In Opposition of a the "Negative Claim" Argument in Respects to Theism and Atheism

[Animore]

You said they evolved by 'natural selection'

what exactly was nature 'selecting'?

I don't see how you could attribute evolution of species as blind faith when you are ignorant of it.

I'll give you the best explanation from what I understand.

While Charles Darwin was on his sail in the Galapagos islands, Darwin had discovered that species on certain islands were unique to their habitat (which is the island.) yet similar to creatures on the other islands. After careful study of such creatures, he realized they were perfectly adapted to their environment.

How could this happen? Darwin soon realized these adaptations were not instantaneous or sudden, but appear through a long process of evolution.

It's important to understand that evolution is mostly descent through modification. Most, if not all, evolution happens when a new offspring isn't produce. One primate cannot turn into a human. It doesn't work like that.

Now, based off of the evidence he found, he created a theory (as in scientific theory, supported by empirical evidence) that he called natural selection. He offered that through a long process of trial and error, species were able to adapt to survive, based on nature's conditions.

Obviously the question of whether or not nature is sentient comes to mind. No, nature is not sentient, but it is cruel. Think about it. The wildlife is filled with dangerous prey, bacteria, insects that carry disease, etc. one must adapt to survive, and species do that by way of trial and error. However, many have have the idea that natural selection is complete survival of the fittest. This is not the case. It's rather through mostly random processes, species are able to adapt better to survive better.

For example, say the majority of cougars in an area have a 60 percent chance of getting malaria. Well, say there is a cougar that went through a genetic mutation upon birth, and was born with a 40 percent chance of getting malaria. Though it is a gradual process, through a multitude of ways said cougar will spread this mutation with the offspring, giving it a better chance of survival.

That is what natural selection is from my knowledge.

 

[Animore]

What's "the general idea of a God"?


Actually, I said that a god is an object of worship. You said that a god is a supreme being.


If that's the case, then ignosticism ("god isn't defined enough to even talk about it as a concept", effectively) is justified, which is a subtly different rejection of theism, but still a rejection.


I don't think that there's such a thing as "a general idea of all deities."

"General concept" as in a being of worship.

Well, you've admitted that not everything that is worshiped is a god. We must specify.

I concur.

Again, as in, a being of worship.

 

[Acim]

Not everything that is worshipped is a god

I would like to see this claim justified. To see how that is done.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see how you could attribute evolution of species as blind faith when you are ignorant of it.

I'll give you the best explanation from what I understand.

While Charles Darwin was on his sail in the Galapagos islands, Darwin had discovered that species on certain islands were unique to their habitat (which is the island.) yet similar to creatures on the other islands. After careful study of such creatures, he realized they were perfectly adapted to their environment.

How could this happen? Darwin soon realized these adaptations were not instantaneous or sudden, but appear through a long process of evolution.

If you haven't read Voyage of the Beagle, I would highly recommend it , people often give up in the first few chapters because the writing is very dry and formal detailing preparations etc, but after some incredible adventures in S.America, he becomes much more fluid and captivating.

It's important to understand that evolution is mostly descent through modification. Most, if not all, evolution happens when a new offspring isn't produce. One primate cannot turn into a human. It doesn't work like that.

Now, based off of the evidence he found, he created a theory (as in scientific theory, supported by empirical evidence) that he called natural selection. He offered that through a long process of trial and error, species were able to adapt to survive, based on nature's conditions.

Obviously the question of whether or not nature is sentient comes to mind. No, nature is not sentient, but it is cruel. Think about it. The wildlife is filled with dangerous prey, bacteria, insects that carry disease, etc. one must adapt to survive, and species do that by way of trial and error. However, many have have the idea that natural selection is complete survival of the fittest. This is not the case. It's rather through mostly random processes, species are able to adapt better to survive better.

For example, say the majority of cougars in an area have a 60 percent chance of getting malaria. Well, say there is a cougar that went through a genetic mutation upon birth, and was born with a 40 percent chance of getting malaria. Though it is a gradual process, through a multitude of ways said cougar will spread this mutation with the offspring, giving it a better chance of survival.

That is what natural selection is from my knowledge.

Thanks for the detailed response, I do appreciate it!, but my question would be the same, what is nature selecting?

Nobody debates that a design that is significantly superior enough, will be selected 'naturally' over an inferior one. That's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto is it not?

i.e. 'Natural selection' goes entirely without saying, how you create a significantly superior design to be selected in the first place, that's the trickier part, would you not agree?

said cougar will spread this mutation with the offspring

Not if said cougar is run over by a semi before reaching sexual maturity..

but seriously, it's one of many problems with the algorithm, a 20% improved disease resistance to a common hardy disease is quite the beneficial 'accident'. Drug companies do a lot of research to try to figure out how to do this intentionally. But even if we magically grant an offspring this lucky immune system design upgrade, its far from guaranteed to be passed on to the next generation, far less permeate the entire species- which is why we see so few changes in stable populations. e.g. Horseshoe crabs remaining practically unchanged for 100's of millions of years.\

And the fossil record backs this, rather than the slow steady gradual changes predicted by Darwin, we see sudden explosions, highly evolved species appearing suddenly as if planted with no evolutionary history, remaining in practical stasis for millions of years (OK a finch beak might shrink or change color) and then suddenly vanish to be replaced with something else

 

[Animore]

Thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate it!, but my question would be the same, what is nature selecting?

Nobody debates that a design that is significantly superior enough, will be selected 'naturally' over an inferior one. That's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto.

i.e. 'Natural selection' goes entirely without saying, how you create a significantly superior design to be selected in the first place, that's the trickier part is it not?

Well, one could say nature is selecting animals to animals to survive. The very basic definition of natural selection is that animals adapted to survive WILL survive. However, one could also say that nature is selecting the species that cannot survive to die. Two sides of a coin, as you say.

Again, nature is not sentient, but it is cruel. The more complex and adapted species have a higher chance of surviving than the lower. It's a law of nature. Survival of the fittest and all that.

Not if said cougar is run over by a semi before reaching sexual maturity..

Well, yes, haha, but that is an entirely separate issue. I have not studied much on the topic but I believe that to be artificial selection, that is, humans dictating the offspring and breeding, etc.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, one could say nature is selecting animals to animals to survive. The very basic definition of natural selection is that animals adapted to survive WILL survive. However, one could also say that nature is selecting the species that cannot survive to die. Two sides of a coin, as you say.

Again, nature is not sentient, but it is cruel. The more complex and adapted species have a higher chance of surviving than the lower. It's a law of nature. Survival of the fittest and all that.

Nature, chance, being cruel is another problem.. randomly corrupting the information in DNA, has the same effect as would randomly corrupting the code running this website. Creating a significant upgrade by chance is not technically impossible, it's just vastly more likely to be seriously, fatally deleterious, or neutral at best.

Darwin used the term 'survival of the fittest' again this logic goes without saying in species or product selection- but there is a fallacious assumption implied here that is often overlooked.

If we took a showroom of cars and randomly mussed up the design plans, we'd invariably produce a range of inferior cars. survival of the fittest applies as always. we would choose the car with the broken seat warmer over the broken transmission right? survival of the fittest yes, survival of the fitter .. no. Only if the pool to select from provided a significantly fitter choice. By design- of course that's no problem, but by accident? At the very least, what superficially seems intuitive, inevitable, gets a bit more interesting in the details

 

[Animore]

If we took a showroom of cars and randomly mussed up the design plans, we'd invariably produce a range of inferior cars. survival of the fittest applies as always. we would choose the car with the broken seat warmer over the broken transmission right? survival of the fittest yes, survival of the fitter .. no. Only if the pool to select from provided a significantly fitter choice. By design- of course that's no problem, but by accident? At the very least, what superficially seems intuitive, inevitable, gets a bit more interesting in the details

No one is denying this. A genetic mutation is just as likely to be detrimental as it is to be helpful. They are random, not chosen. They could either be beneficial or harmful. And the truth is that most mutations have a pretty significant chance of being bad. If someone locked you in the room with nothing but a few beaten-down supply tools and said to renovate the entire room, it would take years, with countless tries. But that's what happens with evolution. That's what Darwin was trying to make people understand, is that evolution is not an instantaneous process. It is not a poof oh look, complex organism! No, no no. The evolution of man from the first primate to what we have now took millions of years and countless tries. Homo Floresiensis reminds us of that. It had many similar characteristics of early homosapiens, but it ultimately failed in the evolutionary process. We can see we are nowhere perfect either. We eat and breathe out of the same windpipe. Our eyes can only see so far to the side without looking idiotic, whereas other species have their eyes to the side, thus being able to see much better. Our bones are fragile and break easily. Evolution isn't a perfect process, but it is a beautiful one.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No one is denying this. A genetic mutation is just as likely to be detrimental as it is to be helpful.

not at all, a genetic mutation is vastly more likely to be detrimental than helpful, I don't usually post links because it gets tiresome and detracts from interesting personal discussions, but this is hardly controversial.

They are random, not chosen. They could either be beneficial or harmful. And the truth is that most mutations have a pretty significant chance of being bad. If someone locked you in the room with nothing but a few beaten-down supply tools and said to renovate the entire room, it would take years, with countless tries. But that's what happens with evolution.

Well yes, in fact my wife would describe that as my attempt to renovate our basement But I agree, I hope I'll cobble something together eventually- because I have some sort of vision, purpose, goal for what I want the result to be- not to mention my wife's nagging

But how about we give those tools to a couple of chimps, then turn the lights off? it's never going to get done in any time, they'd probably kill each other with them- hmm not a pleasant thought, but that's the evolution analogy is it not, the 'blind' watchmaker as Dawkins puts it?

That's what Darwin was trying to make people understand, is that evolution is not an instantaneous process. It is not a poof oh look, complex organism! No, no no. The evolution of man from the first primate to what we have now took millions of years and countless tries. Homo Floresiensis reminds us of that. It had many similar characteristics of early homosapiens, but it ultimately failed in the evolutionary process. We can see we are nowhere perfect either. We eat and breathe out of the same windpipe. Our eyes can only see so far to the side without looking idiotic, whereas other species have their eyes to the side, thus being able to see much better. Our bones are fragile and break easily. Evolution isn't a perfect process, but it is a beautiful one.

"It is not a poof oh look, complex organism"

Well according to the fossil record, kinda it is

"And we find many of them [fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229

In Darwin's day, the gaps were reasonably believed to be artifacts of an incomplete record, that would be filled in as we went along. But the prediction never panned out, the gaps have only been ever more clearly defined, we arguably have less transitional species than we did in Darwin's time, because the few we identified as such were later corrected as being unrelated..

Anyway must run for now, but I appreciate your thoughtful responses on this.

 

[Animore]

not at all, a genetic mutation is vastly more likely to be detrimental than helpful, I don't usually post links because it gets tiresome and detracts from interesting personal discussions, but this is hardly controversial.

I pointed this out later in the post.

But how about we give those tools to a couple of chimps, then turn the lights off? it's never going to get done in any time, they'd probably kill each other with them- hmm not a pleasant thought, but that's the evolution analogy is it not, the 'blind' watchmaker as Dawkins puts it?

Ha ha, certainly not an entertaining idea of discussion.

But for the answer to the question, if you are implying that evolution is highly unlikely to stand on its own, I fail to see such. Think about it. Nature runs on its own accord, with its own laws, with its own circle of life. The cosmos runs on its own laws, and is able to stay there without ripping apart (at least so far.) If such complex things can stand on its own, I doubt that evolution is very different.

"And we find many of them [fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229

I feel this quote is taken out of context. The paragraph simply states that they found fossils in complex evolutionary state. He even says "It is as though" like when he talks about intelligent design, that it simply appears that way. Could you please read the next few sentences?

Anyway must run for now, but I appreciate your thoughtful responses on this.

Of course. Glad to be of service.

 

[Shad]

Nobody debates that a design that is significantly superior enough, will be selected 'naturally' over an inferior one. That's why the Ford Mustang outlived the Pinto is it not?

You are repeating the same stupid argument I refuted months ago. Consumers are not a form of natural selection. Consumers are driven by concerns that are not part of natural selection. Concerns such as cost of the vehicle, cost of maintenance, cost of gas. There can be secondary consideration such as buying a Pinto for their kids to drive rather than buying them a Mustang. You neither understand economics nor natural selections. You ignore the human element in the form of the consumer. People liked the Mustang more than the Pinto. Such emotions are not part of natural selection You completely omit the fact that there are humans behind these products that can and have end lines of car that have nothing to do with sales such as the Cadillac DTS. It was a limited production model that was replaced.

Your argument is so fallacious and irrational it is laughable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is one argument above all others in which I do not enjoy, and do not support in New Atheism and general atheistic arguments, and that is "You can't prove a negative" and the "Burden of Proof" argument, and I cannot find a single instance in which this works except when someone who is not making a negative claim. Here's why.

Alright, so let's say there's a man who walks up to you and says that he can do fifty cartwheels in five seconds. I tell him I don't believe him. He's going to have to prove such a thing. It is obviously not the skeptics burden of proof. This is all well and good. Now, let's say that there's a man who is in protest of such a thing, and starts saying, "There is no way for this man to do such a thing." Well, that's a claim, right? Well the man starts using the burden of proof argument. Except, this is not a claim to skepticism, this is a claim in itself, and he has just admitted that he can't prove a negative. Why in the hell would he make the claim then, if he can't prove it? To make this clearer, I'll give an instance of the burden of proof in other areas:

In claims in science, whether it's a negative or not, the man who is making a claim will have to provide the evidence, either for or against it. If it is a positive claim, they will have to give the evidence for it. If it is a negative claim, they will have to give the evidence against it. Now, I understand that in most areas, it is impossible for one to prove something doesn't exist. Still, that brings me back to my point: why make the claim? I feel it's completely unfair to say that one side has to prove something, and the other doesn't. If a side makes a claim, whether something exists or not, it seems entirely more fair to own up to that claim instead of galloping around thinking that you can say whatever you want because its a negatively claim, and again. I understand if it's a claim to skepticism, because then, obviously, it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

And that is why I feel it's better to stick to the claims like "There is no evidence for God," or, "God is not essential to the runnings of space-time" because these are claims that in a way can be backed up with evidence. But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you? That is entirely unfair, whether it's a negative claim or not.

Ignoring semantics, I think this is a pretty interesting OP.
Speaking mostly for myself, but also to what I see in some others, sometimes a form of shorthand is used to avoid sidetracking of a topic. It gets counter-productive to have to explain why I don't feel the need to prove atheism as true, for example, when the actual topic of discussion at hand is related to marriage equality (as a pluck-it-out-of-thin-air example).

However, since it actually IS the topic at hand here, I'll try and extrapolate what I mean.

There are a lot of things in life I'm ignorant of. This would include the detailed workings of a particle accelerator, and it would also include God. My ignorance of the particle accelerator is largely self-directed. It has no impact on my life, so unless curiosity moved me to try and understand it better, my ignorance will remain. If I try to understand it better, I'll improve my knowledge, no doubt, but I would assume I would not end up with a profound understanding (lack of background) and so some ignorance would remain.

My understanding of religion is better. I was raised in a mildly religious family, and attended church when young. I have religious friends. I have been exposed to a variety of religions, some of them in fairly immersive ways. As is the case for everyone on Earth, I still have a level of ignorance regarding religion.

Of God, I know nothing, really. I've heard some claims as to the nature of God, and have spent a lot of time reading about and discussing both God and religion, for various reasons (mostly historical and psychological) but still, there is no reason for me to believe I know the least thing about God.

My summary of that, when asked, is that I'm an atheist. I put agnostic on the front of that as a nod to the fact that I'm ignorant of God, rather than knowing he doesn't exist in the way I know that I don't have a second thumb on my left hand. I can't prove he doesn't exist, I don't even know what he is. But to claim I'm not an atheist would seem completely disingenuous and confusing to whomever I was speaking to.

So the 'burden of proof' thing, for me, isn't an attempt to cop-out. It's simply short-hand articulation of where I am at, and how that position would be described. I can't disprove God, and wouldn't claim I can. But, just as the particle accelerator I am ignorant of doesn't impact on my decisions from day to day, God doesn't either. If I'm going to suggest to people that there is an objective moral code (for example), or that there is a correct way to use a particle accelerator, then I would assume in either case I should have a level of knowledge, not ignorance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You said they evolved by 'natural selection'

what exactly was nature 'selecting'?

Is it possible, in this day and age, in a nation where education is actually available, that you can have such a dim concept of evolution? Do you need to "anthropomorphize" everything to the degree you seem to? (By which I mean your use of the term "nature selecting" as if there's such an election going on by purposeful entities.)
Natural selection is a phrase -- which does not imply "conscious choice," by the way -- that means that if any slightly modified, heritable trait, in a world that does not include immortality leads to more offspring, than that heritable trait will inevitably be passed on to more descendants than others. This effect is not just additive or multiplicative, but exponential, and will soon supplant the unmodified ancestor from which it sprang.

Nobody is "selecting." There's nothing magical here. As Sancho Panza, in his wisdom said: "whether rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's going to be bad for the pitcher."

 

[Willamena]

You keep avoiding the 2 critical questions:

1. What is the source of matter, energy and life?
2. You never present the evidence, scientific evidence that is, that the running of space-time is a valid concept.

1. The same as for everything else.
2. Things work. The universe gets by without us, so there's obviously (debatably) a means.

If you say God didn't do it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how it happened. Also the burden of proof is on you to also present the scientific evidence that makes it possible.

I'm sorry, no. Science isn't the be-all-to-end-all of explanation.

I could say you shouldn't jump off of a bridge just because others do, and that is common sense, not science.

All you keep doing is blowing smoke to hide the FACT that you can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. You can't even explain it in non-scientific terms, let alone in scientific terms.

No one could possibly.

You've pointed at God.

Let me remind you of your own words:
it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

Non-existence doesn't exist.

 

[omega2xx]

1. The same as for everything else.
2. Things work. The universe gets by without us, so there's obviously (debatably) a means.

I'm sorry, no. Science isn't the be-all-to-end-all of explanation.

I have not mentioned science. I ask a simple question. The person can give their view or say "I don't know."

I could say you shouldn't jump off of a bridge just because others do, and that is common sense, not science.


No one could possibly.

You've pointed at God.

I have pointed to God as to why I thing that is the most logical explanation. I am happy to consider other explanations.

Non-existence doesn't exist.

Obviously.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Is it possible, in this day and age, in a nation where education is actually available, that you can have such a dim concept of evolution?

it's possible to take a dim view of the theory yes. According to Gallup, belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US- and that's with having it force fed in classrooms.

Do you need to "anthropomorphize" everything to the degree you seem to?

No, I think changes in weather and climate are determined by naturally dynamic systems, how 'bout you?

(By which I mean your use of the term "nature selecting" as if there's such an election going on by purposeful entities.)

Argue that point with Darwinists! I don't think nature can select a man to arise from a single molecule. I agree with you, this selection denotes a purposeful entity

Natural selection is a phrase -- which does not imply "conscious choice," by the way -- that means that if any slightly modified, heritable trait, in a world that does not include immortality leads to more offspring, than that heritable trait will inevitably be passed on to more descendants than others. This effect is not just additive or multiplicative, but exponential, and will soon supplant the unmodified ancestor from which it sprang.

apparently not, these guys

have used the same design for 100's of millions of years.

So the question remains, what exactly is nature [unconsciously] selecting?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I pointed this out later in the post.



Ha ha, certainly not an entertaining idea of discussion.

But for the answer to the question, if you are implying that evolution is highly unlikely to stand on its own, I fail to see such. Think about it. Nature runs on its own accord, with its own laws, with its own circle of life. The cosmos runs on its own laws, and is able to stay there without ripping apart (at least so far.) If such complex things can stand on its own, I doubt that evolution is very different.

Well now you touch on a very interesting point, in my favor I would argue!

150 years ago when Darwinism was formulated, We still viewed the cosmos as we do evolution now. A handful of simple classical 'immutable' laws, plus lots of time, space, and random bumping around, was sufficient to produce all the wonders of the physical world. Long before subatomic physics, quantum mechanics- concepts of mysterious unpredictable underlying forces, instructions guiding matter- determining exactly how they would form great fusion reactors, producing complex elements specific to life.

Darwinism was a perfectly logical, intuitive extension of this classical view of nature. So I agree with you, I don't think life operates differently- suddenly reverting back to appeal to a superficial Victorian sensibility.

I think it merely continues as nature left off, according to result-specific guiding instructions at the quantum level, we even know that's where these 'random' mutations are taking place ultimately.

We can observe the physical apple, and the biological 'apple' falling not far from it's 'tree' - but in each case, extrapolating this superficial observation to account for all reality... is tempting but necessarily insufficient. Natural laws can not be written by.. those same laws..

I feel this quote is taken out of context. The paragraph simply states that they found fossils in complex evolutionary state. He even says "It is as though" like when he talks about intelligent design, that it simply appears that way. Could you please read the next few sentences?

Of course. Glad to be of service.

Of course he is not conceding to creationism, He goes on to give his various speculations on why this observation might exist without contradicting Darwinism. but we do not debate the observation itself. the Cambrian explosion was already known in Darwin's time, and has become ever better defined as a real phenomena rather than a mere artifact of an incomplete record

 

[Animore]

Well now you touch on a very interesting point, in my favor I would argue!

Meh. You accepted that the universe runs on its own with its own laws, as well as nature, and that something could come from nothing. Accepting that these can happen isn't really putting these things in your favor.

150 years ago when Darwinism was formulated, We still viewed the cosmos as we do evolution now. A handful of simple classical 'immutable' laws, plus lots of time, space, and random bumping around, was sufficient to produce all the wonders of the physical world. Long before subatomic physics, quantum mechanics- concepts of mysterious unpredictable underlying forces, instructions guiding matter- determining exactly how they would form great fusion reactors, producing complex elements specific to life.

Please, whatever the hell you do, do NOT make the irreducible complex argument.

"A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

For space/the universe:
The way we classify things is not the universe, and we should not misinterpret the fact that we label things for the universe as a design of some sort. To the alien, our galaxy could look like a pile of bricks.

For nature;
It is a bad argument to say that the animal kingdom and nature is so complex. Natural selection gives the illusion that it is designed. It's how it works.

Of course he is not conceding to creationism, He goes on to give his various speculations on why this observation might exist without contradicting Darwinism. but we do not debate the observation itself. the Cambrian explosion was already known in Darwin's time, and has become ever better defined as a real phenomena rather than a mere artifact of an incomplete record

Then I don't see your reason for referencing this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Meh. You accepted that the universe runs on its own with its own laws, as well as nature, and that something could come from nothing. Accepting that these can happen isn't really putting these things in your favor.

in the sense that this forum software 'runs on it's own laws' but it didn't write itself- and the superficial functionality of it we see, is, by necessity, not the explanation for it's own existence.

I don't think something comes from nothing, I'm not sure anything can exist without intent, purpose, design to make it so

Please, whatever the hell you do, do NOT make the irreducible complex argument.

"A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

For space/the universe:
The way we classify things is not the universe, and we should not misinterpret the fact that we label things for the universe as a design of some sort. To the alien, our galaxy could look like a pile of bricks.

For nature;
It is a bad argument to say that the animal kingdom and nature is so complex. Natural selection gives the illusion that it is designed. It's how it works.

You misunderstood my point, which is my fault for not making it clearly enough, it's not an irreducible complexity in design argument- though of course that is also an argument- one which many atheists use to propose a multiverse to account for it..

The classical laws of physics were too simple to account for physical reality

So too with classical evolution, which still reflects exactly the same superficial perspective, it survives by virtue of academic affection, as did classical physics, for a time..

Remember that classical physics was far more directly observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, i.e. scientific than evolution.
Moving beyond evolution would not be the most revolutionary breakthrough in the history of science. Most people are skeptical of it already

Then I don't see your reason for referencing this.

in response to this

It is not a poof oh look, complex organism! No, no no.

Because this is precisely what the fossil record does show, and if you disagree you'd have to take it up with Dawkins as well as practically every scientist in the field on either side

Of course we can speculate to our hearts content- on why the fossil record might be 'misleading' in this regard. But we can also take the scientific evidence at face value; the predictions of creationism were borne out, the gaps, jumps, are real-
Either way Darwin's predictions of smooth steady progressions vital to the theory (by his own standards) failed to materialize.

It doesn't mean evolution is impossible, it just means it's not validated scientifically.

So what, other than dogma, would stop us looking beyond for better explanations at this point?

 

[Milton Platt]

There is no 'burden of proof', for theism. There can be contextual arguments either for or against a persons position /atheism, theism.

Atheism, and theism, are adherences, not necessarily claims of 'proof' of anything

Why wouldn't there be a burden of proof for theism? If someone says there is a god, he has a burden of proof to demonstrate that what he is saying is true, if he is to be believed, does he not? Otherwise, there is no reason to suppose his assertions are correct.
Conversely, is someone simply says they reject the assertion because they do not see sufficient evidence to support t, there is no burden of proof associated. They are not saying there are no gods, they are saying that it has not been demonstrated that this assertion is true.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why wouldn't there be a burden of proof for theism? If someone says there is a god, he has a burden of proof to demonstrate that what he is saying is true, if he is to be believed, does he not? Otherwise, there is no reason to suppose his assertions are correct.
Conversely, is someone simply says they reject the assertion because they do not see sufficient evidence to support t, there is no burden of proof associated. They are not saying there are no gods, they are saying that it has not been demonstrated that this assertion is true.

That isn't the oppositional to a claim of theism, however. the claim of theism is merely a position until contextually argued. This requires the 'explicit atheism' position, in an argument. You can't use a non-claim against a claim.
If you did, you would not be inferring any burden of proof.
Basically, neither position has a burden of proof unless contextually argued.