According to Richard Dawkins' book "The Blind Watchmaker" the theory of evolution says that God is like a blind watchmaker who designed the world. I haven't actually read the book because it had too many big words. I'm just assuming that the theory of evolution claims that God is a blind watchmaker because that assumption helps my argument.
The idea of a blind watchmaker making the entire universe is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. My uncle was a watchmaker until he went blind. After that he couldn't even design watches anymore. Are we expected to believe that a watchmaker who went blind was capable of designing the entire universe? Of course not!
God is not a blind watchmaker, but an intelligent being who can see. God's sight was crucial to creating the universe. If the theory of evolution predicts that God is a blind watchmaker, evolution must be false. Since creationism is the only alternative, it must be true!
Q.E.D.
2007-08-08 04:54:35 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Unfortunately, you will never convince evolutionists that they are not correct in their thinking.
My god is not an amoeba...if we were made in his image then according to the THEORY of evolution then he would have to be an amoeba...
2007-08-08 05:06:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
i have no idea how you got to the conclusion that evolutionism describes god as a blind watchmaker. it is a very false asumption however. evolutionism only claims that the universe and earth appeared after some natural events that science can explane, that are not "miracles" but natural phisical events. i do agree that those events were planned and "helped" by god, but they did not happen in 7 days and the world is billions of years old without a question
2007-08-10 03:36:27 · answer #2 · answered by larissa 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know this is a satire, but I will pretend to answer it in case someone wants to learn.
The watchmaker argument is no longer correct after Darwin's strides in evolutionary theory overturned the assumptions during the nineteenth century.
This is because the watchmaker assumes that everything in our universe (especially living things) must have been created by an intelligent being because they show evidence of design. Humans assumed this because we create things with a purpose in mind.
But the watchmaker's argument is no longer the case because design can be explained without supernatural causes, using evolution.
Here's the idea: Favorable mutations are carried on to the next self-replicating generation via a method known as natural selection. The mutations are random, but evolution itself is anything but random. Because living things that are better adapted to an environment are more likely to survive than beings that are not, the fittest will survive to reproduce.
A curious thing has occurred in the past couple of centuries of human evolution. As humans improved technology using science, we have insulated ourselves from the harshness of natural selection. A child with diabetes no longer dies during infancy. Our brains have protected us from diseases, and the plague no longer wipes out countries. They assume that gods created them for a purposeful intent and that humans share an elevated status among life on this planet.
Many people have misconceptions about the theory. Evolution is not necessary a process to "higher" organisms or a step ladder to intelligent life. If a god existed and made the evolutionary process (no evidence for gods), then it did not choose a specific outcome for it. That means evolution implies non supernatural design without specific intent: Or as Dawkins says, the "blind watchmaker."
Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is supported by evidence. Creationism is not an alternative, because it is not supported by evidence. To believe in creationism you would have to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that the Garden of Eden and worldwide flood actually existed, contrary to evidence. In fact, it goes against seven forms of dating that establish how the universe is billions of years old, and millions of facts in support of evolution, down to our genetic code. Genetics, including the study of DNA, does not simply establish paternity as the television would have you believe, but shows our relationship to common species. This is how scientists establish what family an animal is related to when it discovers a new species.
Evolution is the underpinning of modern Biology. There is no alternative evidence. The theory fits every scrap of science available.
It all comes down to whether or not you'd like to believe in an idea that makes you feel comforted about a god creating the universe to your specifications, or the concepts that best fit the data we have about the universe.
There is no evidence for the first one, though many people choose to believe in this, and some people choose to believe in both gods and evolution. Creationists, however, believe that their religion should define their entire perception of reality, and feel uncomfortable accepting facts that seem to contradict it.
I hope this helps explain the argument. Cheers!
2007-08-08 05:16:24 · answer #3 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No!
I have not read this book, but if it did say this, it is only one persons view and should 'not' be taken as every persons view!
The problem is, that the religions are man-made, just like athiesm!
Evolution is true, everything on this planet has evolved, from the smallest, through to mankind!
Do 'not' let somebody else's reasoning, make you believe, what the religions of today, believe.
It 'is' false!!!
You can believe in creation, with evolution also, 'without' believing in what the religions believe!!
Have an 'open' mind, to think about it 'properly'!!!!!
2007-08-09 05:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by Paul222@England 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course God is blind!
If you're not blind and the lights go out you stumble around, don't you? Blind people don't, because they're used to it.
Now in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
and THEN created light. God created the heavens and the earth IN THE DARK! If He could see he wouldn't know what he was doing in the dark now, would he? So God is blind.
2007-08-08 05:03:29 · answer #5 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is not supported by facts at all."
Herbert Spencer
The second big problem with intelligent design is that proponents race straight from "I'm not so sure about Darwin's theory" to "therefore the world is obviously the result of supernatural intervention by an invisible uber inventor". Talk about a leap of faith. --Emma Tom
2007-08-08 05:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by KC 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you saying "I'm just assuming that the theory of evolution claims that God is a blind watchmaker because that assumption helps my argument. "
makes you lose all credibility, that is where i stopped reading.
2007-08-08 04:58:28 · answer #7 · answered by Chippy v1.0.0.3b 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
If you've not read the book, youdo not have a complete understanding of the argument, and therefore must be incapable of refuting it.
My hope is that you soldier through the book, big words and all, and learn something.
2007-08-08 05:00:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
"I am not very skeptical... a good deal of skepticism in a scientific man is advisable to avoid much loss of time, but I have met not a few men, who... have often thus been deterred from experiments or observations which would have proven servicable." - Charles Darwin
2007-08-08 05:30:17 · answer #9 · answered by Jack P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution does not claim that, and neither does Richard Dawkins.
Don't confuse people, even for the sake of humor.
2007-08-08 05:01:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Hahahahahahha
2007-08-08 05:05:52 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋