Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Here’s Where DNA Co Discoverer, James Watson, Shows His Religious Belief About Evolution




Just after the 14:55 mark in this interview with Charlie Rose, James Watson explains the religious mandate for evolution: No designer would have created this world (primate DNA sequences, in this case):

And I - I think when you—now that we`ve carried it forth, where we actually can look at DNA and see what it`s like in a chimpanzee, and you see all these things, the thought of anyone interfering, oh, boy. It just—it seems whacko.

The enormous scientific problems with evolution are inconsequential. Watson couldn’t even begin to tell us how the chimpanzee evolved. But he’s certain it must have. And Rose laps it up as usual. Religion drives science, and it matters.

14 comments:

  1. CH: Just after the 14:55 mark in this interview with Charlie Rose, James Watson explains the religious mandate for evolution: No designer would have created this world (primate DNA sequences, in this case):

    I think you're overlooking the fact that statements made by Watson, Dawkins, etc. are a response to claims made by ID proponents and creationists.

    For example, a designer could have created this world with the intention of making appear *as if* the biosphere evolved. However, Watson is not considering this scenario as it's explicitly denied in the case of creationists and implicitly denied in the case of in the claims of cdesign proponents.

    As such, his statement doesn't take this possibility into account.

    For all we know, an abstract designer (who has no defined limits) or an supernatural, all knowing and all powerful designer could have created the universe 30 seconds ago, compete with the appearance of age, along with false memories that I actually wrote the previous paragraphs. Yet we do not see ID proponents or creationists making this claim.

    Furthermore, this sort of argument is parochial in that a designer with enough intelligence and foresight to design this particular biosphere would also also have enough intelligence and foresight to realize we would reach the conclusion that this particular biosphere evolved based on the specific patterns we observe across multiple, independent lines of evidence.

    In fact, given what we observe, Watson would probably make the following statement regarding a claim that designer wanted to trick us into thinking the biosphere had evolved, but did not in reality….

    And I - I think when you—now that we`ve carried it forth, where we actually can look at DNA and see what it`s like in a chimpanzee, and you see all these things, the thought of anyone interfering, oh, boy. It just—it seems brilliant.

    However, none of these assumptions are present in the claims of cdeisgn proponents or creationists.

    In other words, you'd need to assume the designer (a) build the biosphere in precisely this way to fool us, knowing what conclusions we would reach, (b) was blindsided that the particular design it selected would lead us to conclude that the biosphere had evolved or (c) the designer was severely constrained / limited in that it had no choice but to design the biosphere this way.

    But these assumptions are conspicuously absent from any designer promoted on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott: "For example, a designer could have created this world with the intention of making appear *as if* the biosphere evolved. However, Watson is not considering this scenario as it's explicitly denied in the case of creationists and implicitly denied in the case of in the claims of cdesign proponents."

      tj: Scott, you seem to know an awful lot about how Watson is thinking and why he says what he does. I bet Watson is not considering that scenario because it doesn’t fit his worldview or religion as CH says. (Not sure who cdesign proponents are)

      Scott: For all we know, an abstract designer (who has no defined limits) or an supernatural, all knowing and all powerful designer could have created the universe 30 seconds ago, compete with the appearance of age, along with false memories that I actually wrote the previous paragraphs. Yet we do not see ID proponents or creationists making this claim.

      Tj: True. I guess it is possible, but we don’t make this claim because there is no basis for it. He told us what He did in His Word and this is not what He said.

      By the way, the God of the Bible has defined limits. He cannot lie or do anything wrong.

      Scott: Furthermore, this sort of argument is parochial in that a designer with enough intelligence and foresight to design this particular biosphere would also also have enough intelligence and foresight to realize we would reach the conclusion that this particular biosphere evolved based on the specific patterns we observe across multiple, independent lines of evidence.

      TJ: It is only after we strayed from God’s Word and it’s clear teaching that we have come to this wrong conclusion. For most of history, His plan worked perfectly fine. People naturally concluded that this world was created. The reason it doesn’t work now is that scientists have decided to eliminate God as a possible cause for the creation. They ignore His Word and interpret evidence and make assumptions based on the principles of naturalism that exclude God from the start. God is not responsible for men arriving at wrong conclusions when they reject His revelation.

      For instance, we reject a global flood so we interpret the rock layers as having formed over millions of years of history as opposed to a few thousand years ago in the flood. We interpret the fossils in the rocks as evidence for evolution and common descent as opposed to the order of burial during the flood.

      It is ironic that the intelligentsia of our society are mostly not intelligent enough to see God's fingerprints in nature.

      Delete
    2. cont.

      Scott: However, none of these assumptions are present in the claims of cdeisgn proponents or creationists.

      In other words, you'd need to assume the designer (a) build the biosphere in precisely this way to fool us, knowing what conclusions we would reach,

      TJ: Did you ever hear of personal responsibility? Like I said, God is not responsible for your refusal to believe what He did reveal to you in His Word. He tells us that we are all without excuse because it is evident that there had to be a Creator. True knowledge of creation is not limited to 19-21st century evolutionists. If this were the case, it would mean that God misled people for thousands of years because, until the 20th century, most people believed in a Creator. But if He created using evolution, then, for all these years, we have been misled by God into thinking that He created the world in 6 days. The need for a Creator is a logical conclusion that any person should be able to arrive at. If you leave God out of the picture and try and think up a way it could have happened by all natural means, then of course you will arrive at different answers and you might think that God deceived you, but you would be wrong. Why? You are making a big assumption here – namely that your interpretation of nature, your theory about the origin of life and the world is correct.

      Take ape DNA. God tells us that He created each animal after it’s kind. Humans were created directly from the dust of the ground. A common designer explains much of the common DNA, but if you refuse to consider God to explain this current belief of science(not a fact as things keep changing), then God is not be be blamed for your naturalistic interpretation of the evidence.

      Scott: (b) was blindsided that the particular design it selected would lead us to conclude that the biosphere had evolved or

      TJ: Of course this is wrong. He knows all things and it is not His responsibility to do any more than He did. First Cause, nano-molecular machines, specified information, irreducibly complex systems, self-consciousness, codes, designs so complex we can’t even understand them, designs so amazing we wouldn’t have even believed it possible had we not seen it first in nature, etc. The evidence for God is all around you if you have eyes to see it. But you refuse.

      Plus I find it interesting that the vast majority of people still do believe in a Creator who designed the world. Seems like most people are not having any trouble getting His message.

      Scott:(c) the designer was severely constrained / limited in that it had no choice but to design the biosphere this way.

      TJ: From what the Bible reveals about God, I would presume this is wrong. First of all the Designer is not an it. God is a personal God and you and I were made in His image. I would also presume that He created this world in the best possible way. The Garden of Eden was a perfect place to live. He never makes mistakes. Besides, I think He did a pretty good job – fine-tuning the universe for life, amazing designs, breathtaking beauty, a world where science is possible and natural theories can be expressed by mathematical equations, etc. I don’t see this as being limited, but I see it as a big reason to give praise to the Creator for His great work!

      Scott: But these assumptions are conspicuously absent from any designer promoted on this blog.

      TJ: And there are good reasons for that. The designer you are describing does not exist.

      Delete
    3. Tokyo Jim,

      It's not clear where you're disagreeing with the substance of my comment.

      For example…

      Scott: I think you're overlooking the fact that statements made by Watson, Dawkins, etc. are a response to claims made by ID proponents and creationists.

      TJ: … but we don’t make this claim because there is no basis for it. He told us what He did in His Word and this is not what He said.

      In other words, you seem to agree that creationism doesn't argue for a designer that would trick us.

      Nor do we have an explanation as to why a designer would want to fool us in the case of the biosphere, but not in the case of atoms, the movement of objects, etc. As such, we discard it.

      So, again, Watson isn't considering this scenario in his interview . As such the quote isn't a universal claim, as Cornelius is making it out to be.

      TJ: It is only after we strayed from God’s Word and it’s clear teaching that we have come to this wrong conclusion.

      As for the remainder of your comments, you're presenting an argument from authority based on the Bible, not an argument based on evidence.

      For example, you have't explained what caused us to "stray from God's word" at this particular time, in this particular case.

      Did we wake up on day and decide to disobey God? Is there some sort of cosmic battle of good and evil raging here on earth, where one must take sides, even if they do not realize it? As such, our minds have been clouded by sin?

      Scott: But these assumptions are conspicuously absent from any designer promoted on this blog.

      TJ: And there are good reasons for that. The designer you are describing does not exist.

      There you have it folks. This is religion.

      Delete
  2. You could also assume that scientists that follow evolution are wrong completely. There is plenty of proof out there to refute evolution, yet things refuted are still taught as fact.

    The common point that I see you evolutionists poking at is that a creator wouldn't have done things the way they are because they are too non-sensical to us. Well let me ask: Who made you god? As far as I know the idea of an all powerful creator is just that, he is all powerful. Understand that to put your own logic to something that should have the power to create the universe as if it were a side thought is preposterous, as while he may share some of our thought patterns, he by no means has to follow them or does follow them.

    Take a minute to think that whatever happens in this world is NOT logical, and will not follow what you think it would, because the world was not created in a realm even close to your comprehension and logic. I beleive therefore that evolutionists on a whole are a SCARED and EGOTISTICAL group of people who think that everything has to fit in their realm of logic or it couldn't be. WAKE UP and stop acting like a little child who throws a hissy fit when they don't get what they want. You seem to think that boo-hooing and insulting those who actually might have it right will make your way of thinking right.

    A prime example of insanity is trying something over and over trying to get the same result. Thus, by that logic, evolutionists are by far insane, as are creationists for trying to prove them wrong.

    What CH writes here, to me, seems extremely well thought out in most cases, and very logical. Yet you all have the gall to come in here and throw ad hominem attacks at him instead of showing examples of science. This further compounds my thoughts that you all are acting like spoiled children who don't get their way.

    Lastly, chew on this for a while: Life itself defies every single law of nature, as does the absolute order in the universe, down to the most infinitesimal particle. Science cannot and will not ever prove otherwise, because to do so they would have to accept the supernatural. Even Einstein recognized that it was too ordered to be random, and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been anyone smarter than he since he died.

    God night, and don't bother replying to what I said. It wouldn't be anything more than mudslinging anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fianna: You could also assume that scientists that follow evolution are wrong completely.

      Wrong about what? Please be specific.

      Again, You haven't actually addressed the substance of my comment, as I already addressed the scenario where "scientists that follow evolution are wrong completely".

      They question is, how would you explain it. Why should this actually be the case? Nor was Watson considering a designer that was trying to fool us in his quote.

      Specifically, if on one hand, God could have designed the biosphere in some other way, but intelligently and intentionally chose to design specifically what we observe, and on the other hand, God knew we'd reach a "completely wrong" conclusion because he intelligently and intentionally chose to design it that way, then what other conclusion are we supposed to reach?

      Fianna: The common point that I see you evolutionists poking at is that a creator wouldn't have done things the way they are because they are too non-sensical to us. In fact it would be quite brilliant.

      Again, It would look perfectly sensible if the designer was trying to fool us into thinking the biosphere had evolved. However, this isn't the designer being presented by creationists or cdesign proponents. As such, such "evolutionists" are not considering this scenario when making this sort of comment.

      Nor do we have an explanation as to why a designer would try to fool us in the case of the biosphere, but not atoms, the motion of objects, etc.

      Delete
    2. Once more, who made you privy to the thoughts and reasonings of god? The god you believe to be at the heart of the ID argument is horrifyingly stereotypical, and limited in scope to the point that it can fit within human understanding. A god that fits within understanding isn't a god, it's a farce. 2000 years of distortion made that possible, yet you as scientists should be held to a higher standard. I'm ashamed that you stick to a stereotype when you should be looking past that for the real contender to your theories.

      I can't hardly blame you. Your theories have no way to stand against a God that defies understanding, a true God to whom our universe is merely a week's task to create. You CANNOT fathom the idea that there is something beyond you because it does not fit within your preconceived notions of the world and your own understandings.

      Let me put it bluntly: THE WORLD WASN'T DESIGNED TO FIT TO WHAT YOU WANT! TO BELIEVE SO AND CONTINUE BELIEVING THAT IT CAN FIT WITHIN YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THE ABSOLUTE PINNACLE OF HUBRIS.

      Delete
    3. Fianna: Once more, who made you privy to the thoughts and reasonings of god?

      Exactly how is this relevant to the issue I raised? Are you saying it might be the case that God want's to fool us?

      Otherwise, it seems you've merely objecting to the idea that we live in a comprehensible universe.

      However, if we live in an incomprehensible universe, how do you explain our ability to make progress?

      Is that just what God must have wanted?

      Delete
  3. Remember, ID claims that an INTELLIGENT designer is responsible for life as we see it.

    There are a lot of things in this world that no INTELLIGENT designer would have designed.

    Same thing for a MORAL designer.

    But if you're claiming that the world was designed by a stupid, immoral designer - well, you may have a point there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Belief that our own intelligence is a landmark by which to judge others, especially a being of higher existence, is asinine and egotistical in the extreme. Further more believing that our morals are also on the same level with that of a creator being is foolish in the extremes.

    I wonder, what does the idea of a creator look like in your small worldview? A man with a beard in the clouds? A child with a magnifying glass on an anthill?

    Oh how foolish you are to believe that a being who could create all of existence in seven days would be constrained by the same morals and intelligence as we are. The only thing we have that is comparable as an attribute is the ability to love, which pales in comparison beside the love of our creator.

    Love, which by the way, happens to be the antithesis to all evolutionary thought, you just haven't looked at it far enough to understand.

    I myself don't fully understand it, but that's because WE ARE NOT MEANT TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING! Come back with a real argument after you've mulled over that for a while. Or don't, because you've likely calloused yourself to anything but evolution.

    CH is right, you all can't see past the tinted glasses(erm, blinders) of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I wonder, what does the idea of a creator look like in your small worldview? A man with a beard in the clouds? A child with a magnifying glass on an anthill?"

      Agreed: the more sophisticated and nuanced our picture of God, the more likely it is to be true.[/sarcasm]

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fianna: "I wonder, what does the idea of a creator look like in your small worldview?"

    Morals of Hitler, only worse.

    Intelligence of a turnip.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Is there some sort of cosmic battle of good and evil raging here on earth, where one must take sides, even if they do not realize it? As such, our minds have been clouded by sin?"

    That's absolutely right, Scott. And Evolution x Creation is not a minor issue. Hope you take God's side. Please, read this (for you and everybody here):

    http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp

    ReplyDelete