Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was not widely accepted until after DNA was discovered, mid-20th century.
Natural selection cannot explain evolution. There is no evidence that it can. The evidence is for evolution, and for natural selection -- separately, not as one causing the other. People find this confusing.
Dawkins says that natural selection explains evolution, and that means non-living matter can create intelligent life. That is the foundation of materialist philosophy.
Most, or all, New Atheists are materialists.
I am not any kind of fundamentalist and I don't belong to any organized religion. I believe the universe is made out of information, and is intelligent, and there are an infinite number of levels. I believe the universe naturally evolves toward greater complexity and intelligence.
It isn't just me who believes these things, lots of people believe them. However, we are not taught any of this in our western education. We learn materialist versions of science, and we hear about the bible's creation myth. The two seem incompatible.
I think you are way wrong about Darwin and evolution. After Darwin and Wallace predetermined their joint paper, evolution through natural selection became the accepted scientific theory. What other hypothesis on how evolution works was accepted science during the century after Darwin and Wallace s paper? None that I can think of of the top of my head. Crediting Dawkins for natural selection is a little like crediting or blamin the current GM of Ford for the production line of making cars.
And you have a poor understanding of evolution if you think non living matter is in any way involved in the formation of intelligent life. The people who find it confusing must be all the biologists and evolutionary scientists. I did have the pleasure of hearing Gould live speaking about evolution and he did not seem the least confused on that subject. There are differences in the importance of individual genes etc between these workers but doubt the average atheist knows let alone cares about their disagreements.
I think you are way wrong about Darwin and evolution. After Darwin and Wallace predetermined their joint paper, evolution through natural selection became the accepted scientific theory. What other hypothesis on how evolution works was accepted science during the century after Darwin and Wallace s paper? None that I can think of of the top of my head. Crediting Dawkins for natural selection is a little like crediting or blamin the current GM of Ford for the production line of making cars.
I did NOT credit Dawkins for natural selection. I said he promotes the idea.
And there have been other hypotheses about the cause of evolution, Larmarck's theory for example. There is also system's theory, which says natural systems evolve towards greater complexity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
And you have a poor understanding of evolution if you think non living matter is in any way involved in the formation of intelligent life. The people who find it confusing must be all the biologists and evolutionary scientists. I did have the pleasure of hearing Gould live speaking about evolution and he did not seem the least confused on that subject. There are differences in the importance of individual genes etc between these workers but doubt the average atheist knows let alone cares about their disagreements.
I don't think non-living matter is involved in the formation of intelligent life. That is what Darwin's theory says.
And I don't care if Gould doesn't seem confused. Most biological evolutionists think they understand more than they could possibly understand.
I think the central question regarding religion,
in these modern times, is:
Does matter create mind, or does mind create matter?
To me, it's obvious that mind creates matter..
I follow your thinking, but by observation this is not the 'main' ques at all! There are a few!
Spirit or the Divine Mind...the Infinite Intelligence is the source of all...before matter.
Main questions involved in religion would be about if there is a hell,
is God loving or wrathful/punishing...
does one have to believe in Jesus to be saved..
is there such a thing as salvation, period!
I did NOT credit Dawkins for natural selection. I said he promotes the idea.
And there have been other hypotheses about the cause of evolution, Larmarck's theory for example. There is also system's theory, which says natural systems evolve towards greater complexity.
I don't think non-living matter is involved in the formation of intelligent life. That is what Darwin's theory says.
And I don't care if Gould doesn't seem confused. Most biological evolutionists think they understand more than they could possibly understand.
The cause of evolution is unknown.
Lamark was prior to Darwin aND was only a hypotheses. You made a specific claim that Darwin's theory of evolution through natural select was not the widely accepted theory from 1859 to the 1950s, a one hundred year time span and I asked you what then was the scientific accepted mechanism and you bring out a pre Darwin hypothesis that was rejected and systems theory build on Darwin and is relatively recent so again not even use able to answer what you meant when you said that until DNA was discovered Darwin was not the dominant in evolution. If you do not wish to back up any of your claims simply say so instead of throwing nonsense. Darwin's theory did not have non living things involved in the formation of intelligent life. And i doubt that you know more about evolution than all the evolutary bilogists especially when you fail to back a single claim that you have made other than your own declaration of it is so.
Bringing it back onto topic do you have any actual evidence that shows that the theory that genes are more heavily involved in natural selection than previously thought as been a major influence for people stopping believing in God? That is a yes or no question for now.
I believe in Bohm's theory of implicate orders. The lower dimensional levels unfold from the higher ones. So everything that happens on our level is actually caused on a higher level.
We don't usually realize how in the dark we are. On our level, we can't see the future, and all we have is our tunnel vision view of each moment, and our memory of our past, and what we heard about from others.
Higher dimensional levels must be very different, unimaginable to us here.
Interesting. Bohm and Lamarck. Do you specialize in fringe hypotheses?
It doesn't appear that Bohm addresses spirit, so we still haven't gotten anywhere with our understanding of the universe from a theistic appearance.
No it does not. Some people, like Dawkins, say it does, and you simply take their word for it.
No. I don't take anyone's 'word' for it...unlike you. I subscribe to the verifiable evidence.
Quote:
No I did NOT mean to say that. No one pretends to know how life started.
In that case. If you think that the ToE does not support evolution, you are clearly unaware of what the ToE says.
Quote:
Some people didn't like iD, so they called it creationism, without even understanding what ID actually is.
No. People that new what they were talking about saw ID for what it is.
Quote:
No, Rolling Eyes, not ALL the experts. SOME experts are confused.
Not as confused as you old chap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
I NEVER said atheism was related to evolution.
Yes you did. I'll quote you verbatim. You said.....
"Evolution theory is pretty central to New Atheism."
You'll find your words in your post #10.
...and you still haven't told us what a 'new atheist' is as opposed to an 'old atheist'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Peace
