2005 Top Award for Evolution -AAAS

[LogicChristian]

If the mutations are not random, then they must be directed by intelligence. If there is another alternative, please reveal it to me.

Why must they be directed by intelligence? Haven't you ever heard of natural selection?

 

[Beastt]

If the mutations are not random, then they must be directed by intelligence. If there is another alternative, please reveal it to me.

Certainly there is another alternative, Sam. Take a bucket of mixed gravel, sand and soil. Pour it into 20-feet of standing water and examine the soil at the bottom. You'll find it rather neatly sorted by size and weight. Is the gravity which pulls the sediments to the bottom displaying intelligence? Is the viscosity of the water displaying intelligence? Or do we simply have two factors, working in unison to sort the various particles?

What most people see as intelligence in inanimate natural objects is simply the interaction of more than one natural force upon an object or even an organism. The cracked mud across a dried lake bed is every bit as intricate and complex as the vein pattern in a leaf. In fact, they look very much alike in many ways. But the cracked mud isn't caused by the intricate intelligence of the lake bed. It's a simple interaction between the moisure in the mud and the accelerated evaporation of the moisture on the upper level compared to the more abundant moisture in the lower level, pitted against the tendency for the mud to stick together. No intelligence, just natural forces working in unison. yet it peels in layers, cracks into intricate polygon shapes and each takes on a convex curvature as though carefully designed.

 

[HairlessSimian]

Because your "answering" has no persuasive effect.

Then why did you not reply back?
If I take the time to craft what I think is a persuasive answer and I get no reply, I come to believe you understand.
But in fact you don't and you prefer not to reply. I've seen the same behaviour by Edmond and a number of other obstinate folks: when faced with a conflicting post, abandon the thread and start another on virtually the same subject.

 

[SamCJ]

Gidday SamCJ,


I am still having some trouble understanding the exact nature of some of your questions, so my apologies. I shall write this in hope that I am answering you.



But SamCJ, science is not, and never was, just restricted to this kind of thing i.e. making rockets, understanding how cars work in order to repair them. Scientists/humans also want to know how the cars came to be.

With respect to all things we see in nature, we wish to know origins as much as we wish to know processes as much as we wish to know structures. Thus, with respect to atoms, we wish to know what they look like, that is their structure; we wish to know how they are held together; and we wish to know how they originate. With respect to rain, we wish to know what rain is and what it looks like; we wish to know what it is that allows it to exist within a cloud and then fall from the cloud; and we wish to know where it comes from in the first place.



I am still struggling to understand exactly what you are asking here. Let me paraphrase you to see if I understand you:-

What you seem to be asking is “If I can learn how a car works, and use this knowledge to fix a car, then why cannot I learn how a cell works to use this knowledge to explain how a cell changes”?

Not close. I suspect AAAS gave these awards primarily to influence public opinion in favor of evolution theory. IMO evolution theory to the extent it advocates randomness and denies the possibilty of intelligent design does not deserve any credit for the biologists' findings, particularly the promising findings about the chimps' genome. It would have been wise for biologists to understand the chimp genome, whether the differences between man and chimp were created randomly or by intelligence.

I am not arguing against scientists looking into where we came from. I want to encourage that search. I a simply asking how the assumed randomness of the differences contributed to the biologists genome analysis? I think the answer is the randomness was absolutely irrelevant to the biologists analysis, but that is contrary to the AAAS presentation.

At this point I do not see how your analogy is reasonable at all.

Intelligence can easily explain how cells change (evolve). But intelligence can easily explain why rain falls, how rain originates, what rain really is. And intelligence can easily explain how atoms are held together, how they came to be etc.

That is, intelligence can explain anything and everything.

However, and this is one reason why Judge Jones weighed in against ID - the intelligence is untestable. Importantly, Jones said that he cannot argue that ID is not true. However, he said that, as it currently stands, ID is totally untestable. And he agreed that notions of variation, random mutation and non-random mutation are all scientifically testable. That is, the processes behind evolution are observable.

Now it just could be that we are mistaken, that random mutation and non-random mutation have nothing to do with changes (evolution?) in animals across time. It just could be that random and non-random chemical and physical processes have nothing to do with the origin of rain. It could be that physical forces have nothing to do with the reason why atoms hold together or how they originate.

It could be that an intelligence (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent) actually holds all atoms together for all time, using his/her direct action. Maybe rain forms because the supernatural intelligence actually pulls water molecules from the sea, rivers and lakes and, with his/her supernatural fingers, joins them together to make clouds. Then when it comes time to rain, he/she pushes the drops from the clouds. It could be that this supernatural entity, on deciding to create a new animal, uses an animal already existing and, with his/her fingers pulls a molecule or two of DNA apart and resets them so that a new animal will later form when those DNA molecules are expressed.

However, if you wish to go down this path and have your idea accepted then you must:-

a) demonstrate that this supernatural entity exists and
b) show that the entity actually behaves in the manner you believe.

On the other hand, if you wish to go down the random path and have your idea accepted then you do NOT have to:

a) demonstrate that there was an inherent imperfection that interfered with the normal replication process, and
b) show that he imperfection is capable of interference in this manner,
because 90% of the evolutionists community is athiestic (judging by the population of this site) and therefore readily accept the assumption with scant evidence to support it.

There is a double standard. Here is a quotation I found in TalkOrigins which seems to me to acknowledge that there is little on either side of the argument at present.

"Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence - i.e. a complete list of those mutations - that some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT. In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is "obliged" to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to "proof." Although Spetner denies that he is "obliged to prove a non-existence" of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim. Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations. I believe that Spetner would agree with this"

While this quote is about past mutations, new ones cannot be observed in process either, evolutionists here have told me.

Science does not accept ID because, despite what ID claims, neither a) nor b) have occurred. As Jones noted, ID does not argue positively for itself. It argues negatively against evolution. That is, ID says to evolution “You cannot explain this, therefore ID did it.”

As Jones noted – such is not sound science.

But that is exactly what evolutionists do. "We cannot observe the mutation in process, so we assume it is a result of some unknown imperfection in the mechanism that randomly occurs in rare instances of replication."

Against this, we do know that our cells contain an enormous amount of genetic diversity. We do know the causes of this diversity. These are observations that scientists make on a daily basis. We do know that this diversity gives rise to variations amongst animals. This too can be observed. We are beginning to observe that this diversity can also give rise to new species. We also observe changes in animal life both across space and through time. We would like to explain how this came about.

Darwin and Wallace offered a solution – in part. Mendel offered a solution in part. The combination of Darwin’s and Mendel’s ideas (neo_Darwinism) is considered by most scientists to be the best explanation for those patterns we really do see in living organisms and extinct ones.

Neo_Darwinism was accepted by Jones to be scientific, because like all other science, it was a theory that could be tested. Various parts of the theory could be tested, individually.

If you read the scientific literature, journals are full of tests for conventional evolutionary ideas. Duplication of genes and chromosomes has been observed. It is hypothesized that such could be important in evolution because one gene would function normally while the other gene evolves towards a new function. This hypothesis is being tested by looking to see if remnants of old genes can be found in the genome of animals. And it would appear that structures which look like old genes can be found. So the hypothesis gains credibility.

Until very recently, and I mean in the past year, the exact molecular mechanism for speciation was unknown. Speciation is very important for evolution. Tests on fruit-flies have been able to demonstrate one mechanism for speciation – a change in the allele of one gene in a species which causes death in the child males, if the parent ties to back breed with its sibling species.

Tests and experiments such as these are being done daily and reported daily. ID, that is, the postulate of an intelligence that does all of this, does no similar testing simply because the notion of the ID has not been defined in such a manner that it can be tested.

In science, you explain things by using that which you know about and can know about. You do not explain things by using that which you do not know about. You do not explain things by using ideas which are completely speculative. You do not do so with respect to the rain and atoms. You do not do so with respect to life.

If you wish to do so with respect to life, then why do you not do so with respect to rain and atoms?

What I am asking, is why are you not consistent in your use of methodological framework?

I do not think rain and gravity and other such non-living things are claimed by scientists to be random. Even if they were, it would not matter much. Life and particularly mankind are different. If man is an accident of nature or an accident of God, God does not care what happens to us. Life becomes meaningless. Perhaps that is the reality, but it is hard to swallow. I think that Dembski and Behe have used and promise to use further scientific methods to determine with greater certainty whether man is a mistake or intended. Jones made a pretty good argument, and I am not presently prepared to argue with it. I think "breathtakingly inane" is over the top and betrays an ingrained prejudice, so I am anxious to see what Dembski and Behe have to say about it. As Dembski has said: we have a way to go, or something like that. If so, I hope he keeps trying because I believe the reaction of athiestic evolutionists against him is irrationally paranoid, despite the wild talk about the wedge. While I argue that randomness is unproven, I also do not believe intelligent design is proven or even more probable at this point. I would never favor the cessation of the search for physical mechanisms, porbably ever. Science has been very good at finding them so far and I want the search to continue. I just hope it remains open to the possibility of intelligent design if that where the evidence points, even if it does offend the religious beliefs of athiestic scientist. This entire paragraph is off-topic, but because you patiently explained your position, I thought you might be interested.

And by the word “speculative” I am not meaning “wrong” or “untrue” or “non existent”. I mean that you just cannot say one way or the other. You have no evidence, one way or the other. This is why Jones wrote that he was not saying that ID was not true. What he was saying is that ID is like “life on Mars”. Maybe, maybe not. We just do not know.

However, with respect to life on Mars, we can test the idea. Even now, with out looking at Mars closely enough, we can bring observations to bear to intelligently discuss the likelihood of life and to design equipment to test the idea out. So life on Mars is, ultimately, very different to ID.

We cannot observe a mutation in process so the assumed a cause, an imperfection in the mechanism or some non-directed physical interference with the normal mechanism, is not testable. Others have cited circumstantial evidence indicating probable randomness rather than intelligence, but I think the issue is still wide open. Dembski and Behe methods indicate intelligence. Their methods probably need further work, but are worthy of pursuit. I fully understand the easy confusion of intelligence from random causes, but I think smart people can come up with methods of eliminating the confusion.

It is here that I also have some trouble understanding your question:-

SamCJ:- … what role did knowledge of the mutations being random as opposed to intelligent play in the study of the chimpanzee's genome?

It depends on what you mean by “study”.

If by study you mean “sequencing the genome”, then probably random mutations vs intelligence played no role.

That is what I suspected. Consequently, the suggestion by AAAS that they biologists work somehow enhances randomness over ID is misleading.

If by study you mean “explain why the chimp genome is so much like ours, yet different nevertheless” then random mutations vs intelligence played a big role in answering this question. See above for why this is so and why Jones himself came down so heavily in favor of the mainstream and was so damning of the IDers.


So when you write:-

SamCJ:- it seems to me that the chimps genome could have just as well been studied by the biologist even if he believed erroneously that the differences between chimps and humans were a result of intelligent design.

then of course you are correct – depending on the kind of study being done.

However, as I said above SamCJ, scientists want to study genomes in more ways that just see what they look like. Scientists also wish to determine how they how they work and how they originated. It is so with cars. We don’t just study cars for the sake of repairing them. Ask any car enthusiast who is also interested in history. How and why the car originated is just as much a valid study as is how the car works in case I should have to fix it.

I am very much in favor of studying origins and using the scientic method to do so, with one qualification: i.e., I do not want the definition of "scientific" to exclude the possibility of intelligent causes to mutations if valid evidence suggests it.

But that is not what my OP is about. My OP is designed to show the misleading nature of the AAAS awards.

Hopefully my long essay has not lost you even more.

Some, but thanks.

 

[SamCJ]

Why must they be directed by intelligence? Haven't you ever heard of natural selection?

I have never heard of a scientist claiming that mutations are created by natural selection. NS simplly determines which mutations survive.

 

[SamCJ]

Then why did you not reply back?
If I take the time to craft what I think is a persuasive answer and I get no reply, I come to believe you understand.
But in fact you don't and you prefer not to reply. I've seen the same behaviour by Edmond and a number of other obstinate folks: when faced with a conflicting post, abandon the thread and start another on virtually the same subject.

Your last post in our communication probably deserved a reply. It was largely a lack of time, the contentiousness of our dispute, and the number if points I would have needed to address that prevented me from doing so. I also had a lengthy post from Loudmouth to the same effect as yours. Some of the points needed research on my part to cite to you. So much of our argument had become about who said what rather than the merits of the possibility of intelligent cause. It would have been too time consuming to reply intelligently. Neither of us seemed to be making any headway with the other, so the required time seemed fruitless.

Like Edmond probably, it is my opinion that you atheists gang up on all your opponents like a pack of wolves to bury our views. It is tough to fend off all the vicious bites coming from all directions. Your last reply probably does not belong in that category however. I apologize if you are offended by my non-response.

 

[HairlessSimian]

But that is exactly what evolutionists do. "We cannot observe the mutation in process, so we assume it is a result of some unknown imperfection in the mechanism that randomly occurs in rare instances of replication."

We cannot observe a mutation in process so the assumed a cause, an imperfection in the mechanism or some non-directed physical interference with the normal mechanism, is not testable.

Case in point. This position was addressed at least twice in previous threads. Here goes number three.
Thermodynamics and statistics. Both guarantee a certain frequency of replication mistakes. There is no need to invoke an "intelligent mutator" and there is no cause to think that there is an imperfection. An "intelligent mutator" would violate the laws of thermodynamics and statistics, and there is no evidence that those laws are violated.
If you can understand this, say so. If you can't, say what in particular.

Not close. I suspect AAAS gave these awards primarily to influence public opinion in favor of evolution theory. IMO evolution theory to the extent it advocates randomness and denies the possibilty of intelligent design does not deserve any credit for the biologists' findings, particularly the promising findings about the chimps' genome. It would have been wise for biologists to understand the chimp genome, whether the differences between man and chimp were created randomly or by intelligence.

The AAAS is a scientists' organization. It is not a public relations outfit. It is not a political outfit. I seriously doubt that the AAAS believes that it has much impact on the lay public.

I would never favor the cessation of the search for physical mechanisms, porbably ever. Science has been very good at finding them so far and I want the search to continue. I just hope it remains open to the possibility of intelligent design if that where the evidence points, even if it does offend the religious beliefs of athiestic scientist.

As has been pointed to you numerous times by others, there is good reason why science does not look for intelligent design. If "intelligent design" involves a supernatural being, then science cannot study it because it can only study physical phenomena, no matter how "open" we are to the possibility, and it is difficult to see what sort of evidence could point in that direction.

BTW, I think you will agree that atheists lack a belief in a god, so, by definition they have no religious beliefs. If you mean "tenaciously held ideas" instead of "religious beliefs", then, yes, almost everyone I know has "tenaciously held ideas", be they atheist or not, but religion is not just "tenaciously held ideas", as you well know.

 

[SamCJ]

Certainly there is another alternative, Sam. Take a bucket of mixed gravel, sand and soil. Pour it into 20-feet of standing water and examine the soil at the bottom. You'll find it rather neatly sorted by size and weight. Is the gravity which pulls the sediments to the bottom displaying intelligence? Is the viscosity of the water displaying intelligence? Or do we simply have two factors, working in unison to sort the various particles?

What most people see as intelligence in inanimate natural objects is simply the interaction of more than one natural force upon an object or even an organism. The cracked mud across a dried lake bed is every bit as intricate and complex as the vein pattern in a leaf. In fact, they look very much alike in many ways. But the cracked mud isn't caused by the intricate intelligence of the lake bed. It's a simple interaction between the moisure in the mud and the accelerated evaporation of the moisture on the upper level compared to the more abundant moisture in the lower level, pitted against the tendency for the mud to stick together. No intelligence, just natural forces working in unison. yet it peels in layers, cracks into intricate polygon shapes and each takes on a convex curvature as though carefully designed.

I do not agree that is another alternative. What you describe is imo random if we exclude the guy pouring the mixture into the water. I am assuming you did not mean to indicate he had an purpose in doing that. And I understand how confusing randomness can be in creating the appearance of intelligence. I think Dembski and some of you smart guys can figure out how to detect the difference between apparent intelligence created by randomness and real intelligence. My concern is that most of you smart guys consider the acknowledgement of a possibility of intelligent causes to be an attack on your firmly held faith that no God exists and you/they therefore refuse to look for it and you/they attack everyone and every piece of evidence that suggests it.

 

[five]

It's funny, there are like 3 or 4 of these guys in here..each of them have a couple of threads where they run their circular arguments indefinitely....You think we can get them working against eachother? Like dad and Edmond vs. SamCJ and john crawford?

 

[SamCJ]

I hope you aren't making the claim that your additions are biblical references. For one, "God helps those who help themselves," is a maxim from a Poor Richard's Almanac penned by Benjamin Franklin.

Only the first one. You did not answer the question.

 

[HairlessSimian]

My concern is that most of you smart guys consider the acknowledgement of a possibility of intelligent causes to be an attack on your firmly held faith that no God exists and you/they therefore refuse to look for it and you/they attack everyone and every piece of evidence that suggests it.

Hey. No one likes to be shown to be wrong, right?

Just what evidence is there, exactly? My understanding is that there is no direct evidence of any kind. If there is, what is it?

You see, SamCJ, although no scientist likes to be shown to be wrong, unassailable evidence contrary to a model (or theory) will not simply disappear if it's debated (or attacked). Attacking the evidence (or the person presenting it) will not quash its reality; the evidence will remain (or will be rediscovered) and will remain contrarian until the model (or theory) is altered to incorporate the new evidence. It is the quality of the evidence and its interpretation which are fruitfully debated; genuine but contrarian evidence will be like a thorn in the side until it's dealt with.

Even if no one looks for evidence of intelligent design (and people have), any real evidence of intelligent design will be stumbled upon (eventually). If it's genuine and repeatable, it will outlive the current model. The trouble is virtually no one really believes it's out there to be discovered, and I've heard no one devise a cogent proposal of how to look for it.

 

[Beastt]

I do not agree that is another alternative. What you describe is imo random if we exclude the guy pouring the mixture into the water.

Of course the example is intended to focus not upon how the mixture comes to be filtered and arranged by viscosity and gravity, but the fact that gravity and viscosity working together can produce a highly efficient system for arranging particles based on size and weight. For an intelligent human to do the same thing would require measurements of weight and volume for each particle, and a formula for calculating position based upon a product of the two.

How do you present such a scenario as random when the mixture goes into the water in a random fashion, but arrives at the bottom in a demonstratively arranged fashion. Randomness added to randomness does not create order. Clearly the arrangement of particles after being acted upon by gravity and viscosity is quite other than random. So we either have the gravity and viscosity showing intelligence, or we have shown that no intelligence is necessary for such ordering to occur.

I am assuming you did not mean to indicate he had an purpose in doing that. And I understand how confusing randomness can be in creating the appearance of intelligence. I think Dembski and some of you smart guys can figure out how to detect the difference between apparent intelligence created by randomness and real intelligence.

Purpose is completely independent of the issue. Purpose may exist or not, the outcome is the same. And the outcome is order provided to randomness, without intelligence.

My concern is that most of you smart guys consider the acknowledgement of a possibility of intelligent causes to be an attack on your firmly held faith that no God exists and you/they therefore refuse to look for it and you/they attack everyone and every piece of evidence that suggests it.

My belief that there is no God does not rely upon faith. Faith is belief independent of evidence and I base my belief upon the evidence. The Bible, said to be the word of God, is known to have been written by men. That much is not open to argument. Beyond that is the claim that these men, like many others, claimed that their writings were influenced by God. Yet they can offer nothing, not offered by others of the same claim to support their assertion. We find contradiction and error in the Bible which sharply contrasts the suggestion of a perfect entity. God is said to have provided all of creation -- the physical produced from purely non-physical. This is highly illogical. The history of the Christian religion shows it to have been a very intentionally designed belief, often based on older faiths and superstition. When physical items are interacted with, physical evidence remains behind. In all of man's closest examinations of the physical world, not one sign of God has ever emerged. These evidences are the reason that no atheist has any need of faith.

I have attacked nothing. You have suggested that no such examples could be produced and I have produced them. Whether or not you wish to see them is, of course, up to you and your sensibilities concerning the information.


Tell me; is the following pattern highly complex, or of a highly simple nature, relying upon recursive redundancy to produce the illusion of complexity?

Does it resemble something made by man, by an intelligence or by nature which may or may not be intelligence depending upon your point of view concerning the topic of the thread? Is it possible to create such an image using only two mathematical concepts, working in unison?

 

[HairlessSimian]

Tell me; is the following pattern highly complex, or of a highly simple nature, relying upon recursive redundancy to produce the illusion of complexity?

Does it resemble something made by man, by an intelligence or by nature which may or may not be intelligence depending upon your point of view concerning the topic of the thread? Is it possible to create such an image using only two mathematical concepts, working in unison?

Looks like a micelle or liposome.

 

[SamCJ]

Good. But it does sound like you are coming from a frightened creationist standpoint, rather than a neutral one.
.

I am not sure what I believe, but the Genesis account is way down the list of possibilities.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Of course the example is intended to focus not upon how the mixture comes to be filtered and arranged by viscosity and gravity, but the fact that gravity and viscosity working together can produce a highly efficient system for arranging particles based on size and weight. For an intelligent human to do the same thing would require measurements of weight and volume for each particle, and a formula for calculating position based upon a product of the two.

How do you present such a scenario as random when the mixture goes into the water in a random fashion, but arrives at the bottom in a demonstratively arranged fashion. Randomness added to randomness does not create order. Clearly the arrangement of particles after being acted upon by gravity and viscosity is quite other than random. So we either have the gravity and viscosity showing intelligence, or we have shown that no intelligence is necessary for such ordering to occur.


Purpose is completely independent of the issue. Purpose may exist or not, the outcome is the same. And the outcome is order provided to randomness, without intelligence.

Your example just doesn't work in terms of explaining origins of life because it is not analogous. No matter how many times we mix the "gravel" , "sand" and "water" of life we don't get a neatly separated or functioning system..a living organism. No one has shown so far that intelligence is not needed to form a living organism. And in your previous example, how do you know that an intelligence didn't set the parameters involved so such a scenario would occur?

 

[HairlessSimian]

And in your previous example, how do you know that an intelligence didn't set the parameters involved so such a scenario would occur?

Are you asking 'how do we know that god (did you have another intelligence in mind?) "didn't set the parameters involved" so that gravity and viscosity would exert their effects as depicted by Beastt'?

How would we know?

It's too easy to attribute what we don't understand to the workings of an untestable entity. Besides, it's not fruitful to look.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Are you asking 'how do we know that god (did you have another intelligence in mind?) "didn't set the parameters involved" so that gravity and viscosity would exert their effects as depicted by Beastt'?

How would we know?

It's too easy to attribute what we don't understand to the workings of an untestable entity. Besides, it's not fruitful to look.

I am just saying he said intelligence wasn't a requirement. It's a statment that can't be proven either way, but it is more provable in terms of life, if there is such a term as more provable

 

[SamCJ]

Case in point. This position was addressed at least twice in previous threads. Here goes number three.
Thermodynamics and statistics. Both guarantee a certain frequency of replication mistakes. There is no need to invoke an "intelligent mutator" and there is no cause to think that there is an imperfection. An "intelligent mutator" would violate the laws of thermodynamics and statistics, and there is no evidence that those laws are violated.
If you can understand this, say so. If you can't, say what in particular.

I do not understand your reliance on thermodynamics and statistics. Is this your own theory or is it found in a peer review journal that has received general acceptance among other atheistic evolutionists?

Loudmouth said there was an imperfection, and when I argued, I was jumped on by other atheists supporting him. Why did you fail to advise him of his error?

he AAAS is a scientists' organization. It is not a public relations outfit. It is not a political outfit. I seriously doubt that the AAAS believes that it has much impact on the lay public. .

I do not think you are really that naive. Did you count the number of newspapers in which it made the front page news?

As has been pointed to you numerous times by others, there is good reason why science does not look for intelligent design. If "intelligent design" involves a supernatural being, then science cannot study it because it can only study physical phenomena, no matter how "open" we are to the possibility, and it is difficult to see what sort of evidence could point in that direction. .

How do you know what science can do and cannot do? Have you never been surprised by the discoveriies of science? Perhaps my faith in science is misplaced. Many of my Born Again friends think so. But I do not believe you are the final authority on the abilities of science.

BTW, I think you will agree that atheists lack a belief in a god, so, by definition they have no religious beliefs. If you mean "tenaciously held ideas" instead of "religious beliefs", then, yes, almost everyone I know has "tenaciously held ideas", be they atheist or not, but religion is not just "tenaciously held ideas", as you well know.

This is an tenaciously held belief adopted on faith about the supernatural's non-existence. It waddles, quacks, swims and flies -- it's a duck! I have no qualms calling atheism a religion.

 

[five]

My only issue with religion is this: I can't, for the life of me, and I'm a thinker..it's all I do in everything I do.. I work to design applications so I get to use my imagination and imagine up crazy ideas..it's great...but I just can't imagine why anybody will settle for a stagnant answer like "Because God made it happen" or similar. How is that enough? Aren't you in the least bit curious to find out how it happened?

 

[five]

This is an tenaciously held belief adopted on faith about the supernatural's non-existence. It waddles, quacks, swims and flies -- it's a duck! I have no qualms calling atheism a religion.

But you are labelling everyone who doesn't agree with you an atheist. It's become a derogatory term for you.