Dorothy Sayers on the Disconnect between Natural Selection and Atheism

stiggy wiggy

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
Click to expand...
Not quite. It also proves that a Creator does not need to be divine.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
Click to expand...
One persons mistaken opinion cannot be extended to Atheism as a whole.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Explain how it proves that.
Click to expand...
Sayers accepted - without comment - the claim that "the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders."

Stock breeders are as good at creating diverse life forms as is God. QED.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
Click to expand...
What she says here is not wrong, but the argument for evolution is vastly more secure than what this "well-known biologist" said 65 years ago. Science has moved on considerably since then!
 
IMO the article is not technically wrong with respect to the diversity of life is not reliant on special creation. It's a weak argument against creation if it stood alone, but it adds to the overwhelming evidence against creation.
 
mikeT said:
Sayers accepted - without comment - the claim that "the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders."

Stock breeders are as good at creating diverse life forms as is God. QED.
Click to expand...

Stockbreeders cannot create a cow. Not even one.
 
4tune8chance said:
IMO the article is not technically wrong with respect to the diversity of life is not reliant on special creation. It's a weak argument against creation if it stood alone, but it adds to the overwhelming evidence against creation.
Click to expand...

Adds to? Present the evidence that it supposedly adds to.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
Stockbreeders cannot create a cow. Not even one.
Click to expand...
I can just see a group of internet atheist breeders trying to wrestle a cow out of a chicken in three alleles.

Instead of a TV show naming a tune, erudite internet atheists can guess how many alleles they can craft to make that cow!
 
stiggy wiggy said:
I was reading Dorothy Sayers' book, "The Lost Tools of Learning" this evening and came across this:

Well, we may all talk nonsense in a moment of inattention. It is more alarming when we find a well-known biologist writing in a weekly paper to the effect that: “It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.” One might feel tempted to say that it is rather an argument for the existence of a Creator. Actually, of course, it is neither: all it proves is that the same material causes (re-combination of the chromosomes by cross-breeding and so forth) are sufficient to account for all observed variations—just as the various combinations of the same 13 semitones are materially sufficient to account for Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata and the noise the cat makes by walking on the keys. But the cat’s performance neither proves nor disproves the existence of Beethoven; and all that is proved by the biologist’s argument is that he was unable to distinguish between a material and a final cause.
Click to expand...
This is true. But in nature, we see both an order and harmony that could make one think there is a Beethoven behind it, and a disorder and disharmony, as if a cat were simply walking across the keys in a completely careless manner.

So in balance you cannot focus strictly on one of these realities to make some conclusion about a disembodied Beethoven that created, and willfully conducts, a harmonious world we can nominally dabble with. We experience both worlds. The religious just makes excuses for the cat because a disembodied loving and harmonious Beethoven is a sacred imperative. They just call Beethoven God, and the cat Satan, and have invented some Gnostic narrative of some supernatural battle between the 2 to explain things.
 
Last edited:
stiggy wiggy said:
“It is an argument against the existence of a Creator that the same kind of variations which are produced by natural selection can be produced at will by stock-breeders.”
Click to expand...
Thanks stiggy for that quote.

Actually there is an argument for a creator...as shown in this thread cows give birth to cows and not chickens. We now understand genetic information can't increase to the point that one member of a particular Genus can evolve into a member of a new Genera as a new species. Thus the requirement for a creator who has created many different "kinds".

From these created kinds "natural selection" as well as "stock-breeders" through the removal of genetic information have created the variation we see in the animal kingdom today.
 
5wize said:
They just call the cat Satan, and Beethoven God,
Click to expand...

VERY GOOD! Metaphorically speaking, we do indeed. Our splendid creation has been horribly corrupted. If we are perceptive we can distinguish between the splendor and the corruption. Kind of like seeing a Koenigsegg CCXR Trevita automobile which has been rear ended.
 
CrowCross said:
We now understand genetic information can't increase to the point that one member of a particular Genus can evolve into a member of a new Genera as a new species. Thus the requirement for a creator who has created many different "kinds".
Click to expand...
That does not follow at all.
 
stiggy wiggy said:
VERY GOOD! Metaphorically speaking, we do indeed. Our splendid creation has been horribly corrupted. If we are perceptive we can distinguish between the splendor and the corruption. Kind of like seeing a Koenigsegg CCXR Trevita automobile which has been rear ended.
Click to expand...
Nope. The chaotic rear-ended looking state came first. It seems Satan created God when nature is observed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top