I did not say 'no matter what'. I said that even if I wasn't a creationist, I would still not believe in the theory of evolution because I think it does not fit the evidence.
If you weren't a creationist, you might spend more time looking at the evidence and less time constructing implausible ad hominem arguments.
For example, instead of impugning the honesty of evolutionists on this thread, you could be posting on our Great Debate thread about the intermediate forms of the mammalian middle ear.
If you weren't a creationist, you might spend more time looking at the evidence and less time constructing implausible ad hominem arguments.
These are not ad hominem arguments, nor am I questioning the honesty of evolutionists and atheists. I am just pointing out that there exists a causal relationship between atheism and evolutionism, and that because evolution is such an important underpinning to an atheists worldview, that the ''worldview bias'' (if you could call it that way) is just as present in an atheist then in a theist when taling about theories of origins.
For example, instead of impugning the honesty of evolutionists on this thread, you could be posting on our Great Debate thread about the intermediate forms of the mammalian middle ear.
Yeah I know, I had told myself I wouldn't post here during the exam period, but it appears I have been doing just that the last two days.
The thing is that this great debate requires that I read more about how Behe and the IDers developped the complex of IC and also I need to read about your arguments, such as the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. I didn't forget it, and I will come back to it at some point in the near future
And because evolution is crucial for a consistent atheism, then you could say that you had no choice but to see evolution in the evidence.
No, not quite. To paraphrase what Dr Dawkins actually said, evolution allows one to be an atheist without being intellectually dishonest. Before Darwin, there was simply no plausible mechanism to explain the complexity of life. There was no way to account for it other than to believe that some sort of supernatural agency was responsible. Afterwards, that particular argument for the existence of God no longer held water. You can put forth others, but that one is dead. So understanding evolution doesn't exactly require one to be an atheist, but it does make it possible.
I also want to point out that you might not be understanding the term "debunk" in the same way that most of the others on this forum do. To debunk is to show by reason and evidence that a particular idea is wrong. It's the same thing as reading critically. Now if you were to read a book and simply refuse to accept what you were reading, for no other reason than that you didn't want to believe it, then that would be intellectually dishonest. You'd be lying to yourself. What would be truly dishonest would be if you dismissed a book without knowing anything about credibility of either the author or his or her position, and yet presented yourself as if you had in fact given it a fair analysis.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset rather lengthy "signature" to smaller (1) font size.
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
Well, no, since I said that an evolution is a requirement for atheism. Not agnosticism.
quote:Well, everybody knows that "agnostic" is just a nice word for "atheist". (Dr. Duane Gish, prominent co-creator of "creation science", on the Ray Briem radio talk show, c. 1984)
Suddenly you don't want to believe what a creationist tells you? Besides, why else be sure to describe Berlinski as "agnostic" if not to emphasize that he's not a theist?
Agnosticism has a very definite meaning for me, the idea that we do not know and cannot know about the supernatural, that the supernatural is beyond our ability to examine it. I consider that the only honest position to hold, for both theists and non-theists alike.
I also realize, of course, that most others' understanding of agnosticism is hazy and more varied, including equating it with atheism. You would need to clarify your own variety.
But anyways, I don,t understand the relevance in the testimony in the discussion. Was it to show evolution wasn't necessary for atheism ?
Precisely. The only thing that is required for atheism is not believing in the gods. You are yet again reading too much in what somebody said. Intellectual fulfillment is not the same thing as being something. Theists have their creation myths with which they seek answers to their questions about where things come from or why they are as they are. Of course atheists do not have creation myths, but they do have knowledge of the real world. As I recall, all that Dawkins was saying was that evolution serves to answer those kinds of questions that atheists may have, not that accepting evolution is a requirement for atheism -- you are the only one I've seen make that claim.
If you were trying, as so many other creationists keep doing, to imply that evolution causes people to become atheists, then you would be wrong. Rather, it is creationism that turns people into atheists. Especially children who are raised on creationism, because when they grow up and learn that their religion and religious leaders, even their parents, had been lying to them their entire life, then they will reject that religion. Accepting evolution is not a necessary part of becoming an atheist; rejecting religion is.
I personnally pretty much have confidence that CMI is an honest organisation that tries to tackle the issue truthfully. For example, they have a ''bad arguments'' page where you can find the 'NASA found joshua's lost day'' argument. Also, they have no intention of pushing creationism in the science classroom.
Yes, many Christian sites warn their readers away from that and other idiotic creationist claims (eg, "then why are there still monkeys?"), but many other sites repeat those idiotic claims. Answers in Genesis (AiG) also had a page in Nov 2002 listing claims that creationists should not use and followed up by defending that page, citing the same problems that I do (and for which I'm denounced as a "God-hater"), that using false claims only defeats the creationists' cause -- they keep reorganizing their site, making it difficult to find everything, assuming it's even still up. AiG also repeated a lesser-known claim that I consider to be even dumber than the "Lost Day": the claim that those atheistic scientists believe that the ancient Egyptians were still little more than "ape-men". One laudable page does not necessarily make for an honest and truthful site. CMI's entire site would need to be examined.
quote:
These are not ad hominem arguments, nor am I questioning the honesty of evolutionists and atheists. I am just pointing out that there exists a causal relationship between atheism and evolutionism, and that because evolution is such an important underpinning to an atheists worldview, that the ''worldview bias'' (if you could call it that way) is just as present in an atheist then in a theist when taling about theories of origins.
Now you are being dishonest again. Firstly you DO equate the level of bias that you (falsely) ascribe to atheists with dishonesty. This is what you've been claiming throughout the thread. Secondly your claimed link ignores all the many mainstream Christians who accept evolution and reject YEC - and even those Christians who reject evolution and accept an old Earth.
The only point of your argument is to try to pretend that your opponents are just like you. You have to wonder why somebody with a strong position would think that a good argument.
quote:
The thing is that this great debate requires that I read more about how Behe and the IDers developped the complex of IC and also I need to read about your arguments, such as the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. I didn't forget it, and I will come back to it at some point in the near future
Actually you don't. The IC argument is a simple in-principle argument which applies equally well to mechanical structures as it does to biochemical systems (I think you will find that Behe says as much in Darwin's Black Box). The only good reason for using biochemical examples are that Behe is a biochemist (the fact that biochemistry does not fossilise is convenient to creationists but a good reason for preferring other examples !)
That argument has been refuted because it took an overly simplistic view of evolution which is why Behe has rather retreated from using it except in certain special cases. In fact Behe has retreated a long way from creationism, currently arguing that God only intervenes by providing a few mutations now and then. If the evidence is so strongly against evolution and for creationism then you have to ask yourself why Behe is no longer a creationist and accepts so much evolution.
In fact I think you have been rather dishonest even in the arguments preceding the Great Debate thread - it's clear that you didn't even know what the argument stated although you were happy to accuse others of being ignorant of it. But then that's rather typical behaviour for a creationist.
No, not quite. To paraphrase what Dr Dawkins actually said, evolution allows one to be an atheist without being intellectually dishonest. Before Darwin, there was simply no plausible mechanism to explain the complexity of life. There was no way to account for it other than to believe that some sort of supernatural agency was responsible. Afterwards, that particular argument for the existence of God no longer held water. You can put forth others, but that one is dead. So understanding evolution doesn't exactly require one to be an atheist, but it does make it possible.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. A consistent atheist has no other choice but to believe in evolution. Because he must have an answer to the complexity he sees in nature, and because supernatural creation is out of the question, the only option left is that the simple can, and has, become complex with time.
Of course, before Darwin, there was no accepted mechanism for how this could happen. This does not mean that the idea of evolution wasn,t there before. In fact, if I remember correctly ideas of evolution can be traced all the way back to the greeks.
I also want to point out that you might not be understanding the term "debunk" in the same way that most of the others on this forum do. To debunk is to show by reason and evidence that a particular idea is wrong. It's the same thing as reading critically. Now if you were to read a book and simply refuse to accept what you were reading, for no other reason than that you didn't want to believe it, then that would be intellectually dishonest. You'd be lying to yourself. What would be truly dishonest would be if you dismissed a book without knowing anything about credibility of either the author or his or her position, and yet presented yourself as if you had in fact given it a fair analysis.
Yeah I probably saw more into all this then there realy was. One sure thing is that all this discussion of what is dishonest or not hasn't been in vain.
In the end though I think (as someone pointed out) it was just that I was using 'dishonest' in a way that was technically acceptable, but not understood in that way by others.
Suddenly you don't want to believe what a creationist tells you? Besides, why else be sure to describe Berlinski as "agnostic" if not to emphasize that he's not a theist?
Wherever you got the idea I believe everything a creationist says, I do not know.
I describe Berlinski as an agnostic because that is what he is, and if I wasn't a creationist I would probably end up with a similar overall approach that he has.
Agnosticism has a very definite meaning for me, the idea that we do not know and cannot know about the supernatural, that the supernatural is beyond our ability to examine it. I consider that the only honest position to hold, for both theists and non-theists alike.
I also realize, of course, that most others' understanding of agnosticism is hazy and more varied, including equating it with atheism. You would need to clarify your own variety.
Same definition here.
Precisely. The only thing that is required for atheism is not believing in the gods. You are yet again reading too much in what somebody said. Intellectual fulfillment is not the same thing as being something. Theists have their creation myths with which they seek answers to their questions about where things come from or why they are as they are. Of course atheists do not have creation myths, but they do have knowledge of the real world. As I recall, all that Dawkins was saying was that evolution serves to answer those kinds of questions that atheists may have, not that accepting evolution is a requirement for atheism -- you are the only one I've seen make that claim.
That is why I made the important precision that a consistent atheist must be an evolutionist.
An inconsistent atheist can still not believe in evolution, but then I would not know how he would answer Palley's argument if it was presented to him (he would probably ignore it altogether)
If you were trying, as so many other creationists keep doing, to imply that evolution causes people to become atheists, then you would be wrong. Rather, it is creationism that turns people into atheists. Especially children who are raised on creationism, because when they grow up and learn that their religion and religious leaders, even their parents, had been lying to them their entire life, then they will reject that religion. Accepting evolution is not a necessary part of becoming an atheist; rejecting religion is.
Somebody else already asked me if this is what I was implying, so I'll repeat my answer again
No I am not implying that evolution causes people to become atheists.
Yes, many Christian sites warn their readers away from that and other idiotic creationist claims (eg, "then why are there still monkeys?"), but many other sites repeat those idiotic claims. Answers in Genesis (AiG) also had a page in Nov 2002 listing claims that creationists should not use and followed up by defending that page, citing the same problems that I do (and for which I'm denounced as a "God-hater"), that using false claims only defeats the creationists' cause -- they keep reorganizing their site, making it difficult to find everything, assuming it's even still up. AiG also repeated a lesser-known claim that I consider to be even dumber than the "Lost Day": the claim that those atheistic scientists believe that the ancient Egyptians were still little more than "ape-men". One laudable page does not necessarily make for an honest and truthful site. CMI's entire site would need to be examined.
I have my own disagreements with AiG as an organisation. But I'm not asking them to be perfect either, but I never really liked Ken Ham's approach and all.
Again, I think CMI is head and shoulders above other creationist organisations. They do make errors as everyone, but I think they do try to approach this debate as truthfully as possible (although I guess many here would disagree)
I describe Berlinski as an agnostic because that is what he is, and if I wasn't a creationist I would probably end up with a similar overall approach that he has.
Really? You would deny the Big Bang? Well that'll make your physics career interesting... if brief.
Dude, if you weren't creationist, the reality is that you would probably accept evolution (in so much as you would give a shit about it). What makes me say this? Well, it's just the numbers.
Almost everyone who is not a creationist accepts evolution.
Almost everyone is denies evolution is a creationist.
Even those who, like Berlinski, are non-creationist evolution-deniers typically employ the same old creationist arguments.
A vanishingly tiny handful of professional contrarians aside, non-creationists simply have no motive to deny evolution, so they don't bother. Without that powerful motive, you would probably have no problem with the science, just like most people.
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
Really? You would deny the Big Bang? Well that'll make your physics career interesting... if brief.
I do not know where you got this idea.
I'm guessing it is because Berlinski does not believe in the BBT, in that case I would simply say that I can't really know how far my positions on specifics would be compared to his, just that my approach would be similar to his.
Dude, if you weren't creationist, the reality is that you would probably accept evolution (in so much as you would give a shit about it). What makes me say this? Well, it's just the numbers.
Almost everyone who is not a creationist accepts evolution.
Almost everyone is denies evolution is a creationist.
Even those who, like Berlinski, are non-creationist evolution-deniers typically employ the same old creationist arguments.
A vanishingly tiny handful of professional contrarians aside, non-creationists simply have no motive to deny evolution, so they don't bother. Without that powerful motive, you would probably have no problem with the science, just like most people.
It would in fact be interesting to crunch the numbers, because I think many here would be surprised.
CMI has a list of 100+ names of scientists (PhD in science related field) who are YEC. This means those who believe in 6 day creation, 6000 years ago, global flood, etc.
Now you would need to add all the YEC who aren't on that list. Add then all OEC, then add all creationists from other religions, then add all IDers who do not fit into those categories (dembski, Behe, etc.), then add all the overall-skeptics of the ToE such as Berlinski.
And this is without mentionning those who have a Masters degree in a science related field.
I once came across the number of 25 000 scientists (once again, from memory) who do not accept the theory of evolution in the US. I couldn't say how this number was brought up, but I would for sure be interested in knowing the actual number.
They're really scraping when they're getting dentists from the bottom of the barrel, aren't they?
Now you would need to add all the YEC who aren't on that list.
Actually, CMI needs to do that.
---
My turn:
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
They're really scraping when they're getting dentists from the bottom of the barrel, aren't they?
Yeah well, one dentist, and he did work on Neanderthals fossils (apparently) so he is working in science, no just passing people floss.
Besides, I doubt very much it is a 'get the most names as possible', because if they want to play the numbers game, they'll lose pretty easily. I think it's more of a whoever wants to have their name there, can (if they have a dcotorate in a science related field, of course)
Actually, CMI needs to do that.
As I said, I doubt they are really into starting a campaign to add names to the list. Whoever wants to add their name, can. But other than that, there is little interest in doing so besides the one thing that is interesting to us: just to be able to put a number on how many oponents of the ToE there are in the scientifi community.
A consistent atheist has no other choice but to believe in evolution.
In order to show that there is no God, it is not necessary to show that there are no Gaps.
But of course there's no reason for an atheist to swim against the tide of evidence, either. If no-one knew what caused lightning, that wouldn't cause me to believe in Thor; but since there is an explanation, I feel no need to fight against it.
In order to show that there is no God, it is not necessary to show that there are no Gaps.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that without evolution, Palley's argument becomes too big to ignore for an atheist, his worldview becomes untenable and if he is consistent, the only other option is supernatural creation and therefore theism.
That is why Dawkins said 'evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist', and 'the theory of gravity made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist' or 'Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism ...'
Evolution is the sole consistent answer of atheism to the question of origins, a question each worldview must have an answer for. This is why I say a consistent atheist has no choice but to be an evolutionist
™ Version 4.2
