Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thinkquote of the day: Nobel laureates on evolution


Why there is an intelligent design controversy, reason xxx xxx xxx ….

Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

[ … ]

Differences exist between scientific and spiritual world views, but there is no need to blur the distinction between the two. Nor is there need for conflict between the theory of evolution and religious faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Neither should feel threatened by the other.

– 39 Nobel laureates writing writing to the Kansas State Board of Education , via the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity: Nobel Laureates Initiative (September 9, 2005)

Toss this one in the “why the intelligent design controversy isn’t going away” files.

What blows me away is how stupid those people think the rest of us are. I don’t think ID is really about religion, but – what kind of faith would be compatible with an unguided, unplanned process? Better not ask.

Houdin, While your cake analogy sounds pretty simple on the surface, it actually assumes a lot: the existence of the oven and its required specs (temperature, duration, fuel source, preheating...), obtaining a suitable vessel in which to do the mixing and tool with which to do the mixing, determining the ingredients and their ratios, mixing the ingredients in the proper sequence, obtaining a suitable pan in which to bake the cake, inserting and extracting the pan within tolerable time windows, and on and on.... In the end, even if all God does is “mix the ingredients and bake them in the oven,” this process actually requires quite a bit of planning, intent and foresight, and is fundamentally in conflict with the “unguided, unplanned process,” that NDE requires. And so, Denyse is right when she asserts that the framers of the document in question either don’t understand the issues, or assume that we don’t. SteveB
I am not sure, but I think that the "unguided" and "unplanned" part of the text were removed. I guess they realized that, with those words, even theistic evolutionists would jump out of the Darwinian train. Mats
Let's first define the terms. A process of evolution and Darwinian evolution are two very different ballgames. It's rather absurd to think that any God would have used Darwinian evolution to bring about life. NDE says that all of the life we see isn't the result of intention, or a goal, or a purpose...Humans aren't, in any manner, the pinnacle of any grand process, etc. It's all just a series of cruel accidents that allowed some to live longer and some to die off for whatever reason they happened to die off. Darwinism leaves no room for God to act in any creative way to bring us to man. The mutations that drive the process are purely random, and selection (aka,. some lived longer than others) isn't at all a creative act with ANY intention behind it. It's all a mindless, goal-less, blind, accidental process, and that's surely not the process of creatrion in any sense of the word. True Darwinism- where life is the result of a trillion accidents, leaves no room for God. At least no room for any God who had any part in bringing about life or you in particular. Which means, to God, you're not a creation he loves- you're simply an accidental mutation (a cancer) that had ancestors that were lucky to live longer than the others and stuck around... JasonTheGreek
A faith where God wants to create a bunch of plants and animals, including humans, but doesn't feel like doing all the minute picky work involved in making them, so he lets evolution do the job. Or would you demand that God personally create every single atom in a piece of cake instead of mixing the ingredients and baking them in an oven? Houdin
Five of the Nobel signators are not even in chemistry, physics or medicine. Why should their opinions matter coming from economics or peace? I would also be curious to see how many of them are truly religious to argue for a compatability. late_model

Leave a Reply