Darwin denied his whole theory (which he previously stole from his granpa) right beofre his death. It's amazing to me people still talk about evolution as Charles' theory. It is even more amazing people sill believe in that pure nonsense.
Jon Tillman
· 3 months ago
@Alexander Not only is the story of his recantation wholly false (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html) and the idea of his "stealing" the theory, whether from Erasmus (whose "Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life" was influential on many scientists and naturalists working in the field, or from Alfred Russel Wallace who was working on a competing theory at the same time does not in any way detract from the theory itself.
Indeed, even if Darwin had repudiated his own theory, it would have no effect on the theory itself. Evolutionary theory meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and thus is testable. Those tests determine the truth or falsehood of a scientific theory, not the opinion of anyone; you, me, the promulgator of the theory, Ted "Come to this restroom often?" Haggard, or anyone else. Pure nonsense would be something that cannot be proven, has little to no chance of being true, and yet is still clung to by millions of people for no reason other than being inculcated in them when they were young and impressionable.
Berto
· 3 months ago
If anyone is interested, I have posted this entire and fascinating documentary series in my blog.
well said Jon, Alex if you are brave enough to challenge your mind and faith read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Alexander
· 3 months ago
Jon, well said. Really. Michelle, I am alway up for a challenge. So I'll check it out. & Berto. I read some of your pondering. You're a smart guy. & I suggest you study the Bible, because it gives you all the answers to the contributes of God's character. The very answers you asked.
Alban
· 3 months ago
The view that evolution and natural selection explains why I can't have a soul, or be more than a body with a brain, fails entirely to account for experiences like those of Jacques Lusseyran ("And There Was Light: Autobiography of Jacques Lusseyran, Blind Hero of the French Resistance") who should by all means be an interesting and challenging study for anyone dealing with questions of the mind. What if you are hallucinating what you think to be reality, and all of this world is just your own imagination? Would you really want it?
Hanoch
· 3 months ago
The darwinist-atheists always avoid one big question because it creates an obvious and significant problem for their theory that the world and everything in it is merely a product of random events. That is, even if you assume that life and the entirety of the universe evolved from basic elements over billions of years, you still must account for where those basic elements came from. Thus, irrespective of Darwin's theory, you eventually come back to the question of a Creator. I have yet to hear any of these types address this issue head-on.
Mike
· 3 months ago
Hanoch,
Mutation (or variation) may be random, but there is nothing random about selection. If natural selection were random, ugly girls would get asked to dance just as often as pretty ones. As for your "big question," if you think it hasn't been addressed head-on, you haven't been reading much. You're talking about the First-Cause Argument for the existence of God. Since you say you haven't heard "any of these (Darwinist-atheist) types" address it, I will just quote Bertrand Russell, addressing this issue in 1927:
"I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: 'My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, "Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity to the argument."
So there you have one atheist-type, Bertrand Russell, addressing the issue head-on, in agreement with another atheist-type, John Stuart Mill.
I just have one question for you, Hanoch, and I would like you to address it head-on: Have you actually read Darwin's "On the Origen of Species"?
Mike
· 3 months ago
Spelling correction: ORIGIN of Species.
Hanoch
· 3 months ago
Mike:
Thanks for your comment, but I find it unsatisfying for the following reason.
There is a big problem with positing that if elements require a cause for their existence, then a Creator does too. The former are natural objects which cannot create themselves. However, when one speaks of a Creator of the natural world, we are speaking of something that is, by definition, supernatural (i.e. above and outside the laws of nature) and thus not subject to the same natural laws of causation.
More to the point (and entirely consistent with my original statement), your Russell quote does not answer the fundamental question I raised, i.e., what caused the existence of the basic elements that began the process of evolution? If an atheist were to argue that those elements simply exist without a cause, then it seems that that leap of faith is probably greater (given what we already know about the natural world) than the one taken by those who posit a Creator to explain their existence.
Mike
· 3 months ago
Hanoch,
The Russell quote bears directly on your question. It demonstrates the illogic of arbitrarily assigning a first cause (God or anything else) to explain those "basic elements that began the process of evolution" that you mention.
As for your suggestion that an atheist would "argue that those elements simply exist without a cause," I would suggest that you might want to speak with a wider range of atheists. In my experience, anyone with any intellectual integrity -- not to mention humility -- will admit that he or she does know what the ultimate truth of the universe is. To admit that one cannot credibly assign a first cause to the existence of the elements (by elements here I mean something more general and fundamental than the elements of the periodic table) is not the same as saying that "those elements simply exist without a cause." For all I know, the chain of causation might be infinite. I simply don't know. Do you?
As for the assertion that what is natural is the product of something supernatural, or that a thing which lies "outside of causation" has "caused" the universal chain of causality to commence is an absurd fiat.
I will repeat my question: Have you actually read Darwin?
Mike
· 3 months ago
I guess I can't post a comment without making a typo. In the middle paragraph, it should state that anyone with any intellectual integrity or humility will admit that he or she does NOT know what the ultimate truth of the universe is.
Alban
· 3 months ago
@Mike and Hanoch: Only a madman would claim that God created the world as seen by the human mind. God by definition is eternal and perfect. Creation is extension. Therefore, what He creates shares His attributes. This world is not eternal, therefore, it can't be real.
It is only a "classroom" you have chosen to learn that you cannot be but perfect as God created you. Once this is known again, it will disappear into the nothingness it came from. A dream is a dream is a dream.
Regarding your dispute about first cause, maybe it would help to look at the fact that you are looking at concepts and ideas. They only exist in your mind as well as the perception of the world you talk about. If you go back far enough in time, you would still be faced with your mind. You are faced with the dilemma that you are seeing as external to your mind what is still in your mind. God is the Mind with Which you think.
All Comments
It is even more amazing people sill believe in that pure nonsense.
Indeed, even if Darwin had repudiated his own theory, it would have no effect on the theory itself. Evolutionary theory meets the criteria generally accepted by scientists as defining science, and thus is testable. Those tests determine the truth or falsehood of a scientific theory, not the opinion of anyone; you, me, the promulgator of the theory, Ted "Come to this restroom often?" Haggard, or anyone else. Pure nonsense would be something that cannot be proven, has little to no chance of being true, and yet is still clung to by millions of people for no reason other than being inculcated in them when they were young and impressionable.
Part 1:
http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2007/11/athei...
Part 2:
http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2008/02/athei...
Part 3:
http://berto-meister.blogspot.com/2008/07/athei...
Michelle, I am alway up for a challenge. So I'll check it out.
& Berto. I read some of your pondering. You're a smart guy. & I suggest you study the Bible, because it gives you all the answers to the contributes of God's character. The very answers you asked.
Mutation (or variation) may be random, but there is nothing random about selection. If natural selection were random, ugly girls would get asked to dance just as often as pretty ones. As for your "big question," if you think it hasn't been addressed head-on, you haven't been reading much. You're talking about the First-Cause Argument for the existence of God. Since you say you haven't heard "any of these (Darwinist-atheist) types" address it, I will just quote Bertrand Russell, addressing this issue in 1927:
"I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: 'My father taught me that the question, Who made me? cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, "Who made God?' That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity to the argument."
So there you have one atheist-type, Bertrand Russell, addressing the issue head-on, in agreement with another atheist-type, John Stuart Mill.
I just have one question for you, Hanoch, and I would like you to address it head-on: Have you actually read Darwin's "On the Origen of Species"?
Thanks for your comment, but I find it unsatisfying for the following reason.
There is a big problem with positing that if elements require a cause for their existence, then a Creator does too. The former are natural objects which cannot create themselves. However, when one speaks of a Creator of the natural world, we are speaking of something that is, by definition, supernatural (i.e. above and outside the laws of nature) and thus not subject to the same natural laws of causation.
More to the point (and entirely consistent with my original statement), your Russell quote does not answer the fundamental question I raised, i.e., what caused the existence of the basic elements that began the process of evolution? If an atheist were to argue that those elements simply exist without a cause, then it seems that that leap of faith is probably greater (given what we already know about the natural world) than the one taken by those who posit a Creator to explain their existence.
The Russell quote bears directly on your question. It demonstrates the illogic of arbitrarily assigning a first cause (God or anything else) to explain those "basic elements that began the process of evolution" that you mention.
As for your suggestion that an atheist would "argue that those elements simply exist without a cause," I would suggest that you might want to speak with a wider range of atheists. In my experience, anyone with any intellectual integrity -- not to mention humility -- will admit that he or she does know what the ultimate truth of the universe is. To admit that one cannot credibly assign a first cause to the existence of the elements (by elements here I mean something more general and fundamental than the elements of the periodic table) is not the same as saying that "those elements simply exist without a cause." For all I know, the chain of causation might be infinite. I simply don't know. Do you?
As for the assertion that what is natural is the product of something supernatural, or that a thing which lies "outside of causation" has "caused" the universal chain of causality to commence is an absurd fiat.
I will repeat my question: Have you actually read Darwin?
Only a madman would claim that God created the world as seen by the human mind. God by definition is eternal and perfect. Creation is extension. Therefore, what He creates shares His attributes. This world is not eternal, therefore, it can't be real.
It is only a "classroom" you have chosen to learn that you cannot be but perfect as God created you. Once this is known again, it will disappear into the nothingness it came from. A dream is a dream is a dream.
Regarding your dispute about first cause, maybe it would help to look at the fact that you are looking at concepts and ideas. They only exist in your mind as well as the perception of the world you talk about. If you go back far enough in time, you would still be faced with your mind. You are faced with the dilemma that you are seeing as external to your mind what is still in your mind. God is the Mind with Which you think.