Quote:
|
Not all atheists use this argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me, and Bach's cello suites.
|
This does NOT accurately represent any atheist's belief. I have yet to hear an atheist claim that Bach's cello suites can be a product of abiogenesis.
Quote:
|
This belief has always struck me as implausible.
|
Increduilty is not a basis for assuming the argument invalid, only a reason to be suspiscious.
Quote:
|
The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.
|
Please explain the wide variety of theists that have accepted abiogenesis and biological evolution. Apparently the Pope himself has a vested interest in atheism. I also note that most scientists are theists. These are the same scientists that have made various discoveries in the field of abiogenesis and evolution.
Quote:
|
I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism -- the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life.
|
I see you acknowledge it, but I noticed you made no attempt to explain it.
Quote:
|
But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism -- the existence of design and intelligence.
|
I know a few intellectually honest atheists, I fancy myself as one, in fact. There are a great many articles and responses to the Intelligent Design argument. These are more than satisfactory in explaining how a designer is not required, and are very good at pointing out that there is NO evidence of design. The only "evidence" of a designer is the
assumption that one is observing a designed product. This is based on increduilty. As we discussed earlier this is not sufficient reason for belief in intelligent design.
Quote:
|
The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare.
|
This is what's known in logic as a strawman. The proponent basically creates an argument so that they themselves can knock it down. This is done to decrease their opponents credibility. I have never heard anyone who is knowledgable about the subject of biological evolution claim that a symphony was produced from a paramecium. In fact, to suggest such a thing to me seems rather intellectually dishonest. Weren't we discussing that earlier?
Quote:
|
The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.
|
A continuation of the strawman, enough said.
Quote:
|
But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.
|
Since we are discussing logic, I would say this is a non-sequitur. Of course a number of monkeys would never sit around and attempt to type for any length of time, but really, was anyone suggesting they
really would? I believe this was used as an example. Admittedly, probably not a very good one.
Quote:
|
According to news reports, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and with the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and defecated on it.
|
Probably about what I would expect.
Quote:
|
The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.
|
Of course it wasn't scientific, and I doubt any number of monkeys would make it so. I strikes me as a waste of time and money actually. While you may consider it a vindication, I would consider it frankly, silly. A would imagine a columnist for a magazine or web page to be reasonably intelligent. Are you saying that you
honestly believed that the monkey comment was not an example? You really thought that if we threw enough monkies and typewriters into a room that they would sit still, behave themselves, and begine to randomly type? Of course you didn't, so to use such an "experiment" as vindication seems to be intellectually dishonest. Huh, there's those two words again.
Quote:
|
According to the science correspondent of Britain's Guardian newspaper, "assuming each monkey typed a steady 120 characters a minute (itself a preposterous assumption), mathematicians have calculated it would take 10 to the 813th power (10 followed by 813 zeros) monkeys about five years to knock out a decent version of Shakespeare's Sonnet 3 . . . "
|
This is an example to show how the mathmatical calculations were done. You know this. I know this. The monkeys are not even necessary to the ancedote. The keys could be randomly programmed to be pressed, would it honestly matter? To pretend to address an issue, while really addressing another seems to me to be a red herring, which is an intellectually dishonest tactic to use.
Quote:
|
There are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in God.
|
This is the first thing you have said on which we may agree.
Quote:
|
Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.
|
Your belief does not make it fact. I believe that anyone who honestly adresses the issue, researches it, and
understands it could not help but come to the conclusion that biological evolution exists as fact. My belief has been proven wrong time and again.
Quote:
|
Sadly, many people come to doubt God's existence because so many intellectuals are atheists.
|
Is it? Or is it one reason you
think people doubt god's existence. Can you see how one is intellectually honest and the other is not? How many people do you know that say "Well so and so really believes it, and they're really smart, so I should believe it too."? Or could it be that many people doubt god's existence because for example..."the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life?"
Quote:
|
In his book God and the Astronomers, Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.
|
Hmm...so here we are to be convinced because one man wrote a book which covers this subject. How interesting. The problem is here, one can easily believe in a beginning for the universe without believing in god. This beginning could have natural causes. See how easy that was? I wonder why those really smart atheist astronomers never thought of it?
Quote:
|
This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God.
|
What exactly is a vested non-scientific interest in atheism. Why would people have such a thing? What advantages does it offer over belief in a god? You see, where you say "Ah hah!" and shout conspiracy, I say "Hmmm...where is this evidence that this man is telling the truth in his book?" Which would you consider more honest, intellectually speaking?
Quote:
|
But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey doo-doo at Plymouth University, England.
|
Finally a gem of truth! You are right! Chance has little to do with abiogenesis and very little to do with biological evolution. But I notice a few problems here, and that is a blatant ignorance of the scientific method, and of abiogenesis and evolution. I would think that forming opinions out of ignorance would be intellectually dishonest. But then, I'm a very smart atheist.
05-28-2003, 11:14 AM
"Monkeys and atheists"
