Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Patrick1000]

Quote mining? Dawkins? Hardly!

And what did he say after that in way of argument? Are we doing a bit of quote mining? Charles Darwin was equally frank in "Origins". Richard Feynman argues that it is this kind of honesty in declaring the problems with your ideas* that distinguishes science from pseudoscience. To quote out of context like this without acknowledging how such questions were answered is dishonest and a frequently used creationist tactic.

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

I can't remember what he said but perhaps it was about the counter intuitive nature of the world around us. We could equally say that the earth seemed to be the centre point about which the sun, moon, planets and stars revolved, but is not.

ETA * What Dawkins is doing here is not so much talking about problems with evolution but addressing a possible objection based on problems with a basic human approach to understanding the world.

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist. He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots. He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

I used him as an "example" as Dawkins is so unabashed in his views. There is no wiggle room with him.

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

 

[Mojo]

I know many Christians buy in to evolution......I attended Catholic grade school, a boys' school with a more than excellent science teacher.

This, evolution and Catholicism being compatible, is of course gobbledygook however. But what are Christians going to do on the other hand? So people, Christians, pretend there is no inconsistency, no incoherence.

These people believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God by a wholly natural, purposeless, undirected, unintentional process.

Pretty dang silly is all I can say.

This is a problem for Christianity, not for the theory of evolution by natural selection of inherited variation.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist. He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots. He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

I used him as an "example" as Dawkins is so unabashed in his views. There is no wiggle room with him.

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

I have read most of his books on evolution and thoroughly enjoyed them. He knows his subject well and has a knack for clarity in explanation. I couldn't really be bothered with his views on atheism and can't see "The God Delusion" ever making my reading list.

As has been pointed out, a great many theists find wriggle room to accept evolution and old earth and universe ideas. Anyway, you seemed to be in danger of derailing your own thread.

When are you going to offer up this "Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?" and all its glorious justification, its wonderful falsifying predictions, as well as references to your own explorations of the ideas problems?

 

[Acleron]

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist. He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots. He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

I used him as an "example" as Dawkins is so unabashed in his views. There is no wiggle room with him.

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

So in addition to complete ignorance of modern evolutionary theory and arguing as a creationist you are also a troll.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I'm seconding what Sideroxylon said. You've not given any alternative, just claimed random things and never even examined any of the refutations given to your claims.

As for the christian thing, why even post about it? You claim to be an atheist, and not persuing any theory because it might upset people is the fastest way to stagnation possible.
Let's not prove people are equal, racists might get upset.
Lets not investigate criminals, they might not like it.
etc.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

These people believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God by a wholly natural, purposeless, undirected, unintentional process.

You say that you're here in a genuine spirit of enquiry. It was pointed out to you back on page 1 that evolution is not undirected, but is actually directed by natural selection. That you keep repeating the falsehood that it is undirected leads me to believe that you cannot concede the point, because then you might have to start re-thinking the conclusion that you obviously want to draw.

 

[Mojo]

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions?

Do you?

He is an avowed atheist.

He has stated that he doesn't believe in gods because there is no evidence for them, but that if good evidence was presented he would believe.

 

[Dancing David]

Modern evolutionary theory as conventionally presented features a mechanism that is undirected, unintentional, purposeless. As this mechanism would be responsible for our creation, yours, mine and that of everyone on this planet, were it true, and as that mechanism is very much undirected, one may conclude, if the science of evolution is true, then there is no Christian God.

No, that too is a false dichotomy, a god that cares does not mean a god that deliberately caused humans to exist, unless you go back to the OT ans say "God created man in his image.

And one also notes that correct or incorrect, modern evolutionary theory is atheistic.

Wrong, where is the ToE does it take a stance on god at all?

It is a "science" and one starkly anti-religious/anti-Christian. Evolution's mechanism is atheistic, and so ironically a doctrine very "religious" itself in its strong denial of Christianity's personal God.

A lack of a god does not make something a religion, a lack of a stance on god does not make something a religion.

Not collecting stamps and not having a stance on collecting stamps is not a hobby.

 

[Dancing David]

Dawkins says living things seemed to have been made "on purpose" but were not. They are the creation of a "blind watchmaker".

Now there is a bit of frank atheism for you.

Christianity is at root about one's having been created by God, not a wholly naturalistic process.

Wow, you are as bad at religion as you are science. At the root of christianity is the teachings of Jeshua bar Jospeh, Jesus did not teach the inerrancy of the OT, did he?

 

[Dancing David]

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist. He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots. He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

I used him as an "example" as Dawkins is so unabashed in his views. There is no wiggle room with him.

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

SJ Gould on the other hand also believed that the genetic and genome variation is blind to future reproductive success, but I believe he was also religous.

 

[Patrick1000]

You miss the point

Wow, you are as bad at religion as you are science. At the root of christianity is the teachings of Jeshua bar Jospeh, Jesus did not teach the inerrancy of the OT, did he?

Western religion makes no sense unless God made you with intention. Jesus walked the earth because he CARES ABOUT YOU. And one of the reasons Jesus/God the Father/God the Holy Spirit cares, perhaps the most important reason as nothing else matters in western religion if this is not true, is that YOU ARE GOD'S INTENTIONAL CREATION.

If there is a God, but you are not his intentional creation, then Christianity does not exist. In the world of Christianity Dancing David, you were meant to be. You were most decidedly not created by a purposeless, unintentional, undirected process.

 

[Mojo]

Western religion makes no sense unless God made you with intention. Jesus walked the earth because he CARES ABOUT YOU. And one of the reasons Jesus/God the Father/God the Holy Spirit cares, perhaps the most important reason as nothing else matters in western religion if this is not true, is that YOU ARE GOD'S INTENTIONAL CREATION.

If there is a God, but you are not his intentional creation, then Christianity does not exist. In the world of Christianity Dancing David, you were meant to be. You were most decidedly not created by a purposeless, unintentional, undirected process.

You are now arguing that the current theory of evolution is wrong because it contradicts Christian doctrine.

Fail.

 

[steenkh]

This, evolution and Catholicism being compatible, is of course gobbledygook however.

You clearly do not understand how the concept of a "god in the gap" means: he is unfalsiable. for many Christians there is simply nothing that science could discover about nature that would invalidate the God hypothesis. You only find an incompatibility if you think that the Bible has be read literally. If you think that the Bible was inspired by God and present eternal knowledge in a form couched to be understandable for bronze age peasants, but not necessarily a literal truth, there will be no inconsistency.

These people believe that they were made in the image and likeness of God by a wholly natural, purposeless, undirected, unintentional process.

And you think that an omniscient and omnipotent God would not be able to use natural forces forces to achieve what he wants?

Atheist or not, it seems that your reading of creationist sites has skewed your understanding of biology and religion into accepting their viewpoints.

Anyway, that was a derailment. Perhaps you should go back to that textbook and see if you can find passages that support your view that evolution is not directed by natural selection.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sideroxylon,

Do you know about Dawkins and his positions? He is an avowed atheist. He believes religious people, Christian types are idiots. He ludicrously accuses them of "intolerance".

I used him as an "example" as Dawkins is so unabashed in his views. There is no wiggle room with him.

He is quite an idiot really, Dawkins is.

Regardless, it is far from quote mining in his case. He is MR BLIND WATCHMAKER. Read his stuff, it's garbage, but worth the effort as his views are so mainstream.

I would say calling Dawkins an "idiot" and calling his writings "garbage" could only done by an utter moron!

 

[Patrick1000]

He is an idiot, the most intolerant of religious bigots

I would say calling Dawkins an "idiot" and calling his writings "garbage" could only done by an utter moron!

He, Dawkins, is an immense idiot, one of the most intolerant of religious bigots currently alive and wasting our air today.

Have you ever read what he thinks of, what he writes about religious people, about believers, about Christians? What a JERK, a stupid JERK no less.

 

[abaddon]

He, Dawkins, is an immense idiot, one of the most intolerant of religious bigots currently alive and wasting our air today.

Have you ever read what he thinks of, what he writes about religious people, about believers, about Christians? What a JERK, a stupid JERK no less.

What he says is that those who believe in a deity can present no evidence.

What he says is that if valid evidence was presented, then he would believe.

What has failed to occur is the presentation of evidence of a deity.

What has happened is that none of the god botherers has presented any evidence.

I suspect Dawkins may have good reason to ridicule, as no evidence has been presented. Or rather, myths have been presented as fact. Such as, "the bible is true because it says it is true".

Patrick, are you really an atheist?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So when are we going to get to hear about the wholly naturalistic alternative to neo-Darwinisn?

 

[abaddon]

So when are we going to get to hear about the wholly naturalistic alternative to neo-Darwinisn?

Let me guess.

 

[Patrick1000]

The statement was a rhetorical one

So when are we going to get to hear about the wholly naturalistic alternative to neo-Darwinisn?

The statement was a rhetorical one. Though I did make a conceptual suggestion. Internal and not divine direction.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The statement was a rhetorical one. Though I did make a conceptual suggestion. Internal and not divine direction.

Well then lets get back to that and some of the related questions you have passed over on the last couple of pages or so.