Belief in Darwinism; what does it even mean?

[Juice]

Belinda argues??

That's right, Juice, Intelligent Design suggests only disembodied intentions[/b]. The traditional God is widely supposed to have a body, albeit a supernatural body, that is capable of emotions such as jealousy.But Intelligent Design is never supposed to be jealous, angry, beneficent, all-knowing, or omnipresent.

What "disembodied intentions"? The intention, logically, is resultant in your existence. What, or whose, "Traditional God"? By what means do you intend to DEFINE this God? By what means do you intend to weigh your definition over mine? Is gravity "disembodied"? Is TIME? Is TIME intentioned? To what end? For what "Purpose"?

God has a body?? By whose definition? George Burns??

Jesus Christ is God manifest in flesh for my faith. This is what I believe. But, I do not expect, nor do I intend by force or manipulations, for others to believe the same, as is intended. The philosophy, science, causal historicity and observed phenomenon are enough to enter ID into any dialog in which existence, and origin, and the means by which they are manifest, are in debate.

But Intelligent Design is never supposed to be jealous, angry, beneficent, all-knowing, or omnipresent.

Intelligent Design is an objective perspective of observed phenomenon. Emotions only evoked, as evident by your introduction of them, to detract from the real science. Benevolence??? What can be more evidently "benevolent" than "natural selection"?

Isn't it "benevolent" that natural selection can provide, through evolution, the things necessary for an organism to survive?

We have every right and the ability to deny the existence of God, and to argue for Gods non-existence. But, what we cant do is remove the logical possibility of Gods existence from any dialog and Intelligent Design posits such a possibility through observed phenomenon.

The only reason that the so called scientific community attempts to remove God or an uncaused cause from the dialog is to "FORCE" the failed and failing theology of atheistic Darwinism.

"Natural" please tell me what your concept, perception and idea of "natural" is. And, prove to me that yours is "real".

[Belinda]

Juice, if God can feel jealousy, anger, compassion, truth, benevolence, then God has to have a body because those are all bodily feelings with physical correlatives in neuronal and hormonal action.Since God is spirit this body has to be a spiritual body.A trans-natural(spiritual) body, since God is widely supposed to be spirit.

The Incarnation of Christ as God Incarnate is an actual physical body, the body of Jesus of Nazareth, according to traditional Christian doctrine.Plus, Christ has two natures in one body, the physical body and the trans-natural, spiritual, body. There are differences in Incarnation doctrine between the various Christian sects.I believe I have stated the main traditional doctrine.

[Juice]

You believe what you want to believe about God and/or Jesus Christ Belinda. I have the foresight of revelation. Which as I stated is not the discussion. Do not misconstrue how you choose to interpret or define God, by and through the fallacies and ineptness of human standards, with my capacity to do so on equal footing.

I stated;

This is what I believe. But, I do not expect, nor do I intend by force or manipulations, for others to believe the same, as is intended. The philosophy, science, causal historicity and observed phenomenon are enough to enter ID into any dialog in which existence, and origin, and the means by which they are manifest, are in debate.

Evolutionist, out of fear that their inept theory will be exposed as such, fear Intelligent Design. Consider that 87% of the American populace believe in some form of a God construct and that 67% of the American populace agree that ID should be taught along side any evolutionary theory.

Through your progressive idea of democracy at work, the atheists have gone to the courts to manipulate the words of our founders and the US Constitution to remove ID from the debate under the guise that ID is not science without considering what their science philosophers consider true causal science adequacy under which ID clearly falls. Not by consensus or law, as evolution proponents have manipulated, but by the same means that Newton and Einstein came to his theories and, in fact, Darwin.

The dialog is not about God or religion but about the "meaning" of Darwinism which atheist evolutionist use to remove any logical consideration of God or an uncaused cause, which ID does not specify, from the dialog by manipulation of non-scientific law and based on no philosophical foundation or scientific principle.

[Unrealist42]

God isn't proposed to have "popped into existence"; god is the proposed eternal uncaused cause from which other events that have a beginning are ultimately caused by, and without which one is fored into irrational positions concerning cause and effect.

Well, this is a prime example of irrational argument. There is nothing irrational about the chain of cause and effect being indeterminate as to its beginning since it is so obvious that this is the case.

What is irrational here is the assertion that some eternal external actor, some god, must the initiator of the chain of cause and effect.

Many ID theorists, such as Guillermo Gonzalez and Dembski, argue that ultimately the designer is God, and that the universe was in fact largely designed - but they also make sure to point out that this is not a prediction or asertion of the theory of intelligent design proper.

This is a disingenuous distinction without a difference. They are the leading proponents of ID and they say that the ultimate designer is god. It makes no difference that they try to qualify that statement after the fact. It is a statement of the absolute. It is not qualify-able.

It is when people conflate some implications of a theory with the theory itself that people most often become confused about what the theory actually states.

A theory that cannot deal with all its implications is either incomplete or just plain crap.

The dialog is not about God or religion but about the "meaning" of Darwinism which atheist evolutionist use to remove any logical consideration of God or an uncaused cause, which ID does not specify, from the dialog by manipulation of non-scientific law and based on no philosophical foundation or scientific principle.

You have it exactly backwards, the dialog is about the meaning of God. There are many people who believe in both God and Darwin. There are many who believe in God who reject Darwin. You cannot blame religious schism on atheists.

[Meleagar]

Well, this is a prime example of irrational argument. There is nothing irrational about the chain of cause and effect being indeterminate as to its beginning since it is so obvious that this is the case.

That we cannot determine the nature of a thing doesn't change the fact that logic dictates the thing must exist. Unless there is a first cause, uncaused cause, Prime Mover, etc., then one is left with the choice of three irrational conclusions - the universe causing itself, the universe causing itself, or infinite regression.

What is irrational here is the assertion that some eternal external actor, some god, must the initiator of the chain of cause and effect.

No, that is the only rational axiom when it comes to explaining how sequence of cause and effect exist. How is the axiom of an uncaused cause, or prime mover, irrational?

This is a disingenuous distinction without a difference.

It's no more disingenuous than allowing evolutionists like Dennett, Darwin, Dawkins, Coyne, etc. to make theological arguments about evolution and not concluding that neo-darwinism is a theory about god.

They are the leading proponents of ID and they say that the ultimate designer is god.

They don't say so as part of the ID theory - just as when evolutionary scientists argue that there is no god in popular books or articles or discussions doesn't make evolutionary theory necessarily anti-theistic. They are also quite clear that one argument is not part of the other, so there is no disingenuousness on the part of those ID proponents.

It makes no difference that they try to qualify that statement after the fact. It is a statement of the absolute. It is not qualify-able.

We don't hold every statement that Darwinists make to be a claimed part of evolutionary theory. It's absurd to claim that statements William Dembski makes as part of a theological argument are aspects of ID theory, just as it is absurd claim that theological arguments Darwin, Dawkins or Coyne makes are part of modern evolutionary theory.

You have it exactly backwards, the dialog is about the meaning of God. There are many people who believe in both God and Darwin. There are many who believe in God who reject Darwin. You cannot blame religious schism on atheists.

The dialogue is about Darwinism and what it means (even though sidetracked here and there). One cannot believe in both full Darwinism and any god other than a deistic one;
Christian Darwinists misunderstand the real meaning and import of Darwinism and fail to see, IMO, how Darwinism directly undermines all spiritual principles, morality, ethics, and faith by turning all such impulses, thoughts, ideas, and values into the happenstance collisions of molecules over millions of years.

Even Dennett realized this, and said as much in Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

Darwin's idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers-- welcome or not--to questions in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction). If [the cause of design in biology] could be a mindless, algorithmic process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process itself be the product of evolution, and so forth all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own "real" minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin's idea thus also threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding.

Whereas Dennett irrationaly believes there is some sort of answer to this problem, the logical fact is that there is not; if there is no designed authorship of our world and of us as beings, then we - including our thoughts and ideas - are nothing more than the happenstance and lawful interaction of molecules, and nothing we do or think really matters in any prescriptive way. Morality and ethics become simple kludges of molecules that happen to produce certain effects and thoughts, and nothing more.

The problem of Darwinism is much, much deeper than most people consider; even Darwin and Dawkins were left in social and moral quandaries when left considering the ultimate ramifications of Darwinism, and neither wanted to live in a society guided by Darwinistic principles.

[Belinda]

You believe what you want to believe about God and/or Jesus Christ Belinda. I have the foresight of revelation

Congratulations Juice! You should be so lucky!

[Juice]

We all know that the universe of our experiences has a beginning which is termed the "Big Bang" (singularity), making the point at which the space and time we experience, theoretically, a beginning. Therefore we can conclude, surmise and/or speculate that the universe we experience was created.

The original question of the OP asks "Belief in Darwinism, what does it even mean?"

Some of the original arguments against Darwinism centered around the question of God and more specifically a dogmatic belief and acceptance of the creation account in the Christian Bible since Darwin was a member of the western society which, at the time, promoted the creation account and Christianity as irreproachably, on a state sponsored level, these arguments started a "war" between theists and atheists. A war which has persisted to this day. And, a war, which at times, sidesteps any science and philosophy in order to promote one precept over the other.

This is where ID comes in.

Personally, I don't believe one can be a Christian and subscribe to both the complete efficacy of the creation account and any evolution theory. For me the creation account is absolute, and answers logical scientific and philosophic considerations.

God created Man and Woman. God created gender. A question "evolution" is unable to reconcile and answer.

God, also, created life. Also, a question evolution is unable to reconcile due to a myriad of scientific and philosophic considerations.

Not withstanding any other religious belief or understanding, me, as a Christian, believe Darwinism, not evolution as a theoretical possibility to consider, is evil! If, evolution, as a course of open, free dialog taking all possible creative, possibilities into account. Intelligent Design bridges the possibilities of "creation", existence and evolution.

For me, when Darwinist, use the courts, to force the "absolute" teaching and acceptance of that evolutionary theory, for the express purpose to deny open dialog and/or debate as to any consideration that an intelligence, of anyones, definition, can, logically, be considered as a theoretical possibility, as a catalyst or definitive hand in the creation of what we experience, then the meaning of Darwinism is one that denies creative, scientific and philosophic expression. This makes Darwinism an evil akin to communism, and an arm of atheist dogma.

Just as there is, and should be, a separation of "church" and state, so too, should there be a separation of atheism and state. And, Darwinism has become an arm of atheist expressionism.

As a society which promotes free thinking, and expression, Intelligent Design, as a considered scientific theory, furthers creative dialog.

If we accept, as philosophers, that ultimately, we are interested in "Truth", and view Intelligent Design within the framework of metaphysical and ontological paradigms as should be all realistic considerations involving existence and being then closing ID to the purview of theoretical possibilities by forcing Darwinian theories as absolute then this society is guilty of scientific and philosophic slavery and progressive indoctrination, making Darwinism an evil.

Belinda surmises, by oxymoron;

Congratulations Juice! You should be so lucky!

Luck!!?? Belinda, "Blessed", I am so "Blessed".

[Unrealist42]

You are apparently conflating two different discussions. I'm not talking about ID in the above posts. I'm making a philosophical argument about the logical necessity of the existence of a god.

The entire line of inquiry I am pursuing concerns ID and its implications and you know it. It is a little late to divorce ID from this discussion just by issuing a ex-post-facto disclaimer.

That we cannot determine the nature of a thing doesn't change the fact that logic dictates the thing must exist. Unless there is a first cause, uncaused cause, Prime Mover, etc., then one is left with the choice of three irrational conclusions - the universe causing itself, the universe causing itself, or infinite regression.

You should read the thread here on Expanded Science and the hypothesis of Jocaxian Nothingness, a simpler and more logical hypothesis for the origins of the universe than some god.

The dialogue is about Darwinism and what it means (even though sidetracked here and there). One cannot believe in both full Darwinism and any god other than a deistic one;
Christian Darwinists misunderstand the real meaning and import of Darwinism and fail to see, IMO, how Darwinism directly undermines all spiritual principles, morality, ethics, and faith by turning all such impulses, thoughts, ideas, and values into the happenstance collisions of molecules over millions of years.

Even Dennett realized this, and said as much in Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

Darwin's idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers-- welcome or not--to questions in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction). If [the cause of design in biology] could be a mindless, algorithmic process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process itself be the product of evolution, and so forth all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own "real" minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin's idea thus also threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding.

Whereas Dennett irrationaly believes there is some sort of answer to this problem, the logical fact is that there is not; if there is no designed authorship of our world and of us as beings, then we - including our thoughts and ideas - are nothing more than the happenstance and lawful interaction of molecules, and nothing we do or think really matters in any prescriptive way. Morality and ethics become simple kludges of molecules that happen to produce certain effects and thoughts, and nothing more.

The problem of Darwinism is much, much deeper than most people consider; even Darwin and Dawkins were left in social and moral quandaries when left considering the ultimate ramifications of Darwinism, and neither wanted to live in a society guided by Darwinistic principles.

All of that does nothing but reinforce the proposition that this is only a problem for religion.

That Darwin undermined ethics and morality is correct. How Darwin did this was by removing religion's power to dictate particular visions of ethics and morality. Darwin freed ethics and morality from the distortions of religious oversight.

People must now think for themselves and a great deal of both good and bad thinking on ethics and morality has come about since Darwin proposed his theory. One thing is sure though, life goes on and some of the big perpetrators of unethical and immoral activity continue to be those claiming religious prescription.

[Meleagar]

The entire line of inquiry I am pursuing concerns ID and its implications and you know it.

No, I don't, and no, I didn't. Are you now a mind reader?

You should read the thread here on Expanded Science and the hypothesis of Jocaxian Nothingness, a simpler and more logical hypothesis for the origins of the universe than some god.

Bald assertion without supportive argument.

All of that does nothing but reinforce the proposition that this is only a problem for religion.

It is a problem for anyone seeking to maintain a rational system of thought; Darwinism destroys the capacity for humans to expect to be able to discern true statements from false, or to understand logic or the universe, because it makes them, their thoughts and their conclusions nothing more than the happenstance collisions of molecules.

That Darwin undermined ethics and morality is correct. How Darwin did this was by removing religion's power to dictate particular visions of ethics and morality. Darwin freed ethics and morality from the distortions of religious oversight.

Unfortunately, Darwin left Darwinists without a meaningful source for logic, truth, ethics, or morality.

People must now think for themselves and a great deal of both good and bad thinking on ethics and morality has come about since Darwin proposed his theory. One thing is sure though, life goes on and some of the big perpetrators of unethical and immoral activity continue to be those claiming religious prescription.

I'm not sure what you think religion has to do with your dialogue with me. Darwinism didn't "free" anyone's mind, in most cases, IMO, it just changed out the belief system.

Darwinists are no more capable of "thinking for themselves" than anyone else is. You seem to think that believing in Darwinism is "liberating"; I suppose I can agree inasmuch as an abandonment of necessary logical axioms and foundation is "liberating".

[Belinda]

Meleagar wrote

It is a problem for anyone seeking to maintain a rational system of thought; Darwinism destroys the capacity for humans to expect to be able to discern true statements from false, or to understand logic or the universe, because it makes them, their thoughts and their conclusions nothing more than the happenstance collisions of molecules.

Happenstance has nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection is not 'happenstance' or chance events natural selection is a law of nature.

As such its explanatory and predictive power far excedes that of Intelligent Design.

DNA is not a 'collision of molecules'. DNA, unusually among molecules, is a replicator.

[Unrealist42]

I suppose I can agree inasmuch as an abandonment of necessary logical axioms and foundation is "liberating".

Well, we agree on something anyway.

Necessary logical axioms, you keep using those words but they mean nothing to me. What are these exactly and why are they so necessary?

[Meleagar]

I suppose I can agree inasmuch as an abandonment of necessary logical axioms and foundation is "liberating".

Well, we agree on something anyway.

Necessary logical axioms, you keep using those words but they mean nothing to me. What are these exactly and why are they so necessary?

I appreciate your time, but I think I'll pass on that.

[Unrealist42]

Well, we agree on something anyway.

Necessary logical axioms, you keep using those words but they mean nothing to me. What are these exactly and why are they so necessary?

I appreciate your time, but I think I'll pass on that.

We finally start getting into something interesting and you just give up?

[Gehan chintan]

ya first atom came then it changes into cell due to proper climatic conditions and reacted with proper reactent and so on and on then first living creature came.. at present there are some millions of creature and each and every one have some thing special.. we all know that practice is a key of perfection thats why first God created a perfect place then a atom and then first living body. then God made a full process so that each and every soul will go through a practise to enhanse its skills. like every living creature have a special power with in them and then oin the end God created human but God set a program called sub conscious state of mind. we have every thing in sub conciousness mind and the day we will use our full brain that day we will be called super human and then only we can chase God. we are not aware of our selfs only.. if we will join the power of nature and full power of human mind then we our self can start new begining of finding God. without God the things cant be in so perfect manner.. there is something who is controling everything..

[Anthony Edgar]

I know exactly what I am asking for. I know it does not exist and never did. Asking you to produce proof Darwinism theory is scientific fact is no more ridiculous than you asking me to produce proof of God. So we can sit here and call each other stupid all day long and we will both have plenty of supporters.

Theists come up with theories about God that can't be tested or falsified. Scientists come up with theories about evolution that can't be tested or falsified. It's a stalemate. So in the end, most of us pick a side, based on what we want to believe.