones whatsoever. That's the key point.
If there is no God and no religion allowable (can you imagine?) then the theory of evolution is basically racist. Because the main value of a human race would then be based upon improved characteristics and this delineation will naturally lead to elitism and racism.
Evolutionary racism is morally justifiable in non-religious atheism. Evolutionary racism is not morally justified by the Bible. The text I pointed out in the previous article implies why: Proverbs states, "He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker." (NIV)[7]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/victorias-secret-model-kylie-bisutti.html
Imnotandrei- People have used Christianity to justify racism...And Christianity has, in some of its sects, belief in predestination -- that some souls are already damned.
Delete- These are illogical summations. Christianity places more value on the spirit than physical qualities.
I notice you deliberately excised my point about the No true Scotsman fallacy. People have done the things I described, so calling them "illogical summations" is hardly a counterargument.
You said, in effect, "Some atheists are racist, therefore evolution is inherently racist." I am presenting "Some Christians are racist, therefore either a) Christianity is inherently racist or b) your previous argument is flawed." Pick one.
If there is no God and no religion allowable (can you imagine?) then the theory of evolution is basically racist.
Actually, no; the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is in that case value-neutral. We are people who can make our own decisions on value; we are not bound solely by our genetics. (Not to mention the minor details that race is barely a noticeable category genetically speaking -- it's far less obvious from a gene chart than a picture.)
Because the main value of a human race would then be based upon improved characteristics and this delineation will naturally lead to elitism and racism.
Define "improved" -- in a social environment, what's superior for the group may not be superior in the individual. People are different.
SoS:"I am black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem . . . Do not gaze at me because I am dark, because the sun has gazed on me. My mother's sons were angry with me; they made me keeper of the vineyards." "
Genesis 9:25-27.
People have used the Bible for said justification -- your argument is with them, not with me.
Simple. The definition of superior is "better" It is better to survive than not to survive, therefore, as Darwin wrote, some races are "favored" - English spelling "Favoured" defined as..."preferred, special, chosen, favourite, selected, recommended, pet, of choice, singled out, best-liked, fave (informal..."
DeleteMr. Warden, I am aware of the definition of the word "superior" and "favored", thank you - but what I've asked you is to estabilish that improved "species and races" are indeed superior to other species and races.
Again I ask, which race is superior: humans or dolphins?
Besides, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, as per your definition, your species and races become superior to its own ancestors. I do not quite perceive how being better at survival than my own ancestors is a cause to feel superior to other contemporary species, which quite naturally would also be superior to its own ancestors.
If there is no God and no religion allowable (can you imagine?) then the theory of evolution is basically racist.
Yes, indeed I can imagine that, which is quite easy if I try. However, this particular accusation doesn't appear to make much sense to me - what you're saying, Mr. Warden, that evolution is racist if there's no God - therefore, in your eyes, it actually isn't racist at all (you appear to believe in God, do you, Mr. Warden?)
Because the main value of a human race would then be based upon improved characteristics and this delineation will naturally lead to elitism and racism.
Yes, improved characteristic compared to its own ancestors. I'm not quite sure how is that a cause to deride other species.
Evolutionary racism is morally justifiable in non-religious atheism.
I feel I must disagree with you on this one, Mr. Warden - indeed, I often feel sad when realising that some species, through no fault of its own, have become extinct. Somehow it seems... wrong, for the lack of better word.
Evolutionary racism is not morally justified by the Bible.
Unless commanded by God, Mr. Warden. If I'm not mistaken, most of the Old Testament describes experiences of Israelites, God's chosen people - "treasured people out of all the people on the face of the earth", as described in text.
And the standing contention around Christians is whatever God does is morally justified, is it not, Mr. Warden?
>Again I ask, which race is superior: humans or dolphins?
Delete- Kazeite, you seem to be very interested in 'speciesism', however, my point related to human racism.
>what you're saying, Mr. Warden, that evolution is racist if there's no God - therefore, in your eyes, it actually isn't racist at all (you appear to believe in God, do you, Mr. Warden?)
- I don't believe in the theory of mnacro-evolution or abiogenesis so, in my understanding, evolution and Christianity have no necessary relationship.
My claim is simply that racism can be morally justified by evolutionists who are non-religious atheists and moral relativists, whereas, for biblical Christians it cannot be morally justified. That's it.
Evolutionary racism is morally justifiable in non-religious atheism.
>I feel I must disagree with you on this one, Mr. Warden - indeed, I often feel sad when realising that some species, through no fault of its own, have become extinct. Somehow it seems... wrong, for the lack of better word.
- Consider what you are writing. You are writing it "seems wrong" that animals become extinct. Do you believe that feelings are a valid basis for justifiable moral decisions and opinions? For you it may seem wrong, to another it may seem right to exploit nature and kill animals to extinction. Moral relativism allows for the justification of anything, depending on the circumstances and the rationalization.
Many relativists believe there are too many Africans and it is best they should just be ignored and left to starve to death for lack of food. This attitude can be justified by atheist moral relativists but not by Christians. For a better understanding of objective morality, you may want to see these articles:
Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/proof-moral-relativism-is-false.html
A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/10/moral-argument-as-proof-of-gods.html
- Kazeite, you seem to be very interested in 'speciesism', however, my point related to human racism.
DeleteIf you desire to limit the scope of your point, that is entirely your prerogative, Mr. Warden.
So, let me rephrase my question then - in desert environment, which race is superior: Eskimos, or black people? How about cold regions?
- I don't believe in the theory of macro-evolution or abiogenesis so, in my understanding, evolution and Christianity have no necessary relationship.
It is full within your rights to disbelieve in made-up definitions (like "macro-evolution"), however, this has no effect on the reality.
My claim is simply that racism can be morally justified by evolutionists who are non-religious atheists and moral relativists, whereas, for biblical Christians it cannot be morally justified.
I've noticed that you've chosen not to respond to my argument that specifically points out that, indeed, racism can, and has been fully justified by Bible-abiding Christians. Your claim, therefore, is unjustifiable.
You are writing it "seems wrong" that animals become extinct. Do you believe that feelings are a valid basis for justifiable moral decisions and opinions?
Among other things, yes.
For you it may seem wrong, to another it may seem right to exploit nature and kill animals to extinction.
Those who exploit nature beyond it self-sustaining abilities will eventually perish, leaving me alive, allowing me to share my morality with my descendants.
Moral relativism allows for the justification of anything, depending on the circumstances and the rationalization.
Indeed. Such statement, however, does nothing to establish moral superiority of your preferred belief system, considering evidence of Christian behaviour both historical and described in the Bible.
For a better understanding of objective morality, you may want to see these articles:
Thank you for those links, however, I have already familiarised myself with those topics, and it appears to me that both of those propositions have several flaws, as pointed out in relevant comments below the articles.
R:I wrote, 1. Evolution offers that species and races become improved through natural selection.
ReplyDelete2. The primary definition of racism offers that certain races are superior to other races.
3. Therefore, evolution is inherently racist.
And I told you before that your definition of racism and evolution is wrong. And I did explain it to you in details. However, you chose to ignore my objection and went on.
R:I plainly addressed your questions but you did not address mine! It seems you are into historical revisionism, as Dawkins is.
And I DID answer your question. on December 15th at 05:29. If you did not understand my answer, why did you just keep quiet?
R:Atheism does not have this and so "superiority" in intelligence or strength may be considered literally "more valuable" and elitist, i.e. racist.
Humans are all more or less equal in their value, because their abilities are more or less equal. You just do not seem to get that "superiority" is a relative concept. Being superior in one aspect comes at the price mediocracy in another. We need people with all kinds of skills to achieve the maximum potential of our society. It is a shame that you cannot understand human value without a supernatural concept.
R:If you do a little research, you'll see that the Christianity promoted by Hitler was a mockery of true Christianity.
As always, you claim that your interpretation of the Bible is the only right one. On what basis do you claim that every other one is false?
P.S. You wrote on Dec 16 at 10:50
ReplyDeleteR:You are correct in that I am not interested in "looking for truth" in the sense you mean, because the central truth I have found is overwhelmingly satisfying, logical and meaningful in comparison to what passes for common acceptable world views today.
You have already established that Dawkings made a "flip-flop". You do not care if your assumption does correlate with reality. That is how I interpreted your response to my accusation of ignoring my objection about Dawkings "flip-flopping"
"But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
ReplyDeleteI fail to see in any way how this supports a theist view. He's saying "If we conceive of this, *now* such matter would be devoured or absorbed, but that would not be the case before living creatures were formed."
I refer you to the Miller-Urey experiment. Pasteur's experiments proved a limited thesis -- more limited than Pasteur realized.
Rick, this entire post is a non-squitur.
ReplyDeleteI see you also referenced "Answers In Genesis". You really must be scraping the bottom of the barrel :-)
I almost forgot, Rick. Look on wikipedia about FOXP2 before pushing for your nonsense. It is generally a good idea to double check sources.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, if Rick actually checked and tried to understand his sources, his beliefs might not survive.
ReplyDeleteFar better for him to remain ignorant and Christian than that! :-)
One can always hope for a miracle 8)
ReplyDeleteRick: Evolutionary racism is morally justifiable in non-religious atheism.
ReplyDeleteSome racists who are atheists may well try to justify their racism by appealing to evolution. That doesn't mean that all atheists do, or that atheism necessarily leads to that conclusion, or that evolution is inherently racist.
You'll need to show your work rather than make such general claims in the absence of any support.
Rick: Evolutionary racism is not morally justified by the Bible.
That's because the bible contains absolutely no recognition of the fact of evolution, and is a good reason to suspect that the bible is nothing more than the work of men.
Of course, the bible does justify ethnic cleansing and the superiority of one race over another (ie. racism). Israel is the favoured race, and since Christians are the "new Israel", they see themselves as being the "favoured race". Since Christianity is not related to ethnicity as Judaism is (or at least, once was), we can't say Christianity is "racist" in the usual fashion.
But surely we can can say with quite a bit of certainty that Christianity is bigoted against those who are not Christians.
>That's because the bible contains absolutely no recognition of the fact of evolution... (Evolutionary racism is not morally justified by the Bible.)
DeleteNo, Havok, that's not why. I would like to write an article on this subject to flesh out the main points.
If you consider the presuppositions of non-religious atheists, religious atheists such as Buddhists, and Christians, for example, the presuppositions about truth and the basis of morality decide what the theory of evolution will imply for each of these categories, no matter if evolution has been previously and specifically described in previous texts for each of these groups.
evolution has been previously and specifically described in previous texts for each of these groups.
DeleteSo, in other words, just to be sure -- you're asserting that the presuppositions as you define them trump the text, in given case [x]?
imnotandrei, what Rick is saying is that whatever he thinks is correct is correct, regardless of the facts.
DeleteRick thinks that atheism and evolution necessitate an incredibly naive subjective moral relativism, therefore atheism and evolution necessarily involve a naive subjective moral relativism.
>So, in other words, just to be sure -- you're asserting that the presuppositions as you define them trump the text, in given case [x]?
Delete- In the cases of Christianity and Buddhism there is text to go by. In the case of non-religious atheism as a worldview, there is no foundational text, only a presupposition and its implications.
If you consider the presuppositions of non-religious atheists, religious atheists such as Buddhists, and Christians,
DeleteSo, do the presuppositions of Christians trump the text? That's what I'm asking you.
Ps. Need we mention the anti-semitism that Christianity spawned? One only needs to read the anti-Jew screeds of Martin Luther to see it in action - all justified by recourse to the Christian Bible.
ReplyDeleteWarden
ReplyDeleteMy claim is simply that racism can be morally justified by evolutionists who are non-religious atheists and moral relativists, whereas, for biblical Christians it cannot be morally justified. That's it.
So in other words, you're admitting to using ad-hom attacks to try to make people want to believe that atheism is false, Ok.
Too bad that you're wrong.
You may want to read this snd especially this as well.
Sure, one can point out the bible verses where jesus acted to discourage racism as in his tale of the "good samaritan", but that just shows how the bible can be cherry-picked. After all, the Jews were supposedly the chosen people were they not?
Then there's what creationist Henry Morris said which had full biblical "justification". (See the second link) for details about that.
>So in other words, you're admitting to using ad-hom attacks to try to make people want to believe that atheism is false, Ok.
ReplyDelete- No, just pointing out a fact that racism can be morally justified by evolutionists who are non-religious atheists and moral relativists, whereas, for biblical Christians it cannot be morally justified.
This is simply an example to show why Dawkins does not really have a logical reason to be shocked that Dawrwinism can be used to justify racism.
for biblical Christians it cannot be morally justified.
DeleteYou've asserted this repeatedly; but you have not responded to the specific challenges to this assertion made earlier in this thread. Until you do, I see no reason to take your assertions as having any value.
show why Dawkins does not really have a logical reason to be shocked that Dawrwinism can be used to justify racism.
Funny -- I don't see that assertion in your original post. It seems you're moving the goalposts. I don't think Dawkins would be shocked at all -- he knows enough to be familiar with phrases such as "Social Darwinism" and the way people misuse science in many ways.
By the way. I found a quote from Darwin that proves Rick is a liar.
ReplyDeleteIn his autobiography written in 1876 Darwin reviewed questions about Christianity in relation to other religions and how "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become". Though "very unwilling to give up my belief", he found that "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." He noted how "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered", and how Paley's teleological argument had difficulties with the problem of evil.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1497&pageseq=87
Conclusion: even if evolution does not contradict deism, it does contradict the biblical god, since it is an argument against creationism. Both Dawkins and Darwin rejected creationism, hence no distortion. 8)
Sigh, the same old pattern gets so tiring: Bring up some kind of evidence and, before even discussing it, claim, "Rick is a liar."
DeleteIf you look at the linked item you shared, it states: "The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. With the original omissions restored."
Have you wondered why autobiographical original notes omitted from Darwin's autobiography in the first place?
In case you aren't aware, Darwin's beliefs about God moved back and forth like a pendulum. I've already pointed this out in the above article:
Charles Darwin outlined his personal religious beliefs and spiritual condition in a personal letter to John Fordyce dated 7 May, 1879 that has been saved for posterity: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. ...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."[1]
Even if you theory is true, that Darwin became an atheist before he died, this does not discount the fact that the 6th edition of Origins posits both belief in God as creator and macro-evolution as compatible. This is contrary to what Dawkins had claimed in his Delusion book, that Darwin's theory "rejected supernatural agents." It does not. Dawkins remains a false historical revisionist even if your theory is correct.
So, apparently, you are still having difficulty understanding what a lie is and who is actually telling one.
R:Have you wondered why autobiographical original notes omitted from Darwin's autobiography in the first place?
DeleteThe Autobiography of Charles Darwin was published posthumously, and quotes about Christianity were omitted by Darwin's wife Emma and his son Francis because they were deemed dangerous for Charles Darwin's reputation. Only in 1958 Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version which contained the omissions. This included statements discussed above in Autobiography on gradually increasing disbelief, and others such as the following:
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." (p.86)
"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)
"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (p.87)
"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddhists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (p.91)
Now... Don t you feel stupid, Rick? Accusing secularist of censorship when it was the theists that did it 8)
R:In case you aren't aware, Darwin's beliefs about God moved back and forth like a pendulum.
Darwin wrote that "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
So where is the jumping back and forth if he felt no distress and have never doubted his conclusion?
R:I've already pointed this out in the above article
DeleteThank you for proving again your basic comprehension disability.
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist"
Tranlation of the provided quote for the impaired: You can be a theist, but you cannot rationally believe in a god that deliberately designed all of life in the universe, including us.
R:Even if you theory is true...
In uncharacteristically bold discussions after dinner Darwin asked his guests "Why do you call yourselves Atheists?" When they responded that they "did not commit the folly of god-denial, [and] avoided with equal care the folly of god-assertion", Darwin gave a thoughtful response, concluding that "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." Aveling replied that, "after all, 'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive." Darwin smiled and responded "Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?"
Yep, wikipedia is a bitch.
R:this does not discount the fact that the 6th edition of Origins posits both belief in God as creator and macro-evolution as compatible.
Compatible with any god that did not deliberately designed the universe. That is not the kind of god you are arguing for.
Compatible with any god that did not deliberately designed the universe. That is not the kind of god you are arguing for.
Delete- What kind of Creator was Darwin proposing in his Origins book 6th edition in your opinion? One that "breathed" the first life but held no thought whatsoever of what that life would look like? Is that the kind of God Darwin was proposing in your opinion?
I do not know and I do not care much in the first place. There is at least a dozen of gods he could have meant. Heck, he could have meant even the bible god, because he knew idiots like you would never accept a reality that did not include a bible god in some form.
DeleteOne fact remains. You are right to fear evolution, since it is incompatible with a personal god/designer.
One fact remains. You are right to fear evolution, since it is incompatible with a personal god/designer.
DeleteActually, I have to disagree; it isn't incompatible with a personal God; I can easily envision one that would use evolution as its methodology.
What it does do is render that aspect of a designer *irrelevant* -- you no longer need it as an an explanation, thus drastically weakening (as is Dawkins' later point) the arguments *for* a classic designer God.
I would have to disagree here. Yes, in theory a god/designer could manipulate life by changing the environment. However, that is a very general method of influencing life. One cannot take care of each and every individual in that case, hence a personal relationship is impossible for every one. The fact that 90% of species went extinct is proof of that.
DeleteFurthermore, plenty of other problems do arise between evolution and theology. Did our common primate ancestors have souls or not? They are neither humans nor animals, after all.
So let me correct myself. Yes, the idea of a designer god is possible with evolution, but not the custom made designer Rick is arguing for