Why is there a correlation between understanding evolution and accepting it as valid science?

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution is a monster. It attracts so many excellent scientists to study it. Yet there are tons of questions remain to be answered. In the field of science, it is not so bad. But for a great many of people who are not in the field of sciences, the consequence is disastrous. Evolution is the best deceiving scam I can ever see.

I think it qualifies as 'strong delusion'.

 

[pitabread]

It's difficult to correlate the finished product with the theoretical process, when you think about it.

Not really. This is where understanding how recursive processes work helps.

 

[jacknife]

Of the evolutionary biologists, Richard Dawkins is the big one. Jerry Coyne is another. Those are the only two names that spring to mind at the moment, though I don't know any evolutionary biologist who is as large a name as Dawkins. (Daniel Dennett, while not a biologist himself, could count as another who likes to use evolutionary theory to argue for atheistic conclusions.)

In physics, things get wild as well. Laurence Krauss is the most radical anti-theistic polemicist I can think of, but Sean Carroll tends in a similar direction. Then there are figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and the late Stephen Hawking who are not quite anti-theists but should probably be a bit more cautious about mixing science and anti-religion in the public sphere.

I would definitely consider Dawkins an anti-theist rather than an atheist. His agenda is very obvious, since he's basically built a career out of it.

I always felt his message was more anti-creationist or fundementalist rather then straight up antithestic. I remember him talking about cultural aspects of christanity he enjoyed for example. But im also not 100% up to date with his views tbh.

 

[Speedwell]

I always felt his message was more anti-creationist or fundementalist rather then straight up antithestic. I remember him talking about cultural aspects of christanity he enjoyed for example. But im also not 100% up to date with his views tbh.

I have had that impression as well. Dawkins talks trash about theists, but if you look at what he says about them, most of it only applies to fundamentalist Evangelicals.

 

[durangodawood]

Biological evolution by natural selection makes sooo much sense once you grasp the basics.

Its also an incredibly powerful concept.

 

[durangodawood]

....Evolution is the best deceiving scam I can ever see.

Literally the only people who think that are those desperately trying to protect a personal theological commitment that's threatened by the science of biological evolution.

 

[jacknife]

Literally the only people who think that are those desperately trying to protect a personal theological commitment that's threatened by the science of biological evolution.

I always like how its called a scam, like some scientist sequencing dna is gonna be drving around in a rolls royce twirling his mustace.

 

[juvenissun]

Literally the only people who think that are those desperately trying to protect a personal theological commitment that's threatened by the science of biological evolution.

For those who are deceived, they are not trying to protect anything.
For those who are not deceived, there is no need to protect anything.
For those who are not sure about what evolution is, I attack it to show them the deception.

If you are not so faithful to evolution yet, do you want to hear some my logic/scientific attacks to it?

 

[46AND2]

Er, that's not really a big question is it? We already know how it's possible.

Not just possible...inevitable.

 

[Speedwell]

If you are not so faithful to evolution yet, do you want to hear some my logic/scientific attacks to it?

Go for it, but so far all we've seen from you is attacks on straw men.

 

[Silmarien]

Of all the names mentioned so far only one, Dawkins is a biologist. The rest are an assortment of other disciplines.

Coyne and Myers are biologists, and you can find plenty of anti-theistic crusaders in cognitive science who rely upon arguments from evolutionary theory as well. There's definitely a pattern here.

Any atheist is going to lean towards materialism - it goes with the territory. There are also many Christian biologists who accept evolution as a reasonable proposition. Are they also inherently atheistic or materialistic?

I never said that evolution was inherently atheistic or materialist. I'm a theistic evolutionist. I said that certain atheistic polemicists tend to argue that evolution entails materialism and atheism. Unfortunately, they're also some of the biggest names out there.

In general terms the current crop of new atheists, while vocal, are more concerned about the teaching of ID/Creationism in schools, masquerading as science, as are the Christian scientists who accept evolutionary theory.

I do not think this is true. If the New Atheists were more interested in advocating for evolution than in advocating against religion, they would not be writing books linking the two things together. They, alongside the Creationists, are actively involved in perpetuating the idea that religion and evolution (and science more broadly) cannot coexist.

It's problematic that a fundamentalist telling his congregation that evolution is inherently opposed to Christianity does not have to make up facts--all he has to do is lean on the work that some of the anti-theistic popularizers of science have already provided.

Visit Biologos or the Smithsonian and you'll find them also trying to combat the ignorance inherent in ID/Creationism.

Yes, they are. But they're not anti-theists.

To suggest that this issue is owned by materialistic atheists is patently ridiculous.

Nobody suggested that. Or at least I didn't. I don't know what else has been said in this thread.

 

[Silmarien]

Ken Miller is a rather famous one.
Francis Collins (who lead the human genome project) is another.

But both are devout christians.

I've never heard of Ken Miller before. Francis Collins, yes, though I don't think he has quite the same profile that someone like Dawkins has.

I could give you a list of Catholic scientists (not including Ken Miller, apparently ), but again, none of them are really household names in the same way.

Why would they need to be cautious? They are just responding to creationist claims butting into their scientific work.

Well, no. When a scientist makes claims about how favorable or hostile the modern state of science is to religion, they are stepping outside of their field and commenting on theology instead. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if a scientist is simultaneously trying to be a popularizer for science and attacking religious beliefs, they should not turn around and act confused if people take them at their word and reject science as incompatible with religion.

If their goal is to promote atheism rather than science, then they don't have to be cautious about this, but if they hope to improve trust in science, it's a problem they ought to keep in mind.

So what?

Do you think Dawkins' opinions on religion, or indeed anyone's opinions, have any kind of relevancy to the science of biology?

I don't. But the topic of this thread revolves around why people fail to accept evolution, and I think this is a factor.

I am bemused that multiple atheists here have taken me for a raving Creationist for criticizing Dawkins, though.

 

[Silmarien]

I always felt his message was more anti-creationist or fundementalist rather then straight up antithestic. I remember him talking about cultural aspects of christanity he enjoyed for example. But im also not 100% up to date with his views tbh.

I think his cultural Anglicanism is a more recent thing, actually. I get the impression that he wised up eventually and realized that his hard anti-theistic stance was hurting the cause, so to speak.

He's definitely gone after way more than just fundamentalism and Creationism, though. There's a really substandard attempted takedown of Thomas Aquinas in The God Delusion as well.

 

[Shemjaza]

What is human?

"Human" isn't a ridgedly defined scientific term, but i'd assume, depending on context, that it would be one of two possibilities:
1) A member of the species Homo sapiens
2) A member of genus Homo

Incidentally, I've noticed that Creationists don't seem to have consistent definitions of human given their inability to agree which species or even individual populations of species count as human.

 

[jacknife]

I think his cultural Anglicanism is a more recent thing, actually. I get the impression that he wised up eventually and realized that his hard anti-theistic stance was hurting the cause, so to speak.

He's definitely gone after way more than just fundamentalism and Creationism, though. There's a really substandard attempted takedown of Thomas Aquinas in The God Delusion as well.

I think his cultural Anglicanism is a more recent thing, actually. I get the impression that he wised up eventually and realized that his hard anti-theistic stance was hurting the cause, so to speak.

He's definitely gone after way more than just fundamentalism and Creationism, though. There's a really substandard attempted takedown of Thomas Aquinas in The God Delusion as well.

Maybe i dont know enough about Thomas to say but do you thopink dawkings and the rest have enough of a influence on people to not accept scientific data? The average person has probably never heard of these people.

 

[Silmarien]

Maybe i dont know enough about Thomas to say but do you thopink dawkings and the rest have enough of a influence on people to not accept scientific data? The average person has probably never heard of these people.

No, I don't. I do think that atheists who push the science vs. religion narrative are for all intents and purposes allies of Christian fundamentalists who seek the same conflict, though. It's worth keeping in mind that the debate has been radicalized on both sides--you're not going to have an easy time arguing against the idea that science is part of an atheistic conspiracy to attack Christianity when there actually are people out there who really do fit that description.

On the other hand, some of the anti-intellectualism on the Christian side is so intense that there's not much you can say to it anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

"Human" isn't a ridgedly defined scientific term, but i'd assume, depending on context, that it would be one of two possibilities:
1) A member of the species Homo sapiens
2) A member of genus Homo

Incidentally, I've noticed that Creationists don't seem to have consistent definitions of human given their inability to agree which species or even individual populations of species count as human.

I, a creationist, define human according to properties given by God. For a living human: a life who can tell good from evil. For a dead human: those who are able to link to human-level intelligence.

This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.

 

[jacknife]

I, a creationist, define human according to properties given by God. For a living human: a life who can tell good from evil. For a dead human: those who are able to link to human-level intelligence.

This definition is much better, more clear and more useful than those used by evolutionist.

I know living people who cant tell the diffrence between good and evil or any sort of philosphical musing there of. Are they not human?

 

[juvenissun]

I know living people who cant tell the diffrence between good and evil or any sort of philosphical musing there of. Are they not human?

If one really can not, then it is not a human.

 

[jacknife]

If one really can not, then it is not a human.

So like a person with severe mental issues or dementai arnt human??