Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[jeeprs]

Well, he does say that up until the theory of evolution came along, there might have been quite good reasons to suppose that Paley's 'Argument from Design' was a good argument for the existence of Deity. Now, however, the variety of all of the species can be attributed to natural selection alone and at last we are free from any compelling reason to believe in a God.

I don't have the page number, as I don't own the book. But it is in there.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well there are 10,000,000 (10 million) combinations available for 9 digits. My maths is pretty poor, but this is an exponential equation, is it not? So the difference between all possible 9-digit numbers and all possible 18-digit numbers is not arithmetical but exponential. But what if there are 90 digits? or 900? Again, I can't 'do the math' but I think the numbers quickly become completely unimaginable.

Yeah but my point wasn't really about the amount of possibilities. It is simply to say that given enough time, you would get the correct number. To continue the cleched line, "It's all just a matter of time..."

Time is irrelevant to the process and one thing the universe is abundant in is time.

But some of you might object, "Wo wait a minute Krumple, don't be too hasty now, the universe has only been around for fourteen billion years give or take. (sorry I wrote it this way so I could use that pun)

So am I saying that it required a billion years for rna to finally form? No, because I actually think the potential for rna to form is much higher than the likelihood of guessing a seven digit phone number.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well, he does say that up until the theory of evolution came along, there might have been quite good reasons to suppose that Paley's 'Argument from Design' was a good argument for the existence of Deity. Now, however, the variety of all of the species can be attributed to natural selection alone and at last we are free from any compelling reason to believe in a God.

I don't have the page number, as I don't own the book. But it is in there.

Not entirely Correct. I recall that passage. Any other examples?

[jeeprs]

Well, the title of the book. It is not called 'Delusions about God' or 'Mistakes that Can Occur due to the Pernicious Ideas caused by Incorrect Religious Views'. The whole Dawkins movement is aimed at showing that the basis of religion has been exposed as false by science. Hence name of book 'The God Delusion'.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well, the title of the book. It is not called 'Delusions about God' or 'Mistakes that Can Occur due to the Pernicious Ideas caused by Incorrect Religious Views'.

Neither is it called "here's how evolution proves atheism" or "science says God is wrong".

The book's a collection of arguments against theism - not all of them based on science whatsoever. Those that mention science don't claim science demonstrates atheism - just that science provides answers to questions some (many) theists claim belong to theology alone.

[jeeprs]

Yes indeed. As the famous bus advertisement said, there is 'probably' no God, so in that case, there is 'probably' no need to fear loosing your immortal soul, either. I should probably be relieved by that, but the stakes are high, are they not? Anyway, we digress, I think the real issue in this thread is the analysis of causality - to put it in traditional terms, whether there are final and formal causes of being, in addition to the material and efficient causes which you can examine 'in the field' and through the microscope.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well, he does say that up until the theory of evolution came along, there might have been quite good reasons to suppose that Paley's 'Argument from Design' was a good argument for the existence of Deity. Now, however, the variety of all of the species can be attributed to natural selection alone and at last we are free from any compelling reason to believe in a God.

I don't have the page number, as I don't own the book. But it is in there.

I fail to see how natural selection is at all present with human existence of today. We have self-created ways of dissolving this idea within our own species, even with the animals we love and care for, often now, the strongest do not survive, whereas the weakest often do. It is apart of the process of realizing and thus becoming aware of our absolute and true self-creative nature. Survival is changing from that of physical survival to that of spiritual survival, thus creative transcendence, and the environment now begins to reflect that as it decays and loses finite cohesion at a ever increasing exponential rate (entropia), whereas our minds gain all that cohesion in the form of infinite quality - it is being transferred.

You can graph these curves, they actually intersect at some point.. within the next 30 years.. it is safe to say within the next 30 years, finite syllogism and physical science will release all energy from all mass.. However, as cohesion is lost in the environment, it is gained, as mentioned earlier, within our minds which are of infinite capacity. Awareness of our creative nature grows through our creativity, to the point where these curves cross...

[ACB]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

I think the real issue in this thread is the analysis of causality - to put it in traditional terms, whether there are final and formal causes of being, in addition to the material and efficient causes which you can examine 'in the field' and through the microscope.

The OP assumes the truth of Kantian idealism, and argues that evolutionary theory is incompatible with this and hence false.
Theaetetus (post #46) gives a counter-argument on this specific point.

The view that evolution is true, but that it needs to be supplemented by some metaphysical theory, is a different argument altogether.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Well, the title of the book. It is not called 'Delusions about God' or 'Mistakes that Can Occur due to the Pernicious Ideas caused by Incorrect Religious Views'. The whole Dawkins movement is aimed at showing that the basis of religion has been exposed as false by science. Hence name of book 'The God Delusion'.

Nothing of this has anything to do with philosophical materialism/naturalism following from biological evolution.

[jeeprs]

Suggest any alternative readings, then?