How I came to believe (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 06, 2015, 15:03 (3124 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Many thanks, David, for this article, which brilliantly sums up the case against chance, is a powerful indictment of the scientific establishment, is a tribute to the courage of its author, and should be compulsory reading for atheistic Darwinists. It's a pity he talks about "Darwin's theory of biological origins" as "atheism's creation myth", when he must know that Darwin's theory of evolution does not cover creation,...
DAVID: I must again take you to task. Life is a continuum from first life to now. The two parts of the story are inseparable. First live had to contain the mechanisms that allowed for evolution to more complexity. -dhw: Agreed, but who says you must provide a theory for both? There is now a wide consensus that evolution took place, whereas there is no consensus on how the original mechanisms came into being. That would seem to justify Darwin's expressed intention to steer clear of that particular origin.
DAVID: The point I am stressing is Darwin avoided recognizing first life had to contain the mechanisms for evolution to occur, but one cannot separate that fact from a current discussion.-A current discussion on what? My objection was to the author's misrepresentation of Darwin's theory. Anyway, I don't think Darwin was stupid enough to assume that evolution could occur without some sort of mechanism, but he was discussing evolution (as opposed to separate creation). As for the origin of the mechanism, it suits both atheists and anti-Darwinist theists to ignore the following:-dhw: ...yet again here is Darwin's conclusion, taken from my edition of Origin: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.” Please explain your objections to this.
DAVID: Why do some of the editions contain the phrase you quote? Did Darwin vacillate in his opinion about God?-I can't read Darwin's mind. We know that he intended to become a clergyman, lost his faith, said categorically he had never been an atheist, and described himself as an agnostic. I think we may assume he actually wrote the words I have quoted and knew what he was writing. They were inserted into later editions (perhaps to mollify those who took the biblical version of creation literally?) along with the many other references to the Creator, and presumably also the enthusiastic quote from the Rev. Charles Kingsley. He was at pains to point out explicitly that he saw “no good reason why the views given in this book should shock the religious feelings of any one.” Now, will you please tell me your objections to his conclusion. If you have none, will you please join me in agreeing that it is wrong to misrepresent Darwin's theory of evolution as “atheism's creation myth”.