Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9032 total)
47 online now:
AZPaul3, Tanypteryx (2 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Happy Birthday: glowby
Post Volume: Total: 884,808 Year: 2,454/14,102 Month: 119/703 Week: 98/272 Day: 33/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Church Is Not Enough?
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 31 of 110 (674195)
09-27-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law
09-01-2010 4:49 PM


I would like to respond to your ending question, “why isn't Church and the home enough?”

Well, this brings to mind that evolution is taught in schools, not that I disagree with that, but that, as one evolutionary philosopher, Michael Ruse, has stated, evolution is a religion. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5612/1523.full

Since it is a religion, why is it given more exposure than other religions? Why not give an equal exposure to all? (That means none at all) (Well, that includes determining what is shown inside the home as well. And last I heard, teaching kids about creationism is child abuse, so...)

(I am not a proponent of putting creationism in schools, as it may be distorted by anti-creationists)

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tram law, posted 09-01-2010 4:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:13 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 33 of 110 (674202)
09-27-2012 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
09-27-2012 2:13 AM


quote:
That is not exactly an accurate presentation of Ruse's position. In fact you are engaging in what Ruse calls "a rhetorical debating trick" in the very article you refer to. Ruse does not deny that evolution is a scientific theory, worthy of being taught in school. If there are religious elements (which is all Ruse says) these should be left out, of course, but the science can and should remain.

You are beating a strawman here. I do not state that evolution is NOT a scientific theory. It is. It is also religious, as Ruse has pointed out. And it is not easy to separate the religious parts and the non-religious parts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 4:02 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 35 of 110 (674206)
09-27-2012 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
09-27-2012 4:02 AM


quote:
Quite clearly you presented evolution as a religious view in itself, rather than - as Ruse presents it - a scientific theory with associated religious elements.

Let me make this clear. It is a religion. It is also a scientific theory. There is nothing contradictory between the two. Me highlighting that it is a religion is not an error. I will explain following.

quote:
And really I don't see the difficulty in separating out religious elements - which so far you haven't even bothered to identify. I'd say that those elements are mostly errors from the scientific point of view anyway (e.g. the identification of evolution with "progress" in a broad sense).

Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. See more http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm (That was a very interesting speach, by the way)

These are some of the reasons why evolution (and atheism, by extension) is a religion: According to Smart, N., 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: an anatomy of the world’s beliefs. HarperCollins, London, there are seven dimentions of a religion.

1. Narrative: Religions as a whole has a origins story and man’s part in it. Evolution explains where man came from (Where something came from nothing, and where humans evolved from animals, thus man is just another animal.)

2. Experiential: There are two aspects to this. One: By the founder, before founding the religion. Two: By later adherents. Religious ceremonies are emotional events. There are evolutionists that feel liberated after converting. http://old.richarddawkins.net/...ers-the-atheists-39-prayers

This religion of which I am describing requires a denial of the afterlife. Since there is no afterlife (Provine, W.B. 1994) then the highest goal is happiness. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. Evolutionism requires faith to believe that the laws of biology, like those of biogenesis, can be violated, without evidence.

3. Social: The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work. Dawkins writes in the preface to The God Delusion, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” Essentially this is what any missionary would want accomplished, to their own religions, of course.

Many scientists are high up in this religion’s hierarchy, Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (Such as those about the chameleon's catapult tongue and suction cap)

4. Doctrinal: Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion. The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good. By and large, atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document.

5. Ethical: Evolutionism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as Dawkins and Provine has stated. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.”

6. Ritual: Evolutionism is a relatively recent religion, about 200+ years old. Hence there is not much to commemorate. Things that is commemorated are: Darwin’s Birthday, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’s publication date, etc.

7. Material: The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. Nature itself is treated by some as sacred. (Such as when “N” in nature is capitalized)

Maybe I’m too long, but I want to be complete. So, how do we separate the religious parts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 4:02 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 09-27-2012 5:09 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 5:20 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:07 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:31 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:51 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 38 of 110 (674212)
09-27-2012 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by PaulK
09-27-2012 5:20 AM


Phat, I make no such assumption, and you should phase such a presumptive question more carefully.

PaulK

quote:
In the first Ruse article you quoted, Ruse was really quite clear about where the elements he identified as "religious" were and also clearly stated that the core of evolutionary work was scientific, not religious. So clearly that article contradicted your claims and it is not a strawman to point that out. Moreover, if evolution is a valid, mainstream scientific theory that is clearly a good reason for it to be taught in schools. Are you claiming that you had not thought of that?
As a scientific theory I agree that it should be taught. It is jumping to conclusions to even suggest that I have never thought of it. The dogmatic way it is held is what I disagree with.

quote:
Obviously the extension is invalid....

Why? Although I do know that Provine said that “...belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” (Provine, W.B. 1999)

quote:
Many things involve narrative, this is not a reason in itself.

Do you need to point that out? There are seven cumulated reasons.

quote:
Atheism, of course, is not evolution so your "evidence" is not relevant. Moreover there are no ceremonies nor any insistence on emotional experiences so this point seems to apply more to sports fans than to the science of evolution.

Did you read the link? I’m assuming not. You still have not provided evidence for your first statement.

quote:
Humanism is not evolution, evolution does not require denial of the afterlife and evolution violates no laws of biology. So everything you say here is irrelevant or false.

This is the informal logical fallacy of elephant hurling. You make statements without any supporting arguments, when I have. Do you intend to provide any logical, fact-based arguments?

quote:
Atheism is not evolution, so again your "evidence" is irrelevant.

Are you fond of quoting this “mantra”?

quote:
Humanism is not evolution. Therefore your "evidence" is yet another irrelevance.

Can you please show me where I said humanism IS evolution?! I would willingly correct that!

quote:
Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

Which person did I quote, exactly? I did not know Russ and Dawkins were the same!

quote:
In other words you have to clutch at straws. I would dare say that there are far greater commemorations associated with Independance Day or even Martin Luther King Day in the US, so it seems that you have nothing of significance here either. You don't even mention any actual rituals!

Is something that is more widely commemorated more significant to this discussion? This is about humanistic commemorations. Are you the one that is clutching at straws?

A simple google search would vindicate me. http://darwinday.org/ YOu might come up with the objection that this is not worship, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship The behavior do ft into the definition of worship.

quote:
Again, nothing of any use.

Why did you not respond to my arguments? Surely it has nothing of use for you to win the debate, but it does have a use for proving my point. Hand-waving such as what you have just done is just not what debate is all about.

quote:
You could have left everything out and still been complete. The only possibly religious elements are the ethical dimension and the idea that Nature is sacred - neither of which are part of evolutionary science. Both are easily left out. And i have no idea why you kept talking about atheism or humanism instead of evolution, I mean, do you really think that The God Delusion or similar books are set texts in biology classes ?

Actually, I have used the Greatest Show on Earth as reading material for my class. So. Unless you can rationally contradict Provine, I will have to assume, an argument from silence of course, that you have no rational argument against his statements.

Edited by LimpSpider, : Mixed up the actual book and the creationist rebuttal. Both read


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 5:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 8:20 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 40 of 110 (674215)
09-27-2012 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Pressie
09-27-2012 6:07 AM


Pressie, thanks for commenting. I listed his seven dimensions alright, Just not in the order he presented it. Each of my pointers can be used as a stand-alone paragraph. (I did reference my source, and I doubt you can say that if I changed the order to the order stated in his book it would make any argumental difference)

quote:
Seeing that these words don’t have the same meaning, could you please advise us on why you changed the word ‘Doctrinal’, as found in the book you referred to, to ‘Narrative’, which has a different meaning ? Did you use a different version of the book? Did I miss something in that book?

You missed only one thing: Looking down further into my post. Doctrinal I put at 4.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:07 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Pressie, posted 09-27-2012 6:42 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 42 of 110 (674218)
09-27-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
09-27-2012 5:09 AM


Re: Assumptions
Phat, I will make a more detailed answer.
quote:
Is it not also an assumption that humans are intrinsically evil/flawed?

Firstly, what is evil? If everything was relative, rape would not be evil, as some scientists have proposed should be the case. I make no assumptions on this topic. I don’t believe man is “intrinsically flawed”, or basically good, for that matter. I believe that every person has the capacity to be both good and evil. I know that sounds oxymoronic, but Eva Braun certainly thought Hitler good (Why else would she marry him when he was all but defeated). Others think him evil. OK. I think this goes more into philosophy now, so I’ll stop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 09-27-2012 5:09 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 7:30 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 44 of 110 (674223)
09-27-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
09-27-2012 7:30 AM


Re: Assumptions
NoNukes,
quote:
Which scientist proposed that? Your Godwin's law invoking, Eva Braun reference is ridiculous. Who gives a hoot that Braun loved Hitler. Some women love evil men because the women themselves are evil. Rape is nearly universally regarded as evil. Only a few psychopaths have a moral code that says otherwise.

Craig Palmer, and Randy Thornhill, academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press).

Why is the reference ridiculous. My point was that “good” and “evil” are relative terms that have no logical basis if there is no purpose to us being here. I could have used Stalin. Or anyone else, you, and me. It’s about perspective.

How is this moral code any worse than ours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 09-27-2012 7:30 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:26 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:58 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 85 by NoNukes, posted 09-29-2012 12:53 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 48 of 110 (674235)
09-27-2012 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by PaulK
09-27-2012 8:20 AM


quote:
It seems that I have to remind you of what you said - again.

It seems that I need to remind you of something. Do you know what is rhetorical? Is the logic too difficult for you to follow? If evolution is a religion, which I assert it is, then why is it not given the same treatment as other religions? Yes, it is a scientific theory as well. That’s not my point.

quote:
And how is the teaching of evolution more dogmatic than the teaching I experienced of Newton's Laws of Motion - which had been known to be merely (very) good approximations decades before I went to school ?

Dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution. Like as when Scott (NSCE) said, “In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.”

quote:
Since atheism does not entail evolution it is invalid to go from the assertion that evolution is a religion to the claim that atheism is a religion. Moreover your quote from Provine at most asserts that evolution entails atheism which is the wrong way round for you (more likely it entails that if there is a God, that God did not detectably intervene in the history of life on this planet - a position clearly compatible with a Deistic view of a God who created our universe but does not intervene in the workings of the universe after that).

More hand-waving and muddying of the situation from you. Let me show you simple logic
Consider the statement “A car is a vehicle.” True? But is “A vehicle is a car” correct?
Deism. Occam's razor demands that he is an unnecessary hypothesis. Hence he does not exist. Do you know what Occam’s razor is? If such a god DID exist, we would be unable to prove that he exists. So claiming he did exist would be an argument from silence.

quote:
Yes, I do because it it the ONLY one of your seven "reasons" that strongly applied to evolution as science.

I thought I was talking about evolution as a religion?

quote:
Yes, I did read the book review of The God Delusion that you linked to. It doesn't say anything about conversion or evolution at all. And which statement have I failed to support? "Atheism is not evolution"? I would have thought that was obvious, but if it is not see my point about Deism above. Clearly it is possible to accept evolution and believe in some kind of God even if Provine disagrees (and you have not shown that he does)

The reviewer does talk religiously about the book and it’s significance.

How does the quote show that he does not? If you do not understand, see my above reply to deism.

quote:
This is untrue, you have not supported any of the claims that I objected to. I have seen no argument from you that Humanism is evolution, that evolution denies any belief in the afterlife or that evolution violates any actual laws of biology. In fact every one of those is so obviously absurd that they require no refutation.

I have stated that evolution, since it requires life to originate from non-living chemicals, is in violation of biogenesis. I don’t know why you’ve not seen it. I have never said humanism is evolution. That is your interpretation of what I said. I said that evolutionism is atheism, atheists as a whole follow the humanist manifesto.

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’

(Provine 1994) (Oh, I like Provine, and just to tell you, Dawkins supports this view. This can be gleaned from reading his writings.)

quote:
Sure, you do that implicitly in points 2 and 4 when you start talking about Humanism. Since your argument is all about evolution you should be talking about evolution...

I talked about humanism. I did not say humanism=evolutionism. You really want me to talk about evolution?

quote:
I didn't say that you quoted anyone. I said that you SHOULD have quoted the Ruse article that you linked to in your first post to this thread, since you would at least have found something that was not completely irrelevant, even if it did not really help your case.

Let me quote you on that.

quote:
Well, here is a point where quoting Ruse might have done you some good. Certainly it would be better than wasting time talking about atheism again. However, any moral aspects are easily separated from the science of evolution, as Ruse recognises, so even the better argument would fail.

I don’t think you said “should”. Please be clearer on what you say.

quote:
You HAD no argument. How does "Some treat Nature as sacred" indicate that evolution itself has any "material" aspects of a religion ? You don't even attempt to show that this idea is part of the science of evolution. There is no argument to respond to.

Britain's Sir David Attenborough has influenced countless millions with his spectacular television nature series Life on Earth. Writing in a British newspaper, journalist Paul Johnson calls this well-known nature guru the 'high priest' of the neopagan nature worship of our time.

He writes, 'Everything Attenborough shows is presented as undeniable fact. But it is not all necessarily fact, or fact without qualification or theory. Behind Attenborough is a theory of life. The tale he tells does have a message, an ideology, a set of values. He is a Darwinist. His approach is propaganda of a distinctive kind, which not merely detheologizes life but demystifies it, even dehumanizes it. His Homo sapiens is different in degree but not in kind from his molluscs. Behind the smooth commentary is the ultimate horror of nothingness.'
Drawing attention to the fact that seven hundred Nepalese villagers were apparently driven out of their ancestral homes to make a safe environment for six white rhinos, Johnson says, 'Attenboroughism' (i.e. pushing evolution as fact) has contributed to 'the creation of a mentality which puts all forms of life on a level moral plain and emphatically denies that human life has any special sanctity.' Therefore the increasing push for abortion/euthanasia.
Sunday Telegraph, May 5, 1996, p. 28.

Have you ever seen this before? Oh, are you going to say now that, “Oh, this is only part of it, not the whole!”?

quote:
The Greatest Show on Earth is a popular science book, not a book on atheism so obviously it is not really relevant.
As for the Provine quote I have shown that it does not support you even if Provine is entirely right, so I have no need to argue against it.

One question. How is it (Provine) not supporting me?

P.S.~~Sorry about the delay. It's night here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 8:20 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 11:05 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:06 PM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 3:21 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 49 of 110 (674236)
09-27-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 8:31 AM


quote:
So ... it's a true religion?
Don't tell any Christians you should happen to meet, they like to think that their religion is true. (Obviously there cannot be two different true religions.)

You make a categorical mistake here. A true religion may not be the truth. The truth does not have to be embodied in religion. Get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:31 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 10:58 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 56 of 110 (674300)
09-27-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Theodoric
09-27-2012 9:51 AM


Re: Law of Biogenesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis Sorry Theodoric, but it has never been broken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:51 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 7:19 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 57 of 110 (674301)
09-27-2012 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Theodoric
09-27-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Assumptions
Theodoric, https://www.sodahead.com/united-states/atheist-admits-that-christian-morality-is-superior-very-interesting-debate/blog-284935/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 9:58 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2012 7:22 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 58 of 110 (674304)
09-27-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 10:58 AM


No, I don't think I'm making a mistake. Let me clarify. Suppose we have two persons who both claim to be scottish. How do we know if they’re telling the truth? It seems that they have to satisfy certain criteria, right? Well, then we extend it to religion. If a group fits the criteria for a religion, it is a true religion, as opposed to a pseudo-religion. Get me here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 10:58 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:20 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 59 of 110 (674306)
09-27-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 11:05 AM


quote:
Well, that would make a difference. Even if we grant your premise that it is a religion, it is also by your admission a scientific theory, which makes it different from all other religions, which aren't. It should therefore be treated differently from them. Specifically, it should be treated as a scientific theory, unlike the other religions, which aren't.

Why don’t we take a dual approach. Religious, and Scientific? Sure, one can emphasize just the scientific parts, which it mostly is. One can also just magnify the religious parts, which it is. I would personally depend on the circumstances regarding its exposure. For example, we see in the mass media a very great bias toward evolution, not that I condemn them for that. You can see how they treated Stephen Meyer, an ID proponent, in interviews. It’s not at all scientific to jump down people’s throat, is it?

quote:
That is not someone being "dogmatic about the religious portion of evolution". That is someone saying: "In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science."

Here’s my question. If the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the evidence against creation is, too, then how can students be confused? By the way, it’s not used in university, either. Does that mean that university students are not knowledgeable enough to refute creationism? I don’t think so.

quote:
Some reasoning would be nice.

Specifically, what kind of reasoning? If a quantum fluctuation started the universe, then no being did it. And if the hypothetical being is not supreme, he would have to have had a creator. Up the food chain. So supreme. If no being did it, he does not need to exist. Does he? Therefore, Occam’s razor states that he does not exist.

Johnson talks a lot of rubbish, but that doesn’t mean all of his writings are discounted. Attenborough sure didn’t disagree with him, or he would have made at least a small fuss about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:35 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 64 of 110 (674314)
09-27-2012 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
09-27-2012 2:06 PM


quote:
So you're saying that you already knew the answer ? If so why ask the question ? A rhetorical question generally has a point. So what's yours ?

Yes, I did. People on this forum seem to be a herd of sheep, no offence, but that’s what I see. To make people think from a different perspective.

quote:
I don't see Eugenie Scott saying anything about these "religious portions" of evolution - although you have yet to identify any that are actually being taught in schools. Nor do I remember any critical thinking exercises attached to the teaching of Newton's Laws of Motion.

Here’s one fundamental difference between evolution and Newton LoM, evolution happened in the past. It is not happening NOW. This can be best stated by Dawkins, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.” http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html

Newton can be experimented with. Yes, I know there are experiments on evolution, but none of them have proved that we evolved from microbes, which is the mantra I hear from the media every day, and from my textbook.

No hand-waving from you? I’ll let the audience decide, although given their bias...

quote:
THe answer is no and that is essentially the logic I used in the portion you dismissed as "hand-waving and muddying of the situation"). Except that I did it better.... So skip the condescension.

Good, at least you recognize some logic. Here’s what I was responding to. You statements that Humanism is Evolution. Not what I said, I said the opposite. And no, you did not do it better.

Your reply to my point on Occam has nothing of substance that I did not reply to on other posts, to other people.

Re: Dragging the issue. If evolution is atheism, and b and large all atheists follow the humanist manifesto.....I don’t have to repeat myself, Paul.

It’s a book about how belief in God is delusions, and one of the major props is evolution. (No, I’m not going to cite what’s in the book to prove that I’ve read or not, that’s worth nothing, If I had, you win nothing, if I had not, you win nothing either, because I would be able, hypothetically, to get a copy a pretend that I have read it,), and I do not have to repeat what was written in the preface.

quote:
Please can you support your assertion that evolution requires life to originate from unliving chemicals. Are you asserting that only unliving chemicals would be capable of forming life which could evolve? THere are plenty more problems with your invocation of the "law" of biogenesis (which actually supports evolution) but unless you can support the first claim, it really doesn't matter.

I feel no need to reply to you on the second point.

As to your assertion that biogenesis supports evolution, Pasteur did not agree. Nor do I. Oh, wait a minute. I think I know why we disagree like this. What is the definition of evolution? (Until that is answered, I can’t reply further on this matter)

quote:
But that is Provine's opinion, not evolution itself. And the opinion of one or even two guys (one of whom is regularly accused of being "ignorant" of philosophy and theology) really doesn't carry much weight.

And I suppose you are talking about what Ruse said about them. He is a philosopher of science, not actually a scientist in the sense that Dawkins and Provine WERE. So the question is, Who understands science better.

Sure, you are under no obligation to agree with anything. But there is no logical basis for you to feel obligated to do so, or not to do so, for that matter.

Evolution is the only way for an atheist to be intellectually fulfilled. Dawkins said it first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2012 2:06 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2012 1:06 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 09-28-2012 2:57 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 65 of 110 (674315)
09-27-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
09-27-2012 3:21 PM


Pigs can fly. Just not naturally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 3:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 09-28-2012 1:09 AM LimpSpider has not yet responded
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:39 PM LimpSpider 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 © 2021