Automating the fight against creationism

[Autodidact]

So you're saying atheists aren't necessarily evolutionists? Okay, maybe not. But has an atheist ever renounced the theory of evolution? Is there an one atheist on the planet who scoffs at fossil-records and carbon-dating and radiometry? Is there one atheist on the planet who hasn't read The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin? IMO you would be remiss in your atheism if you didn't read Darwin.

Most atheists I know are comfortable with science, and accept its findings. I suppose there are some who reject it, but I don't know any of them personally.

Has an atheist ever renounced the theory of heliocentrism? Is there one atheist on the planet who scoffs at astronomy and planetary orbits? IMO you have no idea what atheists need to read. If they enjoy science, they should read Darwin, everyone should. He's one of the most important scientists, and best writers, who ever lived.

 

[Autodidact]

That would be the holy grail of atheism, wouldn't it?

You're not making sense. You seem quite confused about atheism. It's not a doctrine, Pete, it's an opinion.

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed. I'm smarter than this.

But Origin of Species is the foundational text of evolutionary theory is it not?

Science doesn't have foundational texts.

 

[Autodidact]

I consider myself to be the kind of believer you describe. Neither a Luddite nor a Puritan.

Yet you reject the fundamental theory of modern Biology?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Midnight Pete is God's "true follower"(tm) and can tell who is and is not a fellow "true follower"(tm)

Clearly, acknowledgment of science rules one out of the club.

wa:do

Does acknowledgement of science = rejection of God?

I don't think it does. I don't think it has to. And if you think I'm a "true follower(tm)" you must not know me very well.

 

[fantome profane]

Does acknowledgement of science = rejection of God?

I don't think it does. I don't think it has to.

No, it does not. But you are the only one making the claim that it does. Evolution is science. Science does not mean the rejection of “God”. Evolution does not mean the rejection of “God”. Do you disagree?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I usually ignore creationists that is the best way to fight them IMHO.

 

[Autodidact]

Does acknowledgement of science = rejection of God?

I don't think it does. I don't think it has to. And if you think I'm a "true follower(tm)" you must not know me very well.

You seem to. Or why do you reject science?

 

[Midnight Pete]

No, it does not. But you are the only one making the claim that it does. Evolution is science. Science does not mean the rejection of “God”. Evolution does not mean the rejection of “God”. Do you disagree?

I agree, but why do you put God in quotes?

 

[Midnight Pete]

You seem to. Or why do you reject science?

Only a fool would reject science. Only a fool would denounce it.

But I don't have to be a Bronze Age primitive to appreciate science.

 

[painted wolf]

Does acknowledgement of science = rejection of God?

I don't think it does. I don't think it has to. And if you think I'm a "true follower(tm)" you must not know me very well.

So why the silliness about evolution and atheism?

wa:do

 

[Midnight Pete]

So why the silliness about evolution and atheism?

wa:do

I'm not convinced it is silliness.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not convinced it is silliness.

Please explain your thinking here. Why is the theory of evolution any more connected to atheism than any other scientific theory? Is the theory of relativity “almost the same as atheism”? Why or why not? Is quantum theory atheistic? Is germ theory atheistic? The majority of atheists accept these theories, so you can’t say that evolution is atheistic just because atheists accept it. That is unless you are prepared to say that all of science is atheistic.


To be perfectly honest with you I suspect that the only reason you think that evolution is atheistic is because some creationist told you that it is.

 

[Midnight Pete]

That is unless you are prepared to say that all of science is atheistic.

All of science is atheistic in that science does not recognize the existence of God. Are you going to tell me otherwise?

 

[Tristesse]

All of science is atheistic in that science does not recognize the existence of God. Are you going to tell me otherwise?

Science is not a thing. It's a process in determining reality. Science doesn't have beliefs, scientists do. So, science is not atheistic.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm not convinced it is silliness.

Well as a biologist and a theist I can tell you it is pretty silly.

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

All of science is atheistic in that science does not recognize the existence of God. Are you going to tell me otherwise?

I agree in a way with you Pete. A researcher will never find evidence of creation if they are not looking for it. However I am of the belief that it is science that will eventually disprove Toe and I see the beginning of it already.

What I've learned here is that there are those that will condemn creationists but still believe in God. Many mainsteam religions have accepted evolution. I have no idea when they think we finally became mankind that has the offer of salvation. I started a thread re this topic and basically it appears the bottom line to that was your guess is as good as mine.

Basically what I see here are those that follow some mainsteam faith, follow some faith with a slight variation or have gone ahead and invented their own take on God with or without creationism. There are those here that think every living creature and plant gets a resurrection right through to belief in a God that basically does nothing and offers nothing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well as a biologist and a theist I can tell you it is pretty silly.

Evolution has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a deity.

wa:do

That depends on what your religion is. If your religion depends on a doctrine that says God created each individual species independently and it has never changed since that time, then it certainly speaks to the existence of that Creator.

Darwin recognized this.

Summary of Ch 5, pg 167 The Origin of Species: Chapter 5

He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

 

[painted wolf]

That depends on what your religion is. If your religion depends on a doctrine that says God created each individual species independently and it has never changed since that time, then it certainly speaks to the existence of that Creator.

Darwin recognized this.

Summary of Ch 5, pg 167 The Origin of Species: Chapter 5

Yes well, so does history, heliocentrism and the fact that Unicorns aren't real.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

All of science is atheistic in that science does not recognize the existence of God. Are you going to tell me otherwise?

No, it's agnostic. It doesn't recognize the existence or non-existence of God.

Now here I thought you were trying to reconcile your religion with science. Now you're saying science is atheistic. That would mean that your religion is consistent with atheism. How does that work?

You seem to be contradicting yourself.