Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
50 online now:
14174dm, Coragyps, dwise1, Faith, GDR, jar, PaulK, RAZD (8 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,265 Year: 5,013/23,288 Month: 134/1,784 Week: 21/211 Day: 21/20 Hour: 6/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does an atheist have to believe in evolution?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 16 of 64 (310268)
05-08-2006 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ohnhai
05-08-2006 12:48 AM


Best answer yet.
Right on. Atheism is merely a refusal to accept dogma in any form.
Since ToE is a rationale, well supported scientific explanation, it is logical that few atheists would have a problem with it.

It is only those blinded by some form of dogma that feel a need to reject the overwhelming evidence that supports ToE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ohnhai, posted 05-08-2006 12:48 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Funkaloyd, posted 05-08-2006 11:52 AM EZscience has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 18 of 64 (310282)
05-08-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Funkaloyd
05-08-2006 11:52 AM


Qualification
Quite correct. Myself included as well.
I should have said..

"...refusal to accept any form of dogma as providing any rationale explanation of natural phenomena."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Funkaloyd, posted 05-08-2006 11:52 AM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 22 of 64 (310429)
05-08-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
05-08-2006 8:25 PM


Re: Poisoning the well...
Crash writes:

There's no hierarchy of certainty that models graduate through.

Not officially, but there are gradations of certainty in the support of theories. My theory of host range expansion by a particular cerambycid is about a 4 or 5 on a scale of one to ten in terms of certainty. Newtons law of graviational pull is a 10.

Crash writes:

The reason that Newton's laws are laws and evolution is a theory is because Newton decided to call them "laws."

Crash - look at what you're saying. You think if they hadn't been totally verified by the observations of others we would still call them laws !? This guy died a couple centuries ago.

I agree with your suppport of evolution, but I think you were closer to the truth here:

Crash writes:

...this hilarious idea that there is some kind of hierarchy of scientific models, with "conjecture" at the bottom, "hypothesis" next, "theory" on top of that, and finally at the top, representing certainty about the universe is "law."

Theories vary greatly in the amount of supporting data they have from independent observations, hence we should attach varying levels of confidence in them.

The better way to counter the 'evolution is flawed' argument is simply to point out that only the specific details are being refined in particular contexts. The general mechanisms and processes have been demonstrated widely applicable and are generally agreed upon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2006 8:25 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2006 9:08 AM EZscience has responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 25 of 64 (310495)
05-09-2006 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
05-09-2006 9:08 AM


Apparently I do not always effectively detect your meaning - or your sarcasm :)

This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2006 11:40 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 05-09-2006 9:08 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3611 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 30 of 64 (310520)
05-09-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by DrFrost
05-09-2006 1:20 PM


ToE incomplete
DrFrost writes:

My biggest problems with evolution are some of the unanswered questions, some of the undemonstrated parts of the theory.

Well, there are many component parts of ToE that are more difficult to understand than others, or require greater understanding of technical or scientific methodology. These tend to engender less acceptance among non-scientists (ability to understand carbon dating, molecular clocks etc.) The ToE encompasses so many different avenues of investigation, it is in some sense always going to be incomplete. But it is also constantly growing. In other words, every day, more and more evidence accumulates that is entirely consistent with the overall framework. This gives us confidence that we are employing appropriate reasoning. The corrections and modifications are all concerned with clarifying its precise application in highly specific contexts, not with modifying its general mode of action.

DrFrost writes:

I'm a skeptic. And I think thats a good thing.

Yes, provided your skepticisim is based on logical reasoning, rather than on preconceived notions driven by religious convictions.

Perhaps you could be more specific about where you feel the ToE is incomplete? Some area sufficiently significant to warrant doubting the overall theory?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by DrFrost, posted 05-09-2006 1:20 PM DrFrost has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Quetzal, posted 05-09-2006 2:02 PM EZscience has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020