- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillWell if that's true then he's wrong but who cares?
[b] Dr. Ken Miller, champion of Evolutionary Theory is at least theist who believes in a Designer to some degree. But you have to watch until the end of the video to hear it from his own mouth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5oFUHx5ebo&feature=relmfu[/b]
His belief or otherwise, or anyone's belief or otherwise is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
The only vaguely relevant part about scientists and belief in god is that statistically they have
much much lower levels of belief than the general population.
So the people who know most about the world and spend their lives studying it are those
least likely to believe in gods.
But that doesn't prove anything either way.
Claiming otherwise is a logical fallacy.
And btw of all the sciences the least likely to believe in gods are physicists and biologists.
Those who actually study the big bang and evolution in other words.
Originally posted by googlefudge
Well if that's true then he's wrong but who cares?
His belief or otherwise, or anyone's belief or otherwise is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
The only vaguely relevant part about scientists and belief in god is that statistically they have
much much lower levels of belief than the general population.
So the people who know most about th ...[text shortened]... cists and biologists.
Those who actually study the big bang and evolution in other words.
Well if that's true then he's wrong but who cares?
He's wrong about what ?
Originally posted by googlefudge
No I 'slipped it in' about Einstein because I think you are wrong and I care about truth.
I also did it to make the point that the jury is out, neither side can conclusively prove he
leant one way or another and that it doesn't matter anyway.
However on to the other thing...
As I said sin and morality are not the same thing.
I don't like 's ...[text shortened]... eist's is spelt e before i and is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence.
As I said sin and morality are not the same thing.
I don't like 'sin' because sin is not defined as being good or bad.
It's defined as being with or against the will of god.
Fail to do whatever a god commands and you have sinned.
Morality doesn't enter it.
Then a "sin" against one man solely against another would not exist in your view of "sin" needing a deity ?
Originally posted by googlefudge
Evolution is the designer, a blind designer.
There is no god.
Evolution is the designer, a blind designer.
There is no god.
Most of the militant evos I know say evolution has no goal, no plan, no purpose. That is no design, I think.
You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillThere is no such thing as sin because there are no gods.As I said sin and morality are not the same thing.
I don't like 'sin' because sin is not defined as being good or bad.
It's defined as being with or against the will of god.
Fail to do whatever a god commands and you have sinned.
Morality doesn't enter it.
Then a "sin" against one man solely against another would not exist in your view of "sin" needing a deity ?
There are morals and ethics. There is no sin.
Sin is a religious idea that is not in any way shape or form interchangeable with morality and/or ethics.
Sin is going against the commandments/instructions/wishes/will of a god or gods.
Those [imagined] wishes or commandments may or may not be moral or immoral (or might be amoral)
but the determination of an action as being moral or immoral (or amoral) is necessarily independent of any
being of any kind (or it would be subjective and not objective).
However as I say there are no gods and thus no sin.
If you wish to talk about 'morality' and 'ethics' then that's more than fine.
But I will not ever permit or accept the use of the word 'sin' as being interchangeable with either of those.
Sin has nothing to do with morality or ethics.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillThat would of course be why Dawkins referred to evolution as the blind designer...Evolution is the designer, a blind designer.
There is no god.
Most of the militant evos I know say evolution has no goal, no plan, no purpose. That is no design, I think.
You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer.
And you are right evolution has no direction, plan, goal, or purpose.
And it doesn't 'exist' as an entity it is a process.
That process 'designs' and 'sculpts' life into different forms.
Optimising them for their present environment.
It's not design in the sense that a human would design something.
It's more a metaphorical use of the word.
Like referring to DNA as a blueprint. It's not actually a blueprint in the way we create
blueprints but it's a neat analogy for simply thinking about what it does.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAh yes. Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" who is of course every bit the " ... jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"
That would of course be why Dawkins referred to evolution as the blind designer...
And you are right evolution has no direction, plan, goal, or purpose.
And it doesn't 'exist' as an entity it is a process.
That process 'designs' and 'sculpts' life into different forms.
Optimising them for their present environment.
It's not design in the sen e create
blueprints but it's a neat analogy for simply thinking about what it does.
A fitting description of Natural Selection as we observe it in the natural world.
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer. ...”Evolution is the designer, a blind designer.
There is no god.
Most of the militant evos I know say evolution has no goal, no plan, no purpose. That is no design, I think.
You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer.
you are wrong again as always. I would also call evolution a designer and most other people that understand evolution would call evolution a designer -a blind mindless unintelligent designer of course.
Do you understand the concept of a non-standard meaning of a word?
Here are two examples;
“designer” in “evolution is a designer” ( mindless designer )
“Bang” in “Big Bang” ( there was no meaningful 'noise' )
"take" in "take a seat" ( as in sit down )
...need I go on?
2 edits
Originally posted by humyI do not regard the existence of evolution as proof of no intelligent design. Quite the opposite is evident to me.
“...You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer. ...”
you are wrong again as always. I would also call evolution a designer and most if not all other people that understand evolution would call evolution a designer -a blind mindless unintelligent designer of course which also explains the many flaws it produces.
Do you understand the concept of a non-standard meaning of a word?
A program like that has to have intelligence underlining its existence somewhere.
I would regard the proof of evolution as evidence of intelligent programming of such a process. That is given the result as we observe it on this planet's biosphere.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAny evidence regarding cause or effect, i.e are they people of average 'levels of belief' who change their position because of their chosen areas of study; or do people of 'lower levels of belief' tend to enter these areas of study?
Well if that's true then he's wrong but who cares?
His belief or otherwise, or anyone's belief or otherwise is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
The only vaguely relevant part about scientists and belief in god is that statistically they have
much much lower levels of belief than the general population.
So the people who know most about th ...[text shortened]... cists and biologists.
Those who actually study the big bang and evolution in other words.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...I do not regard the existence of evolution as proof of no intelligent design. ...”
I do not regard the existence of evolution as proof of no intelligent design. Quite the opposite is evident to me.
A program like that has to have intelligence underlining its existence somewhere.
I would regard the proof of evolution as evidence of intelligent programming of such a process. That is given the result as we observe it on this planet's biosphere.
what make you think that I would think that the mere fact of evolution proves that there is no intelligent supernatural designer?
Without logical contradiction, you could still claim the absurdity of intelligent supernatural designer designing something other than Earth's life or something other than anything we know of that we can explain rationally -but the hypothesis that something supernatural exists let alone that there is a supernatural designer is useless and totally stupid because that hypothesis is designed to be not falsifiable which means it makes no predictions that we can verify now which would not be predicted if it was false.
Also, the flaws evolution has made in life makes it absurd that an intelligent entity with flawless intelligence could had designed life.
“...A program like that has to have intelligence underlining its existence somewhere. ...”
no, it is not a “program” but just a mindless natural process. Why would a mindless natural process need “ intelligence underlining its existence somewhere”?
1 edit
Originally posted by humy
“...You would be atypical to refer to Evolution as the designer. ...”
you are wrong again as always. I would also call evolution a designer and most other people that understand evolution would call evolution a designer -a blind mindless unintelligent designer of course.
Do you understand the concept of a non-standard meaning of a word?
Here are two exampl ...[text shortened]... was no meaningful 'noise' )
"take" in "take a seat" ( as in sit down )
...need I go on?
“designer” in “evolution is a designer” ( mindless designer )
“Bang” in “Big Bang” ( there was no meaningful 'noise' )
"take" in "take a seat" ( as in sit down )
...need I go on?
I have problems with a "mindless" designer. Perhaps you could give me an example of a chess opponent who continually checkmates me. Yet that opposing phenomenon is not a mind.
Work on it a little bit. How could I be continually checkmated by some process at the other end of a chess game, which is without mind ?
And you might apply the same principle concerning words when reading a book like the Bible which uses pre-scientific language, or ancient use of pre-science age words.
Ie In some ways the expression " a flat earth" (as some would say, not necessarily the Bible) is akin to a "Big Bang".
You don't REALLY mean "flat".
And you don't REALLY mean a "bang".
Just don't forget your own rule at opportune times.