>
>[...]
>
> >>SB>no. The "atheistic spin" was put on by YOU. Science says nothing about
> >>>religion. It is the religionists that decided the thing was "atheistic."
>
> >SJ>No. Darwin himself in the end rejected design (when scientifically he
> didn't
> >>need to) and put his own anti-design spin on the theory:
> >>
> >>"...In 1868, Darwin took the final step not only of
> >>rejecting the design argument in a very conspicuous place but specifically
> >>of linking the rejection to Gray....." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray:
> >>American Botanist, Friend of Darwin," 1988, p339).
>
>SB>Design is religion not part of science and Darwin knew it. So did Gray. The
> >fact that "design" is not a part of science does NOT make it "atheistic."
>
>No. At the time design was still part of science.
No, it wasn't. It may have been believed by some scientists, but it was not
therefore part of science. Without empirically testable implications, it
was not science.
>It was Darwin's final
>rejection of design in 1868 that led to science's eventual rejection of
>design.
>
> >>>SJ>Besides, atheists have no option but to believe in some form of
> evolution.
>
> >>SB>that's not true.
>
> >SJ>Well, if that's the case, then maybe Susan could explain what an atheist
> >>could believe in other than "some form of evolution"?
>
>SB>panspermia? aliens did it?
>
>Then who or what created the "aliens"?
In an *infinite* and sufficiently varied universe, intelligent life would
arise by pure chance, no matter *how* improbable that it would arise in any
*finite* space and time. Suppose the probability is x, where x is
represented by a decimal point followed by some huge but finite number of
zeroes, and those zeroes are followed by a one. A number of zeroes equal to
a googolplex raised to the googolplex power, perhaps. Divide the resulting
number in to one, and you will get a number of similar space-and-time
combinations that would give a good probability of intelligent life arising
by pure chance. Multiply *that* number by a sufficiently large number, and
you get almost a perfect *certainty* that intelligent life will arise
spontaneously *somewhere* at *sometime*. If the universe contains an
*infinite* number of such space-and-time combinations, the probability that
intelligent life will not arise spontaneously goes to a literally
infinitesimally small number, one that cannot be represented as a decimal
expansion of a finite number of zeroes between the decimal point and a one
at all.
If this life exists or existed, it could have seeded our local part of the
Universe with life or with life-generating components.
*Further*, and more easily understood, proving that naturalistic evolution
is not possible on *Earth* would not be sufficient to prove that it is
impossible *elsewhere*, so that, even in a decidedly *finite* universe life
might arise by evolution somewhere *other* than Earth, and then gone on to
"seed" Earth.
If you wish to prove that life cannot evolve *at all*, under *any*
conceivable naturalistic conditions, go ahead and give it a shot, but, so
far, you have not even managed to show that it is implausible that it
occurred right here on Earth.
Further still, given the two extreme alternatives of purely spontaneous
(non-evolutionary) but naturalistic occurrence of life that "seeded" the
Universe with life, and a non-naturalistic "Intelligent Designer," the
non-naturalistic designer alternative has the heavier burden of proof,
because either the non-naturalistic designer itself arose purely
spontaneously or it always existed. If you claim that *it* arose
spontaneously, the probability argument against the spontaneous arising of
naturalistic life becomes an even-stronger argument against the spontaneous
occurrence of such a designer. If you claim that this designer *always*
existed, then you would also have to prove that *naturalistic* life did not
*always* exist.
In *all* cases, the burden of proof of a non-naturalistic designer is
*radically* more severe than the burden of proof of naturalistically
occurring life, because of the radical metaphysical claims that must be
supported in such a theory.
>SB>Bertvan likes that one, so does Hoyle.
SJ
>Bertvan is not an atheist. And Hoyle believes in evolution, just not
>Darwinism.One of his books is even titled "Evolution from Space".
>
>SB>Atheists,
> >like everyone else, can believe in any damn thing they want to--and often
> >do!
SJ
>Clearly "atheists" cannot believe in God, because then they wouldn't be
>atheists!
Chris
True, but do you think you have really answered Susan's *point* by this
remark? Her point is that atheism does not require much else in the way of
belief. Atheists can even believe in an afterlife complete with a kind of
Heaven, for example. They just can't believe that there is currently any
non-naturalistic supreme being that we'd normally designate by the word "God."
>SJ
>The fact that Susan cannot show what else an atheist can believe in except
>some form of evolution proves my point that "atheists have no option but
>to believe in some form of evolution".
Chris
The hypothesis I proposed above I have also proposed before on this list,
and you had no answer for it *then,* either. Spontaneous occurrence of
full-fledged life without evolution cannot be trivially refuted by simply
ignoring it. I personally don't have any idea whether the spontaneous
occurrence of (intelligent) life in a non-evolutionary way ever occurs, but
it is a naturalistic alternative to both the evolution of life and a
non-naturalistic designer (though I'd still bet *heavily* on naturalistic
evolution for life on Earth rather than any such hypothesis).
Further, I assume that Susan assumed that *you* meant evolution on Earth,
so that, I'd guess, she meant aliens as an alternative to *your*
non-naturalistic view that purely naturalistic evolution did not occur on
Earth. In any case, as I point out above, *all* non-naturalistic theories
are less supportable than their naturalistic equivalents because they make
*claims* that require less to prove or validate them scientifically. No
matter *what* non-naturalistic designer theory you propose, a simpler and
*naturalistic* alternative can be created from it that requires *less*
proof, less evidence. This can be done by nothing more difficult than
changing the *wording* of the non-naturalistic theory to the wording of a
*naturalistic* theory. Wherever the non-naturalistic theory must use a
non-naturalistic term, that term can simply be replaced by a naturalistic
equivalent.
Thus, whatever the characteristics of life on Earth are that lead you to
posit a non-naturalistic designer, they would *better* be used to lead you
to posit a functionally and empirically equivalent *naturalistic* designer,
one that does not need to have any non-naturalistic characteristics.
In short, until you can find some magical way to overcome the relative
burden of proof for a non-naturalistic theory as opposed to an equivalent
naturalistic one, you *cannot* have a rationally plausible case, because
the rational person will always say, "Well, okay, but we can just replace
that with a naturalistic equivalent?"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 10:41:46 EDT