Getting over our love for Darwin

[OldRegular]

I'm not sure what this ultimate sense of evolution you are trying describe is. Are you saying that creationists who like to attack evolution know this ultimate sense of evolution and are the only ones who can describe it?

Evolution as understood by the majority of the scientific community, by Darwin and its early proponents and by most texts written about it does not require atheism for its validity.

Here is a quote from the Origin of Species. Maybe Darwin was an atheist. But this quote clearly suggests that the presence of a creator was not inconsistent with his model of evolution.



Sure, evolution is an attractive theory for atheists. Creationists also like to falsely attack evolution by saying it requires atheism to believe. But none of those things actually make atheism a part of evolution.

It is also true that evolution in its ultimate sense is an atheistic philosophy.

 

[Aaron]

Interestingly, the Big Bang theory was articulated by a Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest to explain redshifting found in observable astronomical data. For many years, it was criticized by the atheistic arm of the scientific community because it sounded too much like creationism.

But the competing scientific model of the steady state theory which implied a universe without a finite starting point was discredited by the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation. This discovery also backed Lemaitre's big bang theory which is now the predominant scientific explanation for astronomical redshifting.

As with evolution and abiogenesis, the Big Bang theory does not require the belief that a creator was not behind it. I believe Mr. Lemaitre was a theist, being a Roman Catholic priest. Of the Big Bang, evolution and abiogenesis, I believe the Big Bang has the most in common with Creationist interpretations of the bible. "Let there be light" sounds a lot to me like a singularity leading to an expanding universe.

More accurately, Lemaitre suggested that the universe began from a single point about the size of the solar system. He did not articulate the Big Bang. He said that the observations were evidence for the expansion, or firmament, that was created on Day 2. Only when his theory was morphed into the Naturalistic Big Bang by George Gamow was it allowed a place in scientific theories concerning the origin and evolution of the universe.

The point being that, again, theories are judged to be scientific, not on the observations, but on their adherence to the philosophical basis of Naturalism.

 

[Gold Dragon]

More accurately, Lemaitre suggested that the universe began from a single point about the size of the solar system. He did not articulate the Big Bang. He said that the observations were evidence for the expansion, or firmament, that was created on Day 2. Only when his theory was morphed into the Naturalistic Big Bang by George Gamow was it allowed a place in scientific theories concerning the origin and evolution of the universe.

The point being that, again, theories are judged to be scientific, not on the observations, but on their adherence to the philosophical basis of Naturalism.

Most scientists and historians attribute the Big Bang to Lemaitre. Yes, others like Gamow developed it which resulted in wider acceptance than it had when it was initially proposed by Lemaitre. Gamow's contributions were not about "naturalizing" the theory but about filling in key gaps in the theory initially proposed by Lemaitre, specifically Big Bang nucleosynthesis which showed that the Big Bang could explain the presence of other elements in the universe besides hydrogen. Initially, observations of redshifting were done on the hydrogen spectrum because hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It is also true that evolution in its ultimate sense is an atheistic philosophy.

More that it is a non-theistic theory, in that it supposes nothing about the existence, or non-existence, of a supreme being.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Sources for George Lemaitre as the originator of the Big Bang theory.

PBS: People and Discoveries : Big Bang Theory introduced 1927
Encyclopedia Britannica: Georges Lemaitre
About.com: Space/Astronomy: Georges-Henri Lemaitre Biography: Father of the Big Bang Theory
Answers in Genesis: A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology (A creationist website)

Answers in Genesis: A Brief History of Intolerance in Modern Cosmology
...
The idea that the universe sprang from a cosmic egg of infinitesimal size that is, the Big Bang, was originally proposed by astronomer-priest Abbe Georges Lemaitre in 1931. Lemaitre, a Belgian scholar, evidently had the biblical account in Genesis in mind when he developed his view. His theory went largely unnoticed until his work was taken up by Sir Arthur Eddington and George Gamow. Maddox notes that the “doctrine of the Big Bang” has a strong appeal for some creationists “seeking support for their opinions” (Maddox 1989, p. 425).
...

Aaron, what types of sources to you have that support the idea that Gamow was the originator of the Big Bang theory and not Lemaitre?

 

[OldRegular]

More that it is a non-theistic theory, in that it supposes nothing about the existence, or non-existence, of a supreme being.

I disagree! Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy.

 

[Aaron]

Most scientists and historians attribute the Big Bang to Lemaitre. Yes, others like Gamow developed it which resulted in wider acceptance than it had when it was initially proposed by Lemaitre. Gamow's contributions were not about "naturalizing" the theory but about filling in key gaps in the theory initially proposed by Lemaitre, specifically Big Bang nucleosynthesis which showed that the Big Bang could explain the presence of other elements in the universe besides hydrogen. Initially, observations of redshifting were done on the hydrogen spectrum because hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in the universe.

I'm not saying his theory wasn't instrumental in it's development, but to be accepted as scientific it had to be morphed into a non-theistic, Naturalistic process. What Lemaitre proposed is not what is called the Big Bang.

The point being that it is a particular philosophy that governs the institution of science these days, and that philosophy is Naturalism. Darwinism is no more scientific that I.D., but it's called science because it's Naturalistic, and theistic explanations are rejected, not because they don't fit the evidence, but simply because they are theistic. As stated in one of your own citations: If the Big Bang cosmological scenario is abandoned, the question of what will replace it is a major issue because a more viable nontheistic contender does not now exist.

To require an explanation to be nontheistic is a philosophical demand, not a scientific one.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I disagree! Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy.

Not so. Evolution is silent about the existence of God. This is a matter not addressed at all by the theory of evolution. It is, if you will, agnostic about the existence of a god or gods.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I'm not saying his theory wasn't instrumental in it's development, but to be accepted as scientific it had to be morphed into a non-theistic, Naturalistic process. What Lemaitre proposed is not what is called the Big Bang.

The point being that it is a particular philosophy that governs the institution of science these days, and that philosophy is Naturalism. Darwinism is no more scientific that I.D., but it's called science because it's Naturalistic, and theistic explanations are rejected, not because they don't fit the evidence, but simply because they are theistic.

I know what you are saying. But what you are saying has no basis in reality. It is a figment of your imagination.

1. What Lemaitre proposed is now called the Big Bang (granted this was a name given to it by critics). Links in post #45

2. The contributions of Gamow and others did not "naturalize" Lemaitre's theory but added components like explanations for elements besides hydrogen. Links in post #39

3. Darwin and advocates of evolution like talk.origins believe that a creator could be behind evolution. Quotes in post #33 and #40

4. Lemaitre and many early advocates of the Big Bang believed that a creator was behind the Big Bang. Quote in post #45


Like OldRegular, your repetition of false statements do not make them true.

 

[Johnv]

And just how does it adhere to the scientific method?

The OP addresses ID, not natural selection. These threads usually denegrate from discussing the validity of ID to an anti-evolution debate. Usually in these arguments, anyone who says anything that disagrees with ID get villified, are called liberals, have their salvation question, are accused of not believing scripture, etc.

Frankly, I have no particular interest in discussing natural selection. Alas, I got baited into that by a pseudotroll.

On the topic of Intelligent Design, ID doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

 

[OldRegular]

The OP addresses ID, not natural selection. These threads usually denegrate from discussing the validity of ID to an anti-evolution debate. Usually in these arguments, anyone who says anything that disagrees with ID get villified, are called liberals, have their salvation question, are accused of not believing scripture, etc.

Johnv:

Have I called you a liberal, questioned your salvation, accused you of not believing Scripture?

Alas, I got baited into that by a pseudotroll.

I guess I have been called worse and probably by one who can spell better. The word is pseudo-troll or pseudo troll. Troll! Is that one of those mythical creatures who hide under bridges? No! No! They live in caves! Now where does a pseudo, troll that is, live?

On the topic of Intelligent Design, ID doesn't proport to make any assertion about the development of life forms. It only asserts that the structure of life forms suggests a designer. It does not discount natural selection, nor does it even address it. Further, ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all. The only problem with ID is that it isn't a science. It is a theological argument. It's one that I happen to agree with, btw.

Now riddle me this. If ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all how can it be a theological argument? Just curious! Can pseudo-trolls be curious or do you have to be a real life troll? Or perhaps a Johnv?

 

[Johnv]

Have I called you a liberal, questioned your salvation, accused you of not believing Scripture?

You? Not to my knowlege.

If ID does not assert that life was created by God, or for that matter, any supernatural force at all how can it be a theological argument? Just curious!

That's a good question. ID as we know is was formulated and popularized by the Discovery Institute, who assert that the designer to be the God of Christianity. The ID argument is consistently used to assert a supernatural deity. The Dicscovery Institute acknowleges that they avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer, but that they use ID to foster a belief in the existence of the God of Scripture.

I myself use it as a theological argument frequently, and have found it to be a very effective theological argument.

 

[Aaron]

I know what you are saying. But what you are saying has no basis in reality. It is a figment of your imagination.

1. What Lemaitre proposed is now called the Big Bang (granted this was a name given to it by critics). Links in post #45

2. The contributions of Gamow and others did not "naturalize" Lemaitre's theory but added components like explanations for elements besides hydrogen. Links in post #39

3. Darwin and advocates of evolution like talk.origins believe that a creator could be behind evolution. Quotes in post #33 and #40

4. Lemaitre and many early advocates of the Big Bang believed that a creator was behind the Big Bang. Quote in post #45


Like OldRegular, your repetition of false statements do not make them true.

You're attempting to present Darwinists and Big Bang adherents as open to theistic explanations. That is false.

 

[Gold Dragon]

You're attempting to present Darwinists and Big Bang adherents as open to theistic explanations. That is false.

I'll requote the things I posted before because you seem to be unable to read previous posts.

Darwin open to theistic explanations

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin p577
...
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Darwinists open to theistic explanations

Talk.origins: God and Evolution: Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.

There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

PBS: Evolution FAQ: 11. Does evolution prove there is no God?

No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

George Lemaitre more than just open to theistic explanations.

Catholic Culture: The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître by Joseph R. Laracy

Addressing the philosophical implication of the primeval atom hypothesis at Solvay in 1958, Lemaître states:

As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace's "flick" or Jean's "finger [of God agitating the ether]" consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah's speaking of a "Hidden God," hidden even m the beginning of creation.

Other Big Bang adherents open to theistic explanations

A Brief History in Time by Stephen Hawkings p193

Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.

In his book "The Creation of the Universe" on p.681, George Gamow made reference to a "divine creation curve".

Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe by Helge Kragh p.118

Figure 3.4. Gamow's "divine creation curve" as of October 1948. The variation of the concentrations of neutrons, protons, and deuerons with time is shown on the right scale, and the temperature decrease is shown on the left scale. Source: Gamow (1948b). p. 681

 

[Aaron]

What they mean by "God" or "Creation" is really an undiscovered, naturalistic particle or abstract principle.

 

[OldRegular]

Like OldRegular, your repetition of false statements do not make them true.

I have not made any false statements! I simply state that: Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy. Now if you want to call me a liar then prove the statement is false.

 

[Johnv]

I gotta defend OR here. It's one thing to respectfully disagree with his statement. It's another thing to accuse him of a falsehood.

The problem in topics such as these is not that people often disagree. The problem is that little respect is shown those with whom one disagrees. It's not necessary to accuse someone who does not adhere to a 6x6k creation model as not believing the Bible. Likewise, it's not necessary to accuse someone who does adhere to a 6x6k creation model as being ignorant of science. Unfortunately, we often go down that road with the mentality of "I better accuse him before he accuses me". I'm no stranger to that mentality. I submit that discussions such as these can be better handled by dispensing more grace, respect, and civility.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I have not made any false statements! I simply state that: Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy. Now if you want to call me a liar then prove the statement is false.

I don't think you are a liar. You just believe in a statement that is false despite evidence to the contrary. And repetition of that statement does not make it true. I have repeatedly shown how the creator, proponents and supporters of evolution acknowledge the possibility of a creator behind evolution. If that isn't proof, tell me what is.

I asked you who defines this atheistic "ultimate sense" of evolution. Wouldn't that be its creator, proponents and adherents? Why is it that critics define this ultimate sense of evolution? Would you let political liberals define the "ultimate sense" of conservative policy?

 

[Jim1999]

Can anyone show me where the Bible speaks of the North American population of ten thousand years ago?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Crabtownboy]

I have not made any false statements! I simply state that: Evolution in its ultimate sense and by its nature is an atheistic philosophy. Now if you want to call me a liar then prove the statement is false.

I have no doubt you believe what you stated ... but you are wrong IMHO. There are many Christians who believe God created using evolution.

Theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism are similar concepts that assert that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.

Theistic evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution