Did Darwin Dethrone God?

Did Darwin Dethrone God? [+ favourites]

It behoves us not to say, and it does us credit to deny, that God has been dealt death-blow, and that atheism is the only ‘rational’ position available. I prefer to say that if God no longer casts a shadow, that is because he has taken residence above light. Tub-thumping scientific triumphalists like Dawkins aver that belief in God is no longer admissible; that science, and in particular Darwinism, now offers an exhaustive explanation of that most protean and multiform phenomena, life; and whatsmore, that it has done so by recourse to purely blind, impersonal biological forces which brook no mention of God. But as Henry Hobhouse and John Blanchard point out, evolution is problematic. For a start, it offers no explanation of the genesis of life, of how inert matter came to be interred with élan and vitality. Dawkins claims that evolution is a ‘fact’, and, notwithstanding the philosophical naivety of such a claim, it seems to me unimpeachable that evolution is a model, that is to say, a simplification of reticent reality, and that God isn’t simply ruled out of court by its vindication

God was only ever upon a throne in the sense that people believed he was, if a person chooses Darwin's explanation about the origin of man over creationalism, then God is dethroned in their eyes, so yeah in a sense Darwin's work has the power to dethrone God in the eyes of his followers.

"I have nothing to be proud of today but hopefully tomorrow I will."
[  Edited by her at   ]

This is where I get confused, all this talk of creationism versus evolution because in my mind the two sit perfectly well side by side and both are correct.

Ok there was some great force in the beginning, whether an act of creation by a supreme intelligence or some random unknown force; it is still an act of creation, creating something in that first moment.

And after that the course is set in motion and over time, things change, life changes, elements meld and forces mold and at the end of the day whether God or science can explain it all , it exists none the less.

But I think that a sentient intelligence must have created that first moment, that beginning of all - because I cannot see that you can have something created without matter, energy and imagination.

""Each child holds the world in an open hand to mould it into any shape they choose.""

It makes perfect sense that there is talk about creationalism vs evolution, this is because when the term creationalism is used during such discussions, it is in the context of the three main abrahamic religions, judaism, Christianity and Islam. All three which claim that God made man in the form that we are now, there was no stages, no evolution.. just a straight creation of what we see today. This concept is challenged by Darwin's work.

Now i have heard christians, or Muslims say to me that, now both theories can work, because it was God who set off the evolution, it was within his power, that could make sense, but is a complete contradiction of what their religious scriptures state.

Yeah, both can sit perfectly in your mind, thats because no religious scripture may be restricting what you believe.

"I have nothing to be proud of today but hopefully tomorrow I will."

Wittgensteins,
"For a start, it [evolution] offers no explanation of the genesis of life, of how inert matter came to be interred with élan and vitality." [italics are mine]
The Theory of Evolution [ToE] was never intended to offer an explanation as you expect.
Young Earth Creationists are fundamentalists and are in the great majority over their rivals, the Old Earth Creationists. These are normally referred to a YECs or OECs.
YECs are therefore in diametric opposition to naturalistic theories such as the ToE. They hold implacably to the genesis description of creation found in the bible.
That branch of biology that investigates the beginning of life from inert non-living matter is called the study of Abiogenesis. It is a completely different branch of science and should not be allied in any way with the ToE.
Charles Darwin never intended that his work should assume anything but a divine spark in the creation of life although he did not speculate at length on this. His theories operate after such an event.
Please indulge my dipping a toe into pedantry. But I think the word "interred" [which means buried] could be substituted with "infused" or "imbued" and thereby give your sentence a clearer meaning.

"The heart does the pumping, the brain does everything else"

Sorceress,
"But I think that a sentient intelligence must have created that first moment, that beginning of all - because I cannot see that you can have something created without matter, energy and imagination."

The admission that you "cannot see........." is described by Dawkins as an expression of personal incredulity. The conditions under which many "cannot see",,,,,,,,
"cannot understand"........."cannot believe, etc do not create a necessity for science to account for that incredulity.
If science has not so far satisfied the incredulous then it is not logical or legitimate to assume that it never will. The impatience with which many theists approach science is a rather shallow way of reinforcing their beliefs. It is almost certain that science will reveal the truth of abiogenesis. If that happens will it weaken one's belief?
To subsequently say, "Well.......that's the way God must have done it." would be somewhat hypocritical.
This of course is not suggesting you would so act.

"The heart does the pumping, the brain does everything else"

This old creation versus evolution controversy is just that--OLD! I doubt very much that one side will ever cancel out the other as long as those two sides reside at extreme, opposite poles. It's really a waste of time because both sides are rigidly intolerant of one another. I suspect that the real truth extends beyond the boundaries of simplistic fable and dogmatic empiricism.

"Each conscious mind is alone in the universe!"

WizardsLogic,
"I suspect that the real truth extends beyond the boundaries of simplistic fable and dogmatic empiricism."
That is an interesting perspective.......a sort of reverse version of the oft-heard declaration about there being a reconciliation of science and religion if one were sufficiently devout and sincere.
If you see a melding of the extremes or a third way as a supportable view there would be issues worth examining. Can you elaborate?

"The heart does the pumping, the brain does everything else"

Extropian: Of course, it is no criticism of evolutionary theory that it leaves some questions unanswered. It is the nature of a science to have a narrowly circumscribed subject-matter. What I am attacking are the grand, hubristic claims made for the theory by people like Dawkins and Monod, and the concomitant assertion that God is thereby outlawed from the universe.

Well, Darwin laid down some pretty heavy stuff to try and dispell the idea that a God, or creator, created man; that he is somehow seperate from beasts and not a natural progression of them. If the Old Testament was to stand up against the evidence against it -in court - I wouldn't like to testify for it. However, this does not make it necessary to get rid of God. God can still be a creator - surely has to be - becuase you need a source of water before a river flows. It dethrones God in the sense - and in my eeys - that he is the observer and in place puts forth the idea that he is the doer.

"Only gay people have quotes to look good"

Wittgensteins: What I am attacking are the grand, hubristic claims made for the theory by people like Dawkins and Monod, and the concomitant assertion that God is thereby outlawed from the universe.

Extropian1: There can be no doubt that Dawkins is a persuasive advocate bordering on zealotry. Though comparing him with a televangelist or hot gospeler is somewhat unfair. His erudition and scholarship in the scientific is formidable and his arguments, at their very lowest level, depend on the same tactical thinking regarded as legitimate by theists........the use of analogy. However, when scientific evidence is called for he presents it forthrightly and uncompromisingly.
Atheists of all stripe, which includes the zealous ones, know the illegitimacy of Creation "Science" and have experienced years of misrepresentations and deliberate lies about their fields of science from creationist "scholars".
Those like Dawkins have concluded that zealotry is no more barred to the godless in defense of their views than it is to the theists for like purpose. Among atheists generally, I have detected an unwillingness to adhere any longer to the patient, calm and reasoned approach in promoting the scientific viewpoint and in defending against creationist villainy.
Espying hubris in the zealous atheist, as I see it, is a reaction to the desanctifying of many [and in some cases unrealised] sacred cows in our society that have been surreptitiously nurtured into many aspects of society. The shock from Dawkins' revellation of just how many favourable aspects of society have been usurped by religious practice will anger some, probably more out of private embarassment than of hostility toward the revealer.
I am strongly of the opinion that much of theistic hostility springs from the same embarassment but is directed at Dawkins for the outrageous nature of his questioning. In this wise is their embarassment ameliorated.
Dawkins et al are execrated for their outspokenness and the conclusions they draw. Yet their conclusions rest on logical interpretation of scientific evidence and comparison with the theistic alternative. No compromise is feasible simply because conditions insist that it is the scientific method that alone must accommodate compromise. Such condition is flatly rejected in order that the entire integrity of science remains inviolate.
Most theists have not thought through the implications of inserting a G for God in a scientific equation. For such an equation to be universally understood that G must have a universally agreed value and position in a hierarchy of values that is greater than zero.
Such a value can only be bestowed by scientific measurement and analysis. The instant this is done, this phenomenon becomes an integral part of the natural world, it is understood in its properties and FAITH as a human concept of belief without evidence or proof becomes a redundant encumbrance to human intellectual advancement. FAITH is destroyed.
It therefore ill-behooves anyone to suggest a confluence of theistic and scientific thought in the creation/evolution debate. Were such a position accepted by rational science then science would bear down with all its resources to establishing the G for God scenario. Theists can hardly be enthusiastic about this. I contend that they have far more to lose than any other group in society.
That's why when one gap closes for their god, theists frantically search for another, lie about the science that closes the gap or they dishonestly reinterpret it.
The recrudescence of creationism is a desperate defence of fond delusion against the implacable advancement of science. The Anthropic Principle and Intelligent Design are two major examples of dishonest reinterpretation of science.

"The heart does the pumping, the brain does everything else"

quote:

---

It behoves us not to say, and it does us credit to deny, that God has been dealt death-blow, and that atheism is the only ‘rational’ position available. I prefer to say that if God no longer casts a shadow, that is because he has taken residence above light. Tub-thumping scientific triumphalists like Dawkins aver that belief in God is no longer admissible; that science, and in particular Darwinism, now offers an exhaustive explanation of that most protean and multiform phenomena, life; and whatsmore, that it has done so by recourse to purely blind, impersonal biological forces which brook no mention of God. But as Henry Hobhouse and John Blanchard point out, evolution is problematic. For a start, it offers no explanation of the genesis of life, of how inert matter came to be interred with élan and vitality. Dawkins claims that evolution is a ‘fact’, and, notwithstanding the philosophical naivety of such a claim, it seems to me unimpeachable that evolution is a model, that is to say, a simplification of reticent reality, and that God isn’t simply ruled out of court by its vindication

---

Evolutionary theory is established, but is scope and import are yet to be determined. To repeat, I am not questioning its general validity, but the claim that it has rendered the concept of God null and void. And this is not a matter of proof, which, incidentally, is much too severe even for evolutionary biology. We can only frame more or less plausible arguments. And, in ways which people are yet to understand, the old theological debates, to take but one example, are not as intellectually bankrupt as they are often made out to be.

I will repeat as well...
"The evidence for Evolution as fact is simply overwhelming. What proof does Creationism/ID have?"