Molly Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Atheists love to banter the name Darwin about - but - I could never find a statement by Darwin saying their is no intelligence in the design of nature or there is no God. It's easy to put words into a dead mans mouth. It's called revisionism. So why do it? Why seek such a statement? Why should it be assumed that there must be a fundamental conflict between HIS science and HIS faith? I believe you will find, Oleg, that the revisionists, trying to prove or disprove Christianity or Atheism in Darwin are on a completely false, and meaningless trail. The 'state of his soul', or whether he worried about it is irrelevant to the fact that he described the observable in a manner that was helpful and enlightening to those who followed. If others find some conflict between HIS science and THEIR belief system, then they are the ones with a problem... trying to reconcile what they choose to believe with the observable/predicable/usable information he brought to folks' attention. Further, his public stature is irrelevant to his accuracy. His proposals stand on their own merit, not on his 'star quality'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 The 'state of his soul', or whether he worried about it is irrelevant to the fact that he described the observable in a manner that was helpful and enlightening to those who followed. If others find some conflict between HIS science and THEIR belief system, then they are the ones with a problem... trying to reconcile what they choose to believe with the observable/predicable/usable information he brought to folks' attention. This is very well stated. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Darwin did not say Intelligent Design (ID)....but he did refer to "design." None of that points to Darwin suggesting that their was a designer...he speaks of laws designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. We can take that to mean laws like mathematics and gravity.... I cannot admit that man's rudimentary mammae ... & pug-nose were designed .... Indeed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 None of that points to Darwin suggesting that their was a designer...he speaks of lawsWe can take that to mean laws like mathematics and gravity.... Then why did he used the words "designed laws". He could have said natural laws, or physical laws, or some other term. The choice of the phrase "designed laws" implies there is a designer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) None of that points to Darwin suggesting that their was a designer...he speaks of lawsWe can take that to mean laws like mathematics and gravity.... Sir Bandelot has a good reply to that. Besides, what about the other quotes? The other quotes given erases any doubt or confusion as to what Darwin was referring to. The title alone of that article I'd given from where these quotes were taken clearly says it all! Edited May 9, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Sir Bandelot has a good reply to that.Besides, what about the other quotes? The other quotes given erases any doubt or confusion as to what Darwin was referring to. The title alone of that article I'd given from where these quotes were taken clearly says it all! oh, clearly.... with shovels ready, even. Yes, Betsy, you've stepped up for ID, come to the table, laid out your cards, dotted all your i's, looked at the options, and spoke in entirely broken, cliched english to try to be the first to discover Darwin's secret belief. Armed with your quiver of quotes, we didn't stand a chance. You `saw us coming', eh? Well, good job. You get an extra star on your report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Then why did he used the words "designed laws". He could have said natural laws, or physical laws, or some other term. The choice of the phrase "designed laws" implies there is a designer. Maybe defining what the designer is can affect how the laws were developed. The natural laws could be the god itself. Beyond space and time. Now this is moving away from science, and heading towards philosophy. But from what has been observed the evidence shows that environmentle variables determine the outcome, meaning nature threw variables at life, and life adapted to stay alive for the next round. So nature designed them, or they designed and perhaps redesign themselves to stay alive in an ever changing environment. There could be two designers at work. One to create something, and the other to destroy it. And for those that believe in this creator, do they believe in a destructor? If you believe in God, then you must believe in Satan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Maybe defining what the designer is can affect how the laws were developed. The natural laws could be the god itself. Beyond space and time. Now this is moving away from science, and heading towards philosophy. I like the term "Metaphysics"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I like the term "Metaphysics"! Metaphysics is philosophy-speak for mental masturbation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Metaphysics is philosophy-speak for mental masturbation. Agreed, and I like it. Theoretical physics? String theory? Right now we do not have a way to test that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 This is very well stated. -k And it comes as no surprise that it was completely ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 And it comes as no surprise that it was completely ignored. Molly did a great job with the way she worded it. And you are correct, it will get completely overlooked. Which is the sad part. Bad logic hurts my brain. Molly's logic does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 (Aw, shucks...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) Agreed, and I like it. Theoretical physics? String theory? Right now we do not have a way to test that yet. Thats right, yet scientists firmly "believe" in it despite that it is only a mathematical hypothesis, without physical proof. same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Sheesh, the arrogance of people who think they know something, then insist on telling everyone else that they dont know nothin. You clowns who might like to dis the term metaphysics, would do well to read a little more from some of history's greatest thinkers. The book by Aristotle titled Metaphysics might open your narrow mind a little further. Instead of your asses Edited May 10, 2009 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) Sheesh, the arrogance of people who think they know something, then insist on telling everyone else that they dont know nothin. You clowns who might like to dis the term metaphysics, would do well to read a little more from some of history's greatest thinkers. The book by Aristotle titled Metaphysics might open your narrow mind a little further. Instead of your asses Been there, read that. Aristotle is associated with metaphysics because of that title yet had something to say as an individual thinker. But later metaphysicians were wankers. Far from `great' thinkers, they were religion's apologists. Edited May 10, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Been there, read that. Aristotle is associated with metaphysics because of that title yet had something to say as an individual thinker. But later metaphysicians were wankers. Far from `great' thinkers, they were religion's apologists. BS. If you really read it you would not criticize metaphysics in the lame way that you did. Metaphysics is philosophy based on science and mathematics, and asks open questions about reality and our origins. Even daring to discuss the possibility of a creator, but makes arguments using logic and scientific observations. Religion is just a brand name, it does not mean the same thing as spirituality, and certainly not the same thing as metaphysics. But the fact is, the origin of science is in the priest and the shaman, who first mapped the patterns of stars and planets in the sky. They new about the cycles of planetary apparitions and devised the first calendars, but attached religious significance to this. That is both the origin of astronomy and astrology, and possibly the origin of religious myths. As for you, it seems like your stuck on using terms like "masturbation" and wanker a bit too much. Get over it, and get a girlfriend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) The 'state of his soul', or whether he worried about it is irrelevant to the fact that he described the observable in a manner that was helpful and enlightening to those who followed. It's not irrelevant if he's talking about his theory. And in the letters to Asa Gray, definitely they were talking about his theory, Design and Teleology. They were debating about it, for crying out loud! And at some point Darwin capitulated and agreed with Gray! "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design" http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html There, the letter exchanges between the two are on that site. See for yourself.... the fact that he described the observable in a manner that was helpful and enlightening to those who followed. Yes. That's why he was being honest and gave this advice in the introduction of his book, Origin of Species: For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. And apparently he wrote something in the last chapter of his other book about Orchids, which pleased Asa Gray: Following the publication of Darwin's book on orchids, however, he asked Gray to look at the last chapter, since Darwin believed that it bore on the design question. Gray's response was found in both his review of the book and in a letter to Darwin[/b]. In his review, he praised Darwin for having "brought back teleological considerations into botany." He concluded:We faithfully believe that both natural science and natural theology will richly gain, and equally gain, whether we view each varied form as original, or whether we come to conclude, with Mr. Darwin, that they are derived:--the grand and most important inference of design in nature being drawn from the same data, subject to similar difficulties, and enforced by nearly the same considerations, in the one case as in the other.17 Obviously, present day scientists who veered away from the theory of evolution, and instead pursued the theory of ID were, most likely, only following the clues and advice of Darwin. If others find some conflict between HIS science and THEIR belief system, then they are the ones with a problem... The conflict is in Darwin! He kept waivering and see-sawing between his theory and the possibility of Design! Further, his public stature is irrelevant to his accuracy. His public stature is not irrelevant to the influence he wields! See? Darwinism is still very much around inspite of its flaws. How many among the present-day scientists who support the theory of ID were inspired or influenced by Darwin's admission to its possibility? That intro of Darwin from Origin is on the website of ID, btw. See the highly possible influence and effect of Darwin's "see-sawing" between the two theories? Evolution and Intelligent Design....duking it out. Edited May 11, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Between Bacon, Descartes, Copernicus, and Newton, wasn't Aristotle's coffin nailed shut centuries ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Obviously, present day scientists who veered away from the theory of evolution, and instead pursued the theory of ID were, most likely, only following the clues and advice of Darwin.The conflict is in Darwin! He kept waivering and see-sawing between his theory and the possibility of Design! His public stature is not irrelevant to the influence he wields! See? Darwinism is still very much around inspite of its flaws. How many among the present-day scientists who support the theory of ID were inspired or influenced by Darwin's admission to its possibility? That intro of Darwin from Origin is on the website of ID, btw. See the highly possible influence and effect of Darwin's "see-sawing" between the two theories? Evolution and Intelligent Design....duking it out. So... let me understand this: Darwin had it all wrong.... and so holds a position of high stature and intense inspirational influence among the modern ID crowd. That line of thinking ... worshipful discipleship to 'got it wrong' ... really shouldn't surprise me, but Betsy, you live in a very strange world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 So... let me understand this: Darwin had it all wrong.... and so holds a position of high stature and intense inspirational influence among the modern ID crowd. Well, you're figuring out your own understanding...your rational thinking. Don't involve me. Heck, what do I know how your mind works. That's your problem. That line of thinking ... worshipful discipleship to 'got it wrong' ... really shouldn't surprise me, but Betsy, you live in a very strange world. Cop-out! Translation: Darn! Betsy is right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 (Cue 'Twilight Zone' music.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Between Bacon, Descartes, Copernicus, and Newton, wasn't Aristotle's coffin nailed shut centuries ago? Actually thousands of years ago. But I'm not sure what point your trying to make here... thats like saying, Isaac Newton should be considered as a fool now, because we have Albert Einstein. We all owe something to the Greeks, for their astounding depth of perception about the human condition, done purely by abstract reasoning. They were the pioneers, their ideas are largely still valid and they did it without the benefits of modern technology. Even what I know barely scratches the surface of the immense amount of knowledge that they and others in ancestry had. No man is an island. A well-known quote by your Newton was, "If I have seen farther, its because I stood on the shoulders of giants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_t...lders_of_giants Perhaps you are simply not ready to study the Greeks yet. Today many people are easily distracted by the bombardment of mass media communications. TV and computers take up most of the spare time of people today, who no longer care to involve themselves with the arts. Notice for example, how the music scene and movies seems to have died, all that we have now is older tunes redone and covers of old ideas coming out of hollywood. It's a sign of cultural stagnation. People no longer strive to be artistic, or study classical philosophy. Today our knowledge extends only so far as the ability to do our jobs, then we zone out on the TV or internet. Like your name we are in a cybercoma. This de-evolution, cultural and intellectual decay, something Darwin probably would warn against as it cannot last for long- survival of the fittest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Today many people are easily distracted by the bombardment of mass media communications. TV and computers take up most of the spare time of people today, who no longer care to involve themselves with the arts. Notice for example, how the music scene and movies seems to have died, all that we have now is older tunes redone and covers of old ideas coming out of hollywood. It's a sign of cultural stagnation. People no longer strive to be artistic, or study classical philosophy. Today our knowledge extends only so far as the ability to do our jobs, then we zone out on the TV or internet. Like your name we are in a cybercoma. This de-evolution, cultural and intellectual decay, something Darwin probably would warn against as it cannot last for long- survival of the fittest. ......... 'Xcuse me for thinking that's a pretty provincial sort of observation. Movies and commercial radio? If you are looking for stagnant, that's where you'll find it, all right. Listen to the street music. Check out what's happenning in the nearest high school, musically and artistically. Those kids are wa-a-ay ahead of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 ......... 'Xcuse me for thinking that's a pretty provincial sort of observation. Movies and commercial radio? If you are looking for stagnant, that's where you'll find it, all right. Listen to the street music. Check out what's happenning in the nearest high school, musically and artistically. Those kids are wa-a-ay ahead of you. Agreed, commercial radio and TV have been stagnant for years. I don't ever have to own a ACDC cd at all. And for me, much of what I listen to, I will rarely if ever hear on the radio. But back to the topic at hand.... i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radsickle Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) As for you, it seems like your stuck on using terms like "masturbation" and wanker a bit too much. Get over it, and get a girlfriend. Sorry but I think Betsy's the Wanker here. ... and "meta" "physics" means "beyond" "worldly". Not "Science" and "Math"... "other" "worldly" (echo's twilight zone music) Edited May 12, 2009 by Radsickle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.