Message 20 of 196 (564868) 06-13-2010 10:53 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Eye-Squared-R 06-06-2010 3:13 PM

quote:

---

We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Richard Dawkins

---

My bold, in your favourite colour. I just thought I'd put that in to make the point that Dawkins was talking about the fact of evolution, rather than any particular explanatory theory.

Taken literally, it would be a very one sided debate by most definitions of biological evolution.

For non-believers, the adjectives ignorant, stupid or delusional (rather than insane) seem to cover all possible ground, unless you count "dead".

Message 85 of 196 (601137) 01-18-2011 10:11 PM

Reply to: Message 80 by Eye-Squared-R 01-16-2011 4:35 PM

If most Americans believed that the earth was flat, that wouldn't change its shape.

Gallup Poll.

Actually, evolution is gaining. Most Americans now believe that humans evolved from other animals, and those who take a purely naturalistic view are the only sector with a significant increase.

The U.K. is about the European average in beliefs related to evolution. Here, the pure naturalists are the largest faction, although still a minority. Evolution as a whole wins out easily in every region. Hold your cursor over the map regions.

Belief map U.K.

Message 90 of 196 (609481) 03-20-2011 6:09 PM

Reply to: Message 89 by Eye-Squared-R 03-20-2011 3:03 PM

Is it?

How would it help when masses of published work by biologists is already available to them? And have you not yet understood that comments about people being ignorant, stupid or delusional relate to the denial of the fact of evolution, not to any particular explanatory theory? They apply largely to the 40% in the Gallup poll who believe that humans were created as we are.

How? What information can I make available to religious Americans that is not already easily available to them if they were interested in it? And what makes you think that evidence ever had anything to do with their religious beliefs? The 84% are believing what 90% believed a few decades ago, what more than 90% would have probably believed 100 years ago, and what nearly 100% would have believed 200 years ago. The origin of the belief is cultural, it is passed down generations, and isn't built on evidence.

Again, if you think that a lack of published information on biology is the reason 84% of Americans believe a god was involved in their creation, you are wrong. They are inclined to believe what they heard repeatedly as little children. Kids brought up in traditional non-theistic religions don't believe in creator gods, and kids brought up to believe that the Koran is the word of god are much more likely to believe that than you or I.

The purely naturalistic view is more prevalent in Europe because of a significantly greater decline in religious belief, and lower general intensity of the indoctrination of children with religious belief, not because of a difference in the scientific information available.

Projects like the one you claim to be proposing make no difference. The 16% of naturalists will grow over time, but not rapidly, and there are many complex factors involved in cultural change.

I mentioned the Gallup poll because you said this:

It is, in fact, gaining from the point of virtual zero it would have had 150 years ago, and the magnitude of unbelievers (measured by percentage) is on an inevitable decline. It's a pity they don't break down the figures by age group. Then you could see which direction things are going.

Reason? Apart from having no evidence that an anonymous poster on the Internet is actually arranging such a thing? Here's a reason.

If I'm debating with people who are proposing non-living intelligent beings as a mechanism in biology, I consider the debate to be won if they cannot establish the existence of non-living intelligent beings as a genre. That has never been done. I can demonstrate the existence of my mechanisms, like chemical reactions, mutation, natural selection, drift etc., and I expect the same standards of the opposition.

So, if you find a creationist who can actually demonstrate the existence of the genre (non-living intelligent beings) then I will happily participate in a debate as to whether or not one or more such beings is doing or has done some designing in the biosphere and is responsible for life.

Message 92 of 196 (609486) 03-20-2011 7:30 PM

Reply to: Message 91 by jar 03-20-2011 6:23 PM

Well, that point's been made. That if people believe in a flat earth, it doesn't get any flatter. However, I was explaining that pretty much no-one believed they descended from other animals 150 years ago, so that ESR's phrasing, with the word "losing" was misleading even when applied to mass public opinion, because evolution in general has always been gaining in public acceptance since the mid-nineteenth century (albeit slowly), and even the purely naturalistic view of it is gaining.

It's inevitable. History doesn't go backwards.

Message 178 of 196 (663883) 05-27-2012 1:27 PM

Reply to: Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R 05-27-2012 7:13 AM

Will the creationist opponent(s) have a Ph.D. in supernaturalism? Will they be able to establish the existence of the mechanism by which they want to explain the origin of species? I ask because, if they cannot demonstrate the existence of one or more supernatural beings, the debate is won by naturalists. Physical processes are demonstrably real.