Ken McElhaney wrote:
> Tyler Trafford wrote:
<snips>
> It means what it means, the movie does not dispute Darwin AFTER the
> first living organism appeared. The clamor from some scientists is
> that to question any part of Darwin's theory is to question the whole
> thing.
Precisely what did Darwin say about life's ultimate origin anyway?
Ah, he did mention the topic in a letter, apparently.
*googlegooglegoogle*
<quote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html>
Although Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" into his final
paragraph in the second (1860) edition, and Huxley had also publicly
stated that life may have been originally created, this was never
understood to be part of the evolutionary mindset, and it was not long
before people began to speculate on how life began. Darwin himself did,
in a letter to his botanist friend Joseph Hooker in 1871, he wrote:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production
of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been
present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm
little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light,
heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was
chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the
present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not
have been the case before living creatures were found."
In print, though, he restrained from speculation, noting that "In what
manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms,
is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems
for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man." (Descent
of Man, chapter 2, 1871). In an essay to the Atheneum in 1863, Darwin
wrote upon heterogeny "as the old doctrine of spontaneous generation is
now called", in which he noted that a "mass of mud with matter decaying
and undergoing complex chemical changes is a fine hiding-place for
obscurity of ideas". He argued that while it is true that at one time
"there must have been a time when inorganic elements alone existed on
our planet", "our ignorance is as profound on the origin of life as on
the origin of force or matter", and denies that the theory of evolution
requires that life continuously arises. So-called "primitive" life forms
as Foraminifera are well adapted to their conditions, and are not
evidence of on-going heterogenesis: "the nature of life will not be
seized on by assuming that Foraminifera are periodically generated from
slime or ooze".
</quote>
>> http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
>>
>> Search for "Toward the end of his interview with me".
>
> Seems Dawkins memory is different that what he presented on film.
> Since it was a continuous shot from when Stein asked the question and
> all through Dawkin's answer, there was no cutting or "tricks" (I've
> been a videographer for more than twenty years, I've seen all the
> tricks and used them myself on occasion). Dawkins gave an answer not
> prefaced by any "I must have been feeling magnanimous that day" tone.
> Since all he had to say was "No, I cannot imagine how any form of
> Intelligent Design could play a role." and that would be that.
Of course it's possible! It just not probable.
> Instead, he gave an answer that certainly seemed serious to the point
> where he virtually backtracked towards the end by stating that this
> "alien race" must've began by some non-Intelligent Design means.
Backtraced? It's an im****tant point; otherwise it would be like saying
that life began with my parents. True for me, but hardly an ultimate
origin.
(The problem with this "ID" vs Darw^H^H^H^HScience debate is that one side
says "not falsifiable" and expects the argument to be over, and the
other side can't be bothered to look up what the word means.)
--
Tyler Trafford
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.
-- Messiah's Handbook : Reminders for the Advanced Soul
|
