Maybe, but it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
The question here is put within a christian perspective. This kind of theism versus a-theism.
It is not without reason to postulate a "theos". And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism. Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
For those with a lack of historical context, the appeal to argue as is done, is clear.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature: hunger, drought, flooding, volcano eruptions, asteroid-impacts and what have you, is not a new idea. The idea was already postulated in 1100 by a Persian scientist writing on the proliferation and characteristics of certain plants. Though he fell short of clearly saying such.
Darwin to, in his book: on the origin of species, does not go into the prime mover argument. As with most people: they have not read Darwin' s book.
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Read carefully. Consider then what the laws of nature are? What is the essence of these laws? What is a life being? What is Life Force? How are they influenced by the laws of nature?
The reason why this argument appears again and again in different forms, the latest: intelligent design, is because humans have a limited investigation capability. Certain questions are hard to answer and to measure.
Then the difference between faith, religion, philosophical outlook and science come into play.
It is quite visible how a guy called Richard Dawkins becomes a material-atheist, and others not.
It does not mean that his: "capricious bully" artistic licentious writings are right or wrong. Because the bible contains these alterations, (See also Miles Mathis: Names of God, and the add-mixture of Phoenician/Cananite, Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, transforming the text based on religious sensitivity and priestly political views) it rightly leads to tough questions and positions.
But this only leads to the question: why would you trust a book containing these confusing statements? It does nothing for the origin question.
Additionally, by the same token, it can be posited that humans are actually a result of genetic modification by some species called The Gods, especially given the rise of insight into clay tablets from a period concurrent with the biblical text.
It leaves quite a lot of leeway to belief whatever you want, or deem important, whether you like it, from a religious point of view or not.
Interestingly, when reading things by astrophysicist it is hardly escapable that these people not only think in terms of physics but also meta-physics. See for instance the discussion with the name: https://piped.video/results?search_query=a+glorious+accident
It is easy to label something cook, or other derogatory. What, despite all the proofs around us, many people fail to see, is that we are on the brink of pushing forward into meta-physical territory with people like Rupert Sheldrake.
It is interesting to consider his views on pilgrimages. It has nothing to do with religion, or origin theory, but the nature of what is of influence to us: energy fields.
When it comes to Tucker, we also need to take into account where this man has been on several issues, and the road he is traveling as well as the time-frame he is in.
So, in closing on this point: Darwin did nothing to push for atheism. The question remains: what do people themselves do?
And this touches on virtue.
I find it, time and again, of great import to consider the words in the Declaration of Independence: unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What happens when we fail to see the life in another? We dehumanize them.
So, what is the correct way for a man to project power? What kind of power? The power of the ego? The power of spirit? And all of a sudden we are back at the laws of nature, leading into virtue.
... it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").
is not without reason to postulate a "theos".
Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."
And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism.
I don't know where you get that from.
Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.
Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."
Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.
I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.
Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature ... is not a new idea.
Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.
That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.
Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
Consider then what the laws of nature are?
That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.
No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).
... because humans have a limited investigation capability.
Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.
The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.
Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
Maybe, but it also mistakes a-theism as it is quite an old concept before Darwinism came on the scene.
The question here is put within a christian perspective. This kind of theism versus a-theism.
It is not without reason to postulate a "theos". And given the time since 400 BCE, the nature of said "theos" has been in dispute ever since birthing the idea of agnosticism. Certain philosophers were even killed under the guise of apostasy from "pagan" religion.
For those with a lack of historical context, the appeal to argue as is done, is clear.
The idea that development of species through natural selection by means of the powers of nature: hunger, drought, flooding, volcano eruptions, asteroid-impacts and what have you, is not a new idea. The idea was already postulated in 1100 by a Persian scientist writing on the proliferation and characteristics of certain plants. Though he fell short of clearly saying such.
Darwin to, in his book: on the origin of species, does not go into the prime mover argument. As with most people: they have not read Darwin' s book.
Read carefully. Consider then what the laws of nature are? What is the essence of these laws? What is a life being? What is Life Force? How are they influenced by the laws of nature?
The reason why this argument appears again and again in different forms, the latest: intelligent design, is because humans have a limited investigation capability. Certain questions are hard to answer and to measure.
Then the difference between faith, religion, philosophical outlook and science come into play.
It is quite visible how a guy called Richard Dawkins becomes a material-atheist, and others not.
It does not mean that his: "capricious bully" artistic licentious writings are right or wrong. Because the bible contains these alterations, (See also Miles Mathis: Names of God, and the add-mixture of Phoenician/Cananite, Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, transforming the text based on religious sensitivity and priestly political views) it rightly leads to tough questions and positions.
But this only leads to the question: why would you trust a book containing these confusing statements? It does nothing for the origin question.
Additionally, by the same token, it can be posited that humans are actually a result of genetic modification by some species called The Gods, especially given the rise of insight into clay tablets from a period concurrent with the biblical text.
It leaves quite a lot of leeway to belief whatever you want, or deem important, whether you like it, from a religious point of view or not.
Interestingly, when reading things by astrophysicist it is hardly escapable that these people not only think in terms of physics but also meta-physics. See for instance the discussion with the name: https://piped.video/results?search_query=a+glorious+accident
It is easy to label something cook, or other derogatory. What, despite all the proofs around us, many people fail to see, is that we are on the brink of pushing forward into meta-physical territory with people like Rupert Sheldrake.
It is interesting to consider his views on pilgrimages. It has nothing to do with religion, or origin theory, but the nature of what is of influence to us: energy fields.
When it comes to Tucker, we also need to take into account where this man has been on several issues, and the road he is traveling as well as the time-frame he is in.
So, in closing on this point: Darwin did nothing to push for atheism. The question remains: what do people themselves do?
And this touches on virtue.
I find it, time and again, of great import to consider the words in the Declaration of Independence: unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What happens when we fail to see the life in another? We dehumanize them.
So, what is the correct way for a man to project power? What kind of power? The power of the ego? The power of spirit? And all of a sudden we are back at the laws of nature, leading into virtue.
Of course. "Theism" is merely describing a belief in one or more gods. It doesn't mean anything else. "Atheism" is a lack of a belief in one or more gods (the "a-" prefix meaning "without," as in, "without said belief").
Sure. The Greek word "theos" simply means "god."
I don't know where you get that from.
Thomas Huxley coined the word "agnostic" as a joke against the Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that a person could "know god" simply by believing. It was not a rational proof, but more like today's libtards who say "it's my truth," which is nothing but circular logic.
Huxley used "agnostic" as a term to say that you CANNOT know "just because you know."
Whether anyone wants to agree or disagree with that concept is beside the point. That's what Huxley meant. And that was in the 1800's.
I don't know why you would claim that the year 400 BC is relevant to the discussion of OP's topic.
True, religious ideas have caused many deaths, from all directions of belief.
Darwin's research showed adaptation, not the development (i.e. "origin") of species. Darwin took "one small step" in scientific observation of adaptation, and blew it up into a "giant leap" of evolution. He labeled his conclusion as the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, when in fact that was merely a conclusion based on nothing but observation of adaptation WITHIN a species.
That is what Tucker is saying here, and he is right. There is no fossil record to prove evolution, per se, though we can directly observe adaptation via scientific experiment or direct observation.
Even in Darwin's time, there were people creating new breeds of dogs and cattle for various purposes by cross breeding and creating new breeds. But ... they were still dogs, and not turtles.
Darwin's mistake was to assume that observable adaptation to the environment necessarily meant the possibility of massive changes to the organism to such an extent that it would become something entirely new.
There is nothing in the fossil record to support that idea.
That type of thinking is IRRELEVANT ... until someone can PROVE from the fossil record that nature changes a monkey into a human.
No one has done it, yet, and this is what Tucker is saying. Until someone does, it is just a fantasy of a possibility, which is what Darwin did (mistakenly).
Maybe so, BUT we have an UNLIMITED ability to fantasize about things for which there is no evidence to prove. Both Covid and Evolution come to mind here.
The rest of your comment looks to me like a word salad.
Regarding Tucker's comments in the video, his point is correct: No real evidence to support a theory that most people have learned to take for granted -- as Joe Rogan did, which is what caused Tucker's response.
That is the more important issue here.
Nailed it.