Evolution and atheism

[Man of Faith]

So, Kenneth Miller, who is a molecular biologist just wants acceptence in the world? This is a man who was instrumental in the dover vs kitz-miller case, and who wrote the biology text books for high school. He's a christian who understands that the bible isn't a science book. In fact, most bishops accept evolution, because the evidence is overwhelming. So, don't try and play it up like they're just yearning for acceptance in the world.

If he was a creationists his biology text books wouldn't be in schools.

 

[Man of Faith]

This is an Ad Hominem.

This is actually a perfect textbook example of an ad hominem and I think people should take notice. Most people misunderstand what an ad hominem attack is, they tend to think that it is just an insult, but that is not what it means. And insult need not be an ad hominem, and an ad hominem need not be an insult. An ad hominem fallacy is when the comment is directed at the person and not at the person’s arguments. What MoF has done here is a perfect example. He is dismissing the evidence simply because an irrelevant detail about the person who presented the evidence.

This is a bad example of Ad Hominem because it was necessary to make a refutation of the OP.

 

[Storm]

If he was a creationists his biology text books wouldn't be in schools.

Gee, really? You have to grasp the basic premises of a field to literally write the book on it? Who'd a thunk?

 

[Man of Faith]

Gee, really? You have to grasp the basic premises of a field to literally write the book on it? Who'd a thunk?

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it. However if it was known that he was a creationist even if his books say the same things it does now as an evolutionist, they wouldn't be in schools.

 

[Storm]

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it. However if it was known that he was a creationist even if his books say the same things it does now as an evolutionist, they wouldn't be in schools.

Oh, you're playing the martyr card. Sorry, not buying it.

Science doesn't work that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it.

Problem being that the vast majority of people who don't accept evolution do so without having a grasp it's basic premises. The rest are either delusional or dishonest.

However if it was known that he was a creationist even if his books say the same things it does now as an evolutionist, they wouldn't be in schools.

Wrong, his research would speak for itself and if it passes the scientific method it would be accepted. Fact is that not a single piece of creation science has ever passed the scientific method (in fact, I cannot think of so much as a single attempt at creation science).

 

[Autodidact]

If he was a creationists his biology text books wouldn't be in schools.

If he was a creationist he wouldn't write biology textbooks; he'd write religious tracts, because that's what creationism is. Why can you not grasp this? To do science, you have to use the scientific method.

 

[Autodidact]

This is a bad example of Ad Hominem because it was necessary to make a refutation of the OP.

If the only way you can refute something is an ad hominem attack, it's an admission that you're wrong.

pssst: the OP does not contain an assertion to refute. It's a question.

 

[Autodidact]

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it. However if it was known that he was a creationist even if his books say the same things it does now as an evolutionist, they wouldn't be in schools.

Let me get this hypo. If a YEC, who denies ToE, nevertheless for some reason wrote a book espousing it, schools would not use it? Why would he write such a book, and why would schools not use it, if it was a good book?

 

[Autodidact]

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it.

How would you know, since you clearly don't? Or, alternatively, you're a big liar-head. I'm still curious as to which.

 

[LuisDantas]

If he was a creationists his biology text books wouldn't be in schools.

Sure. Because creationism has no scientific content.

 

[Wotan]

How would you know, since you clearly don't? Or, alternatively, you're a big liar-head. I'm still curious as to which.

I vote for the former with this caveat. It is mostly don't WANT to understand rather than can't. He doesn't WANT to get the basic idea that species are NOT fixed things because to do so begins to undermine his "faith." And he knows it.

Be to remain ignorant and faithful than to risk eternity by acceptin sinful lustful man's learn'

 

[Requia]

I do think the theory of evolution is important to atheism, from reading older (as in a couple centuries) pro atheists works (some dead french guy, I forget who), there was this idea that while they did not know how life and man came about without God, that surely science would come up with an answer. There's a certain level of faith there, and its much harder to accept the promise of an explanation somewhere along the road than something simple like deism. Evolution on the other hand has withstood some of the most intense criticism around, and came out stronger for it. It provides not just apologetics for atheism, but actively removes the need for atheism to defend itself wrt the creation of man.

I wouldn't call it part of atheism though, if say, we get to Alpha Centuri and find out we have common decent with the life there, thus disproving abiogenesis (not really part of evolution but enough people confuse the two) in favor of an ancient alien empire or deity or whatever, I can't see Atheists picking up the YEC arguments against common decent or anything silly like that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do think the theory of evolution is important to atheism, from reading older (as in a couple centuries) pro atheists works (some dead french guy, I forget who), there was this idea that while they did not know how life and man came about without God, that surely science would come up with an answer. There's a certain level of faith there,

Really? I get entirelly the opposite impression. Atheism hugely predates evolutionism and does in fact lack any need for it. Things such as women dying out of childbirth complications and the natural arising of anaencephally and other situations pretty much rules out the possibility of life being a divine gift and makes faith a necessity for the proponents of it, not for its opponents.

The whole Evolutionism-Creationism controversy is very much created and fed by creationisms, and has been so from the very start.

and its much harder to accept the promise of an explanation somewhere along the road than something simple like deism. Evolution on the other hand has withstood some of the most intense criticism around, and came out stronger for it.

True, but then again it never needed to become stronger. It was solid enough from the start, and its advancement and refinement came about largely without regard for the criticism, which was never really relevant in all the 100-plus years since.

On the other hand, the creationist criticism has done a lot of damage to the difusion of scientific knowledge and to the educational system. Largely because it needs and creates half-truths, heavily biased statements and outright lies to even survive.

It provides not just apologetics for atheism, but actively removes the need for atheism to defend itself wrt the creation of man.

Aren't those solutions for problems that never did exist? Atheism needs no justification, it is quite respectable and legitimate in and of itself. Nor does it really fit for science in general or for the ToE specifically to bother with justifying atheism. Atheism uses science as arguments, but it never needed to.

I wouldn't call it part of atheism though, if say, we get to Alpha Centuri and find out we have common decent with the life there, thus disproving abiogenesis (not really part of evolution but enough people confuse the two)

Proving panspermia would not disprove abiogenesis.

in favor of an ancient alien empire or deity or whatever, I can't see Atheists picking up the YEC arguments against common decent or anything silly like that.

Nor can I.

 

[Tristesse]

If he was a creationists his biology text books wouldn't be in schools.

If he was a creationist, he wouldn't have a proper understanding of evolution. If he was a flat earther his ideas wouldn't be taught either. Or if he was an astrologer those ideas wouldn't be taught in astronomy class. Whats your point?

 

[Tristesse]

Anyone can grasp the basic premises of evolution without accepting it. However if it was known that he was a creationist even if his books say the same things it does now as an evolutionist, they wouldn't be in schools.

Ok, whats the basic premise of evolution? And which creation myth should be taught in schools? I personally like the african creation myth.

 

[Autodidact]

I vote for the former with this caveat. It is mostly don't WANT to understand rather than can't. He doesn't WANT to get the basic idea that species are NOT fixed things because to do so begins to undermine his "faith." And he knows it.

Be to remain ignorant and faithful than to risk eternity by acceptin sinful lustful man's learn'

Actually IIRC MoF, like most contemporary YECs, accepts that new species develops. What he thinks does not happen is new "kinds," but he doesn't know what a kind is. That's his destruction of ToE. :biglaugh:

 

[evolved yet?]

Sure you can. There were atheists before Darwin.

Sorry intellectual fulfilled atheists can not exist without evolution.

 

[evolved yet?]

Ok, whats the basic premise of evolution? And which creation myth should be taught in schools? I personally like the african creation myth.

Which African creation myth?
There is thousands of creation myths in Africa, the bushmen myths, or the somali natives or ancient egyptians or thousands of others.

 

[Storm]

Sorry intellectual fulfilled atheists can not exist without evolution.

I doubt that, too. What makes evolution so special? Why not the Big Bang, or abiogenesis?