Books By Creationists?

He was asked repeatedly by sleve to stop using the general reply button.He could only take my post as insulting if he acted like I was afraid he would. At no time did I insult him. It was his decision to act like an ass when the option was given to him.Here is my post again. It asked very nicely for him to start using the reply button. So not fair enough. The last sentence clearly says that I am not calling him an asshole, but would make my determination on his continuing behaviour. I am not the bad guy here.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Yes, you are, because you called me an asshole and insulted me when you didn't need to. And in doing so you're derailing the thread.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Reply to each individually or reply to one and mention the other messages you are replying to. You can add a link to each of the messages you are replying to.The easiest, best and most accepted is to make a reply to each message specifically if you feel each message deserves a reply.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What Theo said in Message 123And thank you.

To the board, I offer my sincere apologies for my behavior.

Very gracious, Thank you.Now, y'all get on with this discussion so I have something to read.

Theo is just a whiny little bitch don't worry about it. In addition to the added clarity, the forum software sends a notification email, if you enable it, whenever someone replies directly to one of your posts. If you would have used the general reply, then I would not have noticed that you replied until I happened to stumble upon it while browsing around.Its worth using the direct reply button.

You can reply in one message but place links back to the post you are replying to in each instance. Use the mid function to do that easily.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And just what is the definition for consistent atheist? You appear to make that completely dependent on whether said atheist accepts evolution. Why?Fred Hoyle was an atheist and was also anti-evolution. Would you call him "inconsistent"? Consider again the case of someone who was raised a creationist and becomes an atheist after learning he had been lied to all his life by his religion, religious leaders, parents. He is an atheist because he rejects religion and the gods, but he is far more interested in repairing the emotional damage done him by his religion than in evolution. Would you consider him "inconsistent" as well? Why?What are your definitions for "consistent atheist" and "inconsistent atheist"? Besides the mysterious "inconsistent atheist" term, you're at least returning to what Dawkins was talking about. Because in that quote you indirectly referenced (and probably had never read yourself) he wasn't talking about atheists being required to "believe in" evolution.The actual quote is on page 6 of The Blind Watchmaker. Since the book title was taken from Paley's watchmaker analogy, Dawkins introduced and discussed it. On page 5 (paraphrasing, because my access is to an image of those pages), he even says that, in terms of feeling awe at nature, he feels closer to Paley than to a distinguished modern atheist philosopher with whom he once discussed the matter over dinner. Dawkins expressed doubt that he could have been an atheist before On The Origin of Species:

quote:

---

"What about Hume?", replied the philosopher. "How did Hume explain the organized complexity of the living world?", I asked. "He didn't", said the philosopher. "Why does it need any special explanation?"

​

Paley knew it needed a special explanation; Darwin knew it, and I suspect that in his heart of hearts my philosopher companion knew it too. In any case, it will be my business to show it here.

---

Dawkins then points out that while David Hume had disposed of Argument from Design as positive evidence for the existence of God, he also did not offer any alternative, leaving the question open.There is the context. Now here's the actual quote from page 6:

quote:

---

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

---

So Dawkins did not state that evolution is a requirement for being an atheist, but rather that evolution does provide an alternative explanation for complex biological design, and a damned good one at that. Nor does that mean that an atheist has to accept that particular explanation. He could hold out for what he feels might be a better explanation that's yet to be discovered. He could even actively reject and oppose evolution. Just because there is an explanation does not mean that everybody will accept it.And what about those atheists who simply do not ask the questions that evolution can answer? I know that that is hard for us to contemplate, since it is so foreign to our own mind-sets as students and fans of science. When I see something, I want to know how it works, but for many people, when they see something they just want to know what it can do for them, how to use it, and how much it costs. Oh, and how cool it is or isn't. The atheists among them will be more likely to be the apathetic types who just aren't interested in religion or philosophy or any of the big questions -- unless they're presented to them as entertainment with cool special effects added.So, slevesque, just where did you get that "requirement" from? Certainly not from Dawkins, unless you can produce another quote (properly cited, please) to that effect.But I can't help but wonder what a theist would need to be a "intellectually fulfilled theist." After all, the answer that they are given to Paley's big question really isn't much of an answer, now is it? "God did it!" OK, but what does that tell us about what we do find in nature. "goddiddit" Yes, you already said that, but how did He do it? "goddiddit" You keep saying that, but what does it mean? What does it tell us about nature? "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit" "goddiddit""goddiddit" isn't an answer; it's just a place holder. That God created everything and set everything up to operate the way that it does is a given for a Judeo-Christian-Islamic theist, but it still doesn't tell us anything about nature nor about how nature operates. "goddiddit" is not intellectually fulfilling.Isn't it also true that an actual explanation is needed for a theist to also be intellectually fulfilled? An actual explanation like evolution?

Hi dwise1, You are replying to message no84, and I acknowledge in Message 92 that complete/incomplete were closer to meaning I intended when I was saying consistent/inconsistent I have read some of his books (just ordered the greatest show on earth) but not all.But I did not say a atheist had to believe in evolution. I said an atheist with a complete worldview, had to answer the question of origins, and that answer for atheism has to be evolution. And I fully agree, Hume's answer to the question of origins in the same as Dr.A's 13th century atheist: it is a none-answer. And so, I would consider his worldview as being incomplete No as I have said a couple of times in this thread already, my reasoning is exactly in the same vein as Dawkins.Evolution makes it possible for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled because it answers the crucial question of origins. My contention here, is that it is the only possible answer within atheism. Someone who does not accept that answer must remain with an incomplete worldview, because the other alternative is supernatural creation (or a naturalistic single-step appearance of biological complexity, but that is little different then supernatural creation) Agreed, those who don't think a lot have no problem living with an incomplete worldview. I hope this post clarifies as to why my position is right in line with how Dawkins views this. Of course, if my worldview was only based around a belief that biological complexity came from a supernatural creationin a godidit way, I would agree that it wouldn't really be fulfilling.But my worldview is christianity. It is the christian worldview in it's entirety that I think is a complete and fulfilling worldview. ANd it is much more than a simple GoddiditEdited by Adminnemooseus, : "msg" changed to "mid" in message link code.

Exactly. An atheist could believe that evolution as it is understood today is correct as far as it goes, but that it's also insufficient as a complete explanation for the diversity of life. Similarly, a physicist in the the 19th century may have affirmed that Newton's theory of gravitation was correct to a certain extent, but that it was also insufficient to explain the natural phenomena that it addressed. As in fact Einstein did indeed do. We could be awaiting the Einstein of biology.Or an atheist would be perfectly self-consistent to say that he simply didn't know enough about biology to say whether or not ToE was "true," but that he did know enough about how the world works to be fairly certain that a supernatural explanation was not going to be satisfactory.I believe that a proper scientific attitude toward ToE is to say that it appears to be correct as far as it goes, but it can always be modified to account for as yet undiscovered facts.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

I not at all nave on this, it is a constant question I am asking myself, because unfortunately it can definitely hurt my career.At the same time, I feel that being a skeptic of the big bang in the physics community isn't as bad as being a skeptic of evolution in biology.But I find it so bizarre that although we agree that in science, hyper-skepticism should be the norm, and that nothing should be beyond questioning, and yet we have constructed a system in which we have so much incentives to not do those things that are crucial to science.Then again, as a quote from a local mayor that I always liked: ''Only dead fish follow the current'' I didn't realize that I had to come up with a list. You'll just have to point me out whenever I am denying a fact then, but be careful not to mix denying the interpretation of the fact, with dening tha fact.I can already say that if there is maybe on fact or group of fact I am denying (in a loose sense of the word) it is the dating methods, because although the RATe group has produced some results, it is far from being satisfying. Yeah I plan on starting a couple threads during this summer. I do not lack an understanding of the facts and evidence in this debate. However, I do think that a good understanding of the philosophy behind it, and a good understanding of the words and definitions and the theory from a theoretical pov.I think that this is the problem with most creationist: they don't understand all these aspects, and end up misunderstandings the arguments, the facts, the theories and the philosophical aspects of it all at once.On the other hand, I do seem to notice that those on the evolutionists side that do have a more profound understanding of those issues also tend to make for better discussion and arguments.

When I say evolution here, I am talking about the fact of evolution, not the mechanism of evolution. (when I want to talk about the mechanism, I usually say Neo-Darwinian evolution)So when I say a complete atheistic worldview must include evolution, I am meaning that the atheist must believe in the fact of evolution. ''biological complexity evolved from simpler forms with time''.The distinction is important: some atheists do in fact question the mechanism, but I have not yet seen an atheist question if evolution happened at all. In his worldview, evolution must have happened, it is just a matter of knowing why.An example of this would be Fred Hoyle. He wasn't an anti-evolutionists, he was an anti Neo-Darwinian (and even that I am unsure. I always thought he was simply against chemical evolution ie abiogenesis)

I'll happily agree with this. I think that the physical evidence for the fact that evolution has happened and continues to happen is so overwhelming that it seems intellectually perverse to deny it. But that's just me.By the way, slev, of all the people on this forum, you're still my candidate for Theist Most Likely to Finally Accept Evolution. Please take that as a compliment.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

​

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert

​

I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

I'm disappointed that you missed my little story in Message 105.