There is nothing to refute since no such claim has been demonstrated.
Teleology in evolution is the cart not the horse. Necessity and success drive the cart, and purpose is delivered. Purpose cannot drive the system. So much is bloody obvious.
If you are indoctrinated into religion it is hard to see this. I feel sorry for your delusion.
If you were as half as wise as you think you are you’d still be twice as stupid as your would like to be.
I’ll drop the attitude when you drop the delusion and respond is rational ways, with an open mind. But seriously dude your attitude is pure 1850. This is the 21st C buddy.
Purpose drives the system. Necessity and success are the teleological incentives that drive human actions.
Dawkins’ “illusion of design” is full of holes. It is natural to see design in the natural world. It is most certainly not a delusion. As for 1850, I’m surprised that you have not followed this matter on the 21st century internet, where examples of this topic abound. Oh, but you had rather use ad hominem than explain your limited view. Check out reliable criticism of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” which, apparently, is your source of ideas.
Considering science is built around challenging theories and theorists, one wonders exactly what it is you are bragging about in this newest adolescent tirade.
If I thought you have the slightest glimmer of understanding about the meaning and achivements of science I would explain that to you.
But since you think that a priest who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago is qualified to criticize science and evolutionary science in particular it is clear you are unclear.
Who is this priest who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago? It is certainly not Michael Dowd.
If you had read Dowd, you would have discovered that he does not deny Darwin. He simply makes Darwin accessible for humans. Evolution with a purpose unites religion with science, a must reunion for any viable future for humanity.
If you are not a Dawkins puppet, why do you sound so much like him? And yes, I’ve read his books. But, for the last time, this thread is not about me, it is not about the fundamentalist Christian views you and Dawkins so abhor. It is about hope for a future for Mankind.
Darwin, himself, had misgivings about his theory. It is not that the theory is incorrect; it is that it is incomplete. Authors such as Michael Dowd are attempting to address what was left out of the theory --the existential awareness of a personal God as designer of the universes. The impersonal look at evolution shows it to be a bleak, purposeless mechanical body of fortuitous events. But what gives one the idea of fortuity? Evolution as mechanical neglects much of what is fully human.
He did not have any misgivings that you are capable of understanding, and he certianly had none that would include “intelligent Design” or any creator.
He fully and utterly rejected god and religion. Evolution as mechanical neglects much of what is fully human.
So what? Evolutionary theory is not supposed to give psychological advice about the scared murmurings of the human child.
It simply demonstrates HOW humans emerged over millions of generations from more simple animals without the help of a guide. In fact shows with clarity that given the haphazardness of the variety of life that no such design could possibly make sense.
The simple fact that the basic model of everything from a skeleton to all organs reuses the same pattern again and again. If a god were to have been involved then he would have to be a bumbling idiot, allowing millions of attempts to go extinct. Millions of tries failing. A stupid god that that despite supposedly being omnipotent could not figure out how the hell a human was supposed to look and so took 3.1 billion years fo design one.
Then when the final human energes, it is full of basic designl flaults such as bad back; dodgy appendix; utterly reliant of billions of gut bacteria without which ha cannot digest food; head too big for child birth; children with arrested developement that take at least 15 years of care before they are viable.
This is obviously false. Darwin was an observing Christian for the entirety of his life.
If it did, it would be a faulty theory of evolution, as evolution is designed precisely to account for all that is human, and more.
Also, I would like to point out something that you seem to be unaware of, which is that Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution. He suggested some mechanisms that might be involved in it.
Every person who went to University was forced to take orders.
That does not make a person a christian.
As time passed he reaslised that there was no need for god. When one of his daughters died it was the last straw and he refused ever to enter a church.
Try and educate yourself. Read his autobiography where he makes this clear.
I did not say this.
Duh fucking Duh. Evolution is not DESIGNED FFS.
Saying that is probably more funny that you will ever know
I am, as usual, way a head of you. Darwin with Wallace described and discovered the Theory of Natural Selction. Other theories pre-existed Darwin, most notably Larmark’s, Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus also did work on the topic.
You’d do better to run along and do some basic research on the topic before you spar with me.
Maybe he’s changed his mind recently. Evidence that truth might be getting through or that he’s had to mideify his misconceptions to accomodate the truth. He was and still is decribed as a Young Earth Creationist.
Yes he does. The very title of his book is a denial of Darwin.
Darwin is twice the writer Dowd could ever be and his writings are ver clear and in perfect understandable Englsih that stand up to scrutiny and rational examination.
No it does not. It is a childish fallacy.
Bullshit. It is the end of reason, an excuse to believe that you like rather than what is the truth.
Sculptor, If you were able to present anything here other than derision, I would welcome your posts.
As it is you assume to know what Vittorio and I have read or how we think; and you squeeze your guesses about us into your limited atheistic agenda.
I’d be happy if you just pack up your tent and leave this thread for a more fertile site for your vitriol.
Evolution is a theory. I only seek to see it expanded to include more of what it’s like to be human. It is you who limit the theory to the 19th century where it abruptly stops with naked apes. I am certainly aware of Erasmus Darwin, et. al. Charles proposed only the mechanism by which evolution operates. He did not deny God in the Origin of the Species or the Descent of Man. The circumstances under which he expressed that denial, a death in the family, is certainly understandable. It is human, all too human.
Rubbish.
I was offering your rational and well considered posts, and you started with the derision.
Go and be happy.
Both books clearly reject the need for God.
That is why on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species hae declared to be confessing to a murder - the murder of God, and of his own faith. He had no need to specifically mention God since those books were books of SCIENCE. Science is about knowing, religion about faith. They have no connection. Whilst science has progressed, religion has had to back track and reject its own dogma. That is the history of the relaationship and Your clown Dowd is not a scientist and has never studied it. He cannot stem the tide with wishes. His own life history is a microcosm of this struggle of religon to catch up with science, since he himself is a reformed Young Earth Creationist. Darwin shows that no creation is possible nor necessary.
Dowd is a dinosaur trying to cling to life, but is extinct, a dead man walking.
And where is god in the death of an innocent young girl?
Nowhere!
Einstein believed in God. Hawking does not. Yet both were amazed by the intricate complexity of the visible universe.
I’m with Einstein. Such beauty and efficiency demands an author.
God is the reason for something so magnificent as deterministic, creative evolution, giving humans a heritage of purpose.
