(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Status
Not open for further replies.
carcano said:
1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago.

2. The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.

3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan.

4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required.

5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.

6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong and the search for God.
1) is without evidence or justification. 2) is meaningless; 3) is without evidence or justification; 4 ) is irrelevant 5) is simply ordinary fact; 6) contradicts 4 and 5, and is without evidence or justification.
carcano said:
Yes, he goes on at great length in the book about why the universe as presently observed could not have been generated by RANDOM processes.
And we agree that such an argument is bootless, true?
 
So apparently, to Dr. Collins, his six premises are sufficient to establish the existence of God in a "scientific" sense.
No, some of his statements are implied conclusions...not entirely how he *establishes* the incompatibility of science and atheism.
 
It seems to me that a universe which was "precisely tuned for life" would contain a lot more life!
Agreed...however the rest of the universe aside from this planet is inaccessible to observation.

Therefore we simply dont know how much life exists.
 
That is frankly ridiculous. These premises are a joke.
can't be any more ridiculous than saying "things become alive".

i like to know what it is that leads to the conclusion that things become alive.
there is no evidence at all, anywhere, that leads to that conclusion.
every single time scientists have tried to prove this conclusion they fail.
 
i like to know what it is that leads to the conclusion that things become alive.
Why -- so you can dismiss it out of hand like you do every argument that contradicts your ill-conceived worldview?

I'm not letting you bait me into another facepalm festival. Take your trolling behavior somewhere else.
 
can't be any more ridiculous than saying "things become alive".
Science doesnt say "things become alive".

It says livings things appear, as defined by thousands of molecules colluding into self-replicating organisms...by random chance.
 
Why -- so you can dismiss it out of hand like you do every argument that contradicts your ill-conceived worldview?
uh, WHAT???
1000s of scientists the world over back up the claim "life comes from life"
1000s of scientists the world over have never seen life coming from non life.
so, it isn't just MY world veiw.
 
carcano said:
It says livings things appear, as defined by thousands of molecules colluding into self-replicating organisms...by random chance.
Not by "random chance" alone. By processes such as evolutionary development, as well.
 
carcano said:
Evolutionary development has to start somewhere...thats what I was referring to.
Processes such as evolutionary development are a property of the inanimate as well as the animate world, and all gradations between. The concept of "random chance" is really difficult, full of pitfalls - one cannot have too much care.

Collins's argument is fatuous, really - an example of what a particular set of constraints or program of conditioning imposed on acceptable thinking can do to an otherwise first class mind.
 
Collins's argument is fatuous, really - an example of what a particular set of constraints or program of conditioning imposed on acceptable thinking can do to an otherwise first class mind.
If you're referring to childhood conditioning there was no religious element in his upbringing. He was an atheist throughout his university education in physics and medicine.
 
Last edited:
Processes such as evolutionary development are a property of the inanimate as well as the animate world...
No, evolutionary development is not applicable to inanimate matter.

Evolution requires a code of living replication...which is variable through mutation.
 
carcano said:
No, evolutionary development is not applicable to inanimate matter.
Yes, it is. All the Darwinian form requires is replication with variation and in a context of selective culling - clays do that, crystals do that, various other inanimate conglomerations of stuff do that, and they can evolve accordingly. (The Lamarckian form requires reactionary acquisition of features and selective culling. I can't think of any inanimate examples of that outside of computer setups, but there's nothing ruling them out of the "natural" world in theory).

SAM said:
Are you declaring that evolutionary "development" is a process?
That's not a "declaration", I hope. Of course it's a process.
carcano said:
If you're referring to childhood conditioning
Not necessarily. And whether or not he was personally atheistic in his teens is irrelevant - I'm not asserting he was the source of the constraints and conditioning.

He has claimed to have been swayed by the arguments in "Mere Christianity", by CS Lewis, for instance. I have read that book, and if someone has been swayed by it they are accepting arguments and approaches that cripple reason in this matter.
 
iceaura said:
That's not a "declaration", I hope. Of course it's a process.

How do you reach that conclusion? What makes evolutionary "development" a process?
 
All the Darwinian form requires is replication with variation and in a context of selective culling - clays do that, crystals do that...
Clays and crystals are not life forms with a genetic code of replication...which is variable through mutation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top