Do you feel that this British writer speaks for 95% of scientists? What indications, besides their disagreement with you concerning evolution, has your research uncovered that they follow this belief that Huxley wrote about? This is an especially odd pronouncement about all these scientists since more than 50% of them profess a belief in God.
Actually, this writer is being honest and knows human nature better than most. The philosophy of meaninglessness is useful for "liberation" from morals, if that is what one desires.
Evolution is the core of the philosophy of meaninglessness, hence, a faith in evolution is an essential cause of immorality.Do you believe that over 50% of scientists profess a belief that the Bible is the Word of God?You see, a belief in god means very little, so let's not confuse the issue with semantics.
How many times am I supposed to watch this, before you believe that I don't find anything compelling about the part of the argument presented there?
Again, it's not for you.
Your resounding endorsement aside, what particular argument do you find especially compelling, from the full video? Present his argument here and we can discuss it.
There is no credible evidence supporting the self-assembly of amino acids into proteins. This is my position.
All of the credible evidence that I can find resides between the two lines below...
-------------------
-------------------
If you believe there evidence to this end, please show us.
No...I am saying that some of the individual chemical reactions are simple and would occur given the write conditions regardless of where those conditions occurred.
Would they occur in a lake?
Would they occur without intelligence intervening?
Why don't you just save us all some time and explain to us exactly how you believe a cell would self assemble.No it would not be fair to say that. I have expressed what I believe in the past and will not go into that here.
Please provide a link for us, because some of us on this forum have conversed that your have expressed contradicting belief systems.
We don't know if you're being dishonest or are just very confused.Googled the name but there's not a whole lot on him. Who is he and why should I care what he said in a French Encyclopedia in 1937?
Again, it's not for you.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
