Dr. Robert T. Bakker's thoughts on ID and Atheism in schools.

I would describe (and have) dawkins as not just an atheist but an anti-theist: he can be quite militant in his position. many times in his books I have seen references to the CvE debate with comments that are not justified by the facts.

Please note that the element that makes this "legitimate appeal to authority" worthy is the evidence, the facts, the logic behind the authority's position.The statement "because {X} says so" on it's own is never valid in strict logic: it has to be based on evidence, facts, and preceding logical arguments.When there is no real way to assess the truth of an argument, then the opinions of people who have studied it in detail certainly carry more weight than any novice in the field, but this still does not make the statement from authority true.The basic point is that an argument is true or falseand this truth of falseness is necessarily independent of any and all who make the argument.k?

LOL you make it sound like it has to be pulled out unwillingly ...Perhaps "they" begrudge him respect because the science is valid, based on facts, developing new insights and then validating them with new evidence. Perhaps it is that the faith of the person doing science is irrelevant to valid science.Perhaps your picture is wrong of "the evos here" and of "the atheist evos in general," and all they want to see is valid science irrespective of any personal faith.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Hi Steve, and welcome to the fray.Please visit the "Steve List" if you have not already done so.
http://www.ncseweb.org/...ticles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.aspI do not think that those Dawkins comments you quoted are particularly {atheist promoting\faith bashing} as they are based more on the proper use of logic, evidence and reason than on the "virtues" of atheism vs faith. I have used these particular comments myself (with reference citation) on several occasions. The word I prefer for his fifth case is deluded as it sort of bridges the gap between insane and ignorant ... the person is deluded by false information from a respected (by the person) source (another reason that the argument from authority is invalid).The comments I refer to are more like the ones found in some other essays like (1) "The Theology of the Tsunami" (click)
or "Is Science a Religion?" (click)
btw - the "ignorant, stupid or insane" article with addendum can be read on-line at: "Ignorance is No Crime" (click)Note that this is a new URL so anyone with the old one should update their links. Some other articles by Dawkins on that website no longer exist according to their search engine results, so one of my other examples has been replaced by the one above (The old one was titled "Improbability of God"). Note that these are opinion articles, not science articles, of course. The man is welcome to his opinions as long as he doesn't portray them as facts. I am a Deist, so I stand just on the Theist side of agnosticism. Rationally speaking, the only logically valid position is agnostic, because in the end we cannot know (at least as long as there is no definitive evidence one way or the other), and thus any other position is based on belief. I choose to believe in a god that set things rolling with a universe primed and loaded for the evolution of life in as many unlikely places as possible with one command: "Surprise me" - and is otherwise totally uninvolved.To me the argument of the "Improbability of God" is just as false as the common FUNDIE (Fundamentalist Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) argument on the improbability of evolution. The fact remains that however improbable an event is before it happens, that once it has happened the probability defaults to 1 - the event can not unhappen. We are here: it happened, we just don't know what "it" was.I don't think that any belief that ignores evidence or promotes something that is unproven should be given a "free pass" and this includes militant atheistic anti-theism along with self promotion of the major religions.Science needs to be firmly and unabashedly agnostic, as any other position means an unfounded conclusion is used in the logical structure. And any invalid precept means the conclusion is invalid.Enjoy.ps -- you can see some further comments on the
{Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.} thread. This thread is now closed, but there are some interesting comments from "both" sides (as if any such dichotomy is real).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Personally, labels are only insulting if one chooses to let them be so.I have no problem with evo and creo, YECr, fundie or the like, as if they are distasteful they are distasteful because of associations with certain positions that come with the categories (the baggage that comes along) and not because the term was originally intended to be insulting.certainly they are all common shorthand on this and other sites so execting them to dry up is unrealisticI do think IDiot crosses the line

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think there is a big difference between a "label" that is shorthand and one that is {derisive\divisive\derogatory}evo and creo are shorthand, and bear no further burden than the words they stand for. otherwise {evolutionists} and {creationist} are equally insulting.fundie can be a little touchy in this regard, as it has acquired an overtone of {ignorant bible thumper} as opposed to being a pure shorthand for {fundamentalist}, and yet this tone is equally applicable to {fundamentalist}, and is based on the experience, which is what I meant when I said "if they are distasteful they are distasteful because of associations with certain positions that come with the categories (the baggage that comes along) and not because the term was originally intended to be insulting.""flat-earther" is normally seen as an insult these days, while YECist is not, and yet there is just as much evidence that the earth is millions of years old as there is that it orbits the sun (and it is more accessible to the average person).I think a bigger problem (on both sides) is misrepresenting someone's argument and then saying "you {insert label here} are all alike" when the problem is not the label but the false argument.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I keep waiting for a Steve N. Stevens, but that is just me. Therefore you have proof that every faith is always evil? Or does this only apply to some faiths? If it only applies to some then it is overstated.Can you point to actual acts of evil that come from the teachings of each and every religion? We can agree that some acts of evil have resulted from some religious views. We can also agree that some acts of evil have resulted from some secular views. Does faith really distinguish one from the other? Or is the fault that of people blindly following the lead of {others\leaders\interpretations} without applying logic and reason? Here he falsely attributes his perceptions to those of faith, and portrays them inaccurately. Again, can you show that this applies to all religions and faiths? It is really enlightening to see someone demonizing the views of others.I could have chosen other quotes, but thought that these two were sufficient. I have already said before that I choose to not believe in such easily fabricated concepts, but that this does not mean that they cannot exist. The difference is in knowing what you choose to believe and distinguishing that from what you know.It seems you are equivocating on the {god\atheism} issue: This position is fine with me: it acknowledges that it is an assumed belief and not based on facts. That is not different from my position. Basing any probability calculation on a set of (1) is pointless regardless of the concept behind the calculation. No? How can you demonstrate the total lack of any hand of any god? It seems to me that you are using the assumption of a lack as evidence of a lack. How do you know that the one known (to us) instance of life in the universe is not the result? I specifically meant about faith. Science is based on facts, faith is based on beliefs. They are not the same. One deals with how life happens, the other with why life happens. Understanding how does not answer the question of why.Science, virtually by definition, cannot evaluate the {existence\non-existence} of supernatural {beings\actions}, absent overt demonstration of godhead (which I personally doubt), it cannot determine {why} ... and as such logically has to be and remain agnostic.Science is normally skeptical of all unvalidated concepts, basically holding a {wait until the evidence is in before judging} position. Being agnostic is no different in that regard. That would be ridiculous. There is a big difference between not ruling out unproven theories and giving each idea ever conceived equal weight. Ideas like pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are obviously designed to be disbelieved and are not put forward as any explanation of any part of existence but to ridicule a position of others. As such they are strawman arguments, unworthy of much thought. But your position noted above apparently belies that. It appears you are choosing an atheistic belief, knowing it is belief and not fact.I choose a Deist belief, that includes a belief that understanding the universe as it is and as it behaves by the natural rules is the best way to understand the {how} of "life, the universe, and (oh) everything" (Douglas Adams).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks again. yes, most anti-theistic statements seem to fixate on the more mainstream and vocal religions, particularly the more vocal elements within them (ie fundamentalists) in part because they make themselves easy targets. It's a fact that firmly held beliefs can drive people to do evil etcetera. -- this is not necessarily limited to only people of faith.Firmly held beliefs in the free-market system have resulted in evil acts: one need only look at some of the more nefarious actions of the US in foreign relations in certain countries to see that. Firmly held beliefs in the socialist system have also resulted in evil. Firmly held beliefs of despotic dictators in their personal right ... I think you get the picture. This is painting with a broad brush. There are many of the Christian faith even who believe in a naturalistic world where Tsunami are just one more effect of tectonic plate geology no different from an atheists view. Could you? Perhaps our understanding of God has grown with time and our own ability to understand the natural world, that these earlier "incarnations" were due to our frail human misunderstanding (and inability to understand), but that the essence behind all religious views remains the same. Only our meager perception has changed. Even the monolithic religions have evolved from pantheonistic ones. As our understanding evolves so too would the "image" we can "see." Cute. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either (I think you noted that earlier), so to go from an absence of evidence to a view that god is absent is making a conclusion based on belief: I took the first comments in each article that I felt applied, rather than make a "study" of them, as it seemed to me they made the case. Mea culpa. However I note you also said: "so yes, the statement may be a little overstated" and "I agree that he could be a little more precise in making his points" so I think you can see where I am coming from. I would be surprised otherwise.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ps -- found this article while looking up another topic:
SCIENCE AND RELIGION by Derek Bickerton: and that fits my {science must be agnostic} position. He also takes a dig at Dawkins: So it's not just me, eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

What you have here, whether you are seeing it or not, is a refutation of your pet hypothesis of a vast, evil, atheistic conspiracy to inflict evolution lies on people. The reason you are so {{{stunned}}} by an actual Pentacostal preacher being admitted into the dank halls of the evil prevaricating evolutionist scientists is because you were (falsely) certain those halls were closed to people of faith and only open to those who willingly, blindly falsified the information in order to support evolution.This is now obviously not true.Now you are looking for ways to equivocate around this fact by lessening his {perceived influence} so that he can be a "token creationist scientist" or some such nonsense. Make no bones about it (sorry), but Baker is a shaker () in theories of evolution, especially in such things as hot-blooded dinosaurs, that turned previous conceptions around and re-wrote whole chapters on the evolution of life on planet earth. "... Galloping Goalposts and I'll believe it, I'll believe the moon is made of cheese, I'll believe it, honest I will ...." (with apologies to Charlie Brown and Schultz)Hmmm, why not stop all your other posts and start this thread? It could be your most productive effort on this board. Then we can judge the truth of your statement by the evidence of actions.Enjoy.PS -- see Message 70 and read the whole article linked there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So not being open to people of {other faith} is not the same as being closed to people of {other faith}? (and this is completely ignoring that you have failed to make the case for science being based on faith.)Sorry if I overstated your position for the purpose of driving home the point: you make many claims about how evo science is not open-minded, but then you are {{{stunned}}} by an actual Pentacostal preacher being admitted into the ranks of evolutionary science.The reason is easy to explain if your claim is false: it is the science that matters, not the faith of the scientist.In order to explain it while still making your claim of {bias\closed mindedness} you need to invent reasons for his {special admission}, reasons that don't apply to other creationist types that would give them {special admission} if this were true.The obvious conclusion is that your premise is false. You suggested a specific topic, and I said start a thread on that topic. For the record that topic is: So if you have done that specific topic, please point to that specific thread, otherwise this comment of yours is just distortion and misrepresentation (Notice that I do not say "lying" because that needs to include {intent} which cannot be demonstrated in this case), and obviously, starting 5000 other threads does not qualify.Of course to adequately define the topic you will have to define what you mean by transitional and what does not qualify.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes, but that topic was about Where here he is talking about transitionals. The concept of transitionals is, in my opinion, one of the beggest errors in creationist thinking.Thanks

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The concept of transitionals only exists because of that deep misunderstanding.Every generation is a transition to the next generation, with different gene pools from the parent and child generations. And I'm saving it for the next person who claims there is an evol conspiracy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Darwin said there would be evidence of transitions in species.there are.creationists have taken the issue of transitionals and redefined it to something that does not exist: a chimera species, a hopeful monster.this makes the term "transitional" useless.in point of fact, every fossil that shows evidence of a feature in transition from one form to another is evidence of transition, or an {evolutionary defined transitional}in point of fact this is true of all fossils and what part about the science being about the {change in species over time} means that we have to find {all the transitionals to satisfy creationists} when we have evidence from modern biology that shows that, yes, there is {change in species over time}?what part about not one fossil in the geological record contradicts the {change in species over time} says that we need to find more to satisfy creationists? I've seen no evidence that you have argued this (not that I read your every post) or that it has been denied. fascinating. No, I wonder why you have the picture so wrong. Your precepts that lead to that conclusion are false.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}