Nobel prize winning atheists was quoted as saying? what do you think of his words?

Question

Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906-1997):

"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God... There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility... that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

Answer 1

' I do not want to believe in God' is akin to saying I want to believe in myself or in totality man. It is hard for some people to admit to themselves that mankind is not supreme, than man as an individual is but a small bit of grease on a giant cog of an immense mechanism- this is especially true when one specific man has been self reliant/has achieved much on his own accord. Is it arrogant of man to not believe in a grand creator?


'Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible', - which is another way of saying I believe in fantasy and fairy tales. Even my youngest daughter can tell you the difference between science fiction and fantasy-one will eventually come true and one never will :)

Answer 2

The problem is that again we are not talking about evolutionary biology. Dr. Wald is talking about abiogenesis – not evolution. Evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of life – it deals with the origin of species.

The other problem with this quote was that he made it in 1954. Creationists love those quotes from the 50’s and 60’s, don’t they? Why do they like those old quotes? Because the old quotes don’t include all the new evidence and information that has come about.

The biggest problem with the quote is that it doesn’t finish Dr. Wald’s statement. The quote comes from the August 1954 edition of Scientific American. The Jehovah’s Witnesses yanked the quote out of that magazine initially and they included it in “Life: How did it get here?” from 1985. After that every other Christian magazine and web page seemed to pick up on it.

So what’s the big deal? The very next sentence in his quote is, “It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by ‘impossible’.” Dr. Wald then went on for another page to explain the difference between the word ‘impossible’ in the scientific context and the colloquial.

Dr. Walk was creating a problem in order to launch into his explanation of that problem. The quote is not from him, per se, but is from a paper he did.

One on of my web pages the first sentence says, “Atheists are all immoral.” If someone only quoted that one line from me it would appear that as an atheist, I agreed that all atheists were immoral. However, the next sentence says, “At least that’s what a lot of people mistakenly think.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses misled people in their article and quoted something written by Dr. Wald that came from a piece and not from his own personal views. They quoted not what Dr. Wald personally thought – but his lead-in to an entire article on the differences between scientific and colloquial use of different words, specifically ‘impossible’.

I’d recommend reading the article from the 1954 Scientific American if you can get a copy of it – it’s a rather good article that clearly supports evolutionary biology.

Is the deceitful nature of Creationists becoming clearer for you now? They live on deceit, misdirection and faith – leaving science completely out of the picture. They rely on emotionalism – not science. They use outdated quotes because new quotes that include new evidence don’t adhere to their standards.

Several Creationist web pages state emphatically that if the evidence contradicts the Bible then they completely ignore it. How is that science?

Anyone can find evidence to back up his or her ideas – the trick is to ensure that ideas are not contradicted by any of the evidence. Creationism can’t do it – so they claim that contradictory evidence is “of the Devil”.

Answer 3

I admire the hell out of Wald, particularly for his outspokenness against our Vietnam debacle.

But it does seem here he's created a false dichotomy, i.e. life or absence of life. We've just got so many examples of "grey" areas (e.g. viruses) that it's over simplistic to talk about spontaneous generation these days.

A long (very long) slow gradual process was what seemed to have happened here 4 billion years ago. Wonderful but not magic.

Answer 4

Obama Wins Yasser Arafat “Peace” Prize: World Amazed So Barack Obama just picked up the imprimatur and nihil obstat from Oslo’s Nobel Prize Committee for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people.” Yes, that’s right, this year’s Nobel “Peace” Prize goes to Barack Obama. What’s the appropriate response: incredulity? Nah: the Nobel Peace Prize is a thoroughly discredited politically-correct coefficient of liberal transnational socialism. Barack Obama was tailor-made for this dubious honor, just as Yasser Arafat was. No, the appropriate response should be a compound of contempt and irritation, contempt for the bloviating Norwegians who once again have distinguished themselves by their sanctimonious fatuousness (”Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future . . . .”), irritation at the fact that this pseudo distinction will, in the eyes of the credulous, tend to legitimate the actions of the most anti-American and incompetent President in history. The Times (no, not The New York Times, which is purring with pleasure at the news, but the London Times) is correct: Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world. Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace. Bottom line: this action is less the awarding of a prize than a kick in the teeth aimed at traditional American power and prestige. As usual, Andy McCarthy cuts to the chase: I’m not all for Americans winning international prizes, especially the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I’m vigorously against it. The transnational progressives who pass out these accolades believe America is the problem in the world, the main threat to peace, the impediment to “progress,” etc. The award is a symbolic statement of opposition to American exceptionalism, American might, American capitalism, American self-determinism, and American pursuit of America’s interests in the world. Exactly. If you are pro-American, you must be anti-the Nobel Peace. I am pro-American, ergo, etc. And Andy is to be commended, too, for his suggestion that we rebaptize this discreditable faux-honor with a more suitable name: After a number of years, the NFL renamed its Super Bowl trophy after its most fitting recipient — it’s now called the Vince Lombardi Trophy. I’d like to see the Nobel Foundation follow suit. If today’s headlines said, “Barack Obama Wins Yasser Arafat Prize,” that would be perfect. [UPDATE: a friend reminds me that this year's Nobel Peace Laureate, B. Obama, has just refused to meet last year's Nobel Peace Laureate, the Dalai Lama: what do you make of that?]

Answer 5

Referring to an autorithy is a common way for some people to obtain their truth.

Answer 6

Very contrived words from a man who is clearly not an atheist.

Answer 7

The quote is a fabricated paraphrase. The frequent use of ellipsis is the first sign of how dishonest it is.

Answer 8

well , 120 years ago we weren't driving a Jaguar either!
we had no toasters , no Bic's to shave my legs , and the microwave was of a very different caliber!

Answer 9

Atleast you are not in denial and know that it is your choice to choose. It definitely does not make an individual sound very wise.

Answer 10

He also said.

"Nature is my religion, and it's enough for me. I stack it up against any man's. For its awesomeness, and for the sense of the sanctity of man that it provides."