"Darwinism"

[CP489]

I recieved this private message on another board:

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it. To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Now I'll stand by that.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

[Anacoluthon64]

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right.
Even if what one believes is demonstrably false and/or absurd? Some people end up in asylums for what they believe. Some end up in prisons for actions that were prompted by their beliefs.
But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.
Really? How then did atheism manage to historically precede Darwinism?
To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.
At least we can agree on this point - I am assuming here that "evolution" is used in the usual naïve religionists' mode to include "origin of life" rather than in its strict biological meaning. However, I doubt we'll agree on how to resolve the dilemma that it poses.
Now I'll stand by that.
No doubt the author will do just that, regardless of any logical or factual objections.
So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist.
Despite any number of evolutionists who are contented synagogue- or churchgoers, having found a modus vivendi by according scripture a less literal meaning. Are they effectively atheists too?

'Luthon64

[CFLarsen]

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

I don't believe in Evolution. I know.

Do You Believe in Evolution?, by Bob Riggins (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm)

[UndercoverElephant]

We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.


Absolute and complete nonsense. Humanism is based upon the idea that we should make existential moral decisions rather than anything religious. Secularism is based on the idea that state and science should be kept away from religion and vice versa and atheism is as old as the hills.


To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.


In other words, every word in the Bible is true.



So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist.

That is a non-sequitor. No further comment is needed.

[hammegk]

I don't believe in Evolution. I know.
Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.

[blutoski]

I recieved this private message on another board:

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

One problem with this claim is that humanism, secularism, and atheism all predated Darwin by (respectively) at least a century, at least thousands of years, and at least two centuries. It can't therefore be a foundational belief of these things that obviously came before it.

To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Maybe, but not according to the majority of Christians, or, for that matter, the majority of biologists who accept evolution and are also religious.

[CFLarsen]

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.

What is "hard atheism"?

[brodski]

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.
not at all, it is possible to believe in a supreme creator of life whilst accepting that the creator had no further hand in the shape which that life took.

[Admiral]

I'm a firm supporter of evolution and religious.

How can I believe in evolution? Because there's evidence in support of it. It happened, whatever the Bible said.

I think the general fallacy that this falls into is believing the converse.

It's a valid argument that if creationism is true, then God must exist. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to believe in creationism but not God (some God, Christian or not.)

However, it is not true that if God exists, creationism must be true. Therefore, there's no contradiction in believing in God, but not in Creationism.

The same is true of ID, though people that come up with that are just intellectually dishonest- it's not an attempt to harmonize science and religion, but an attempt to twist and distort science in favor of religion.

[Dr Adequate]

The SkepticWiki article Evolution is an atheist theory has zillions of links and quotes from clergy, theologians and Christian scientists saying the contrary.

Hey, someone remind me what religion Pope John Paul II was?

[blutoski]

The SkepticWiki article Evolution is an atheist theory has zillions of links and quotes from clergy, theologians and Christian scientists saying the contrary.

Hey, someone remind me what religion Pope John Paul II was?

Two problems, though:
1. Catholicism allows people to believe in evolution with certain provisions, and permits people to believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible. Unfortunately, this is why hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian, and it's OK by the church.

2. Christian biblical literalists are rare in the grand scheme of things, but they are very well represented in the US. I would say that the majority of American Christians believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible.

3. Furthermore, to many biblical literalists, the mere fact that other Christian denominations believe evolution and the bible are compatible does not cut any ice: this confirms their belief that these other Christian denominations are heretical.

[hammegk]

not at all, it is possible to believe in a supreme creator of life whilst accepting that the creator had no further hand in the shape which that life took.
Sure you can, if you a dualist of some type, or an idealist of some type. As a physicalist, that doesn't work sfaik.

And yes, we can split hairs all day defining atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic. Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.

[Admiral]

Sure you can, if you a dualist of some type, or an idealist of some type.

The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.

As a physicalist, that doesn't work sfaik.And yes, we can split hairs all day defining atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic. Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.

No- one can believe that the universe is goverened purely by physical law, but still had a creator. Look up the "clockmaker hypothesis":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis]

What's more, physicalist and evolutionist are VERY different things. For that matter, physicalist and skeptic are very different terms as well- I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.

[SuperCoolGuy]

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right. But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it. To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.

Now I'll stand by that.


This person:

a) cannot discern the differences between humanism, secularim and atheism
b) thinks Darwin predates these concepts
c) equates Darwinism with evolution

I'm guessing this person thinks along the lines of humanism = secularism = atheism = Darwinism = evolution = Satan. Hence, if it doesn't harmonize with the Bible, its the devil.

Satan is using Darwinism to spread unGodliness (atheism), making men think we don't need God (evolution), taking God out of schools and government (secularism), and tricking men into thinking men can make his own rules against God's rules (humanism).

This person is warning you, CP489, not to fall under Satan's spell.

Now I'll stand by that.

[Dr Adequate]

Christian biblical literalists are rare in the grand scheme of things, but they are very well represented in the US. I would say that the majority of American Christians believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible. And 10,000 clergy (http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm) say they're wrong.

Furthermore, to many biblical literalists, the mere fact that other Christian denominations believe evolution and the bible are compatible does not cut any ice: this confirms their belief that these other Christian denominations are heretical. Well, backing evolution we've got Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, Presbyterians ... can you, in fact, name one mainstream denomination which makes denying evolution a matter of faith?

[Admiral]

Whether a denomination backs a particular doctrine doesn't have that much effect on whether members of that denomination believe it. As evidence, there's a 2001 Gallup poll that shows 45% of Americans agreed with the statement "God created humans in pretty much their present form within the last 10,000 years or so." (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm) That's not intelligent design- that's hardcore creationism, and almost half of America believes it simply because they believe it's their duty to their religion. (Check out that poll, it's got a lot of interesting information about beliefs on evolution.)

[Jorghnassen]

Two problems, though:
1. Catholicism allows people to believe in evolution with certain provisions, and permits people to believe that evolution and the bible are incompatible. Unfortunately, this is why hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian, and it's OK by the church.

Evidence for this claim that hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian?

Be careful with hasty generalizations. Whichever sample of Catholics you have observed directly or indirectly is not a random sample from the catholic population...

[blutoski]

And 10,000 clergy (http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religion_science_collaboration.htm) say they're wrong.

Well, backing evolution we've got Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Moravians, Methodists, Presbyterians ... can you, in fact, name one mainstream denomination which makes denying evolution a matter of faith?

Well, I already explained that Catholicism does not say one way or another. Their decision at this point is that regardless of what you believe about evolution, you will not be excommunicated at this time. My observation is that in Canada and the US, probably the majority of anti-evolutionists are Catholics. Their faith doesn't tell them to believe in evolution - just that if they do, it's not a sin. Many prominent antievolutionists are Catholic clergy or laity.

For example, in this province, a Catholic highschool biology teacher sustained a lawsuit against the government (his employer) for over a decade, because he argued that teaching evolution in his own biology class violated his rights. (Well, that and sex ed - he had a lot of grievances, apparently.)

Anglicans are the same way, for obvious reasons.

I'm not completely versed in the others, except for Baptists, as my wife is one. Baptists do not have an authority (aside from the bible) - they are ministry-focused - so it is impossible to say what 'Baptists' should believe regarding evolution. My observation, though, is that they are mostly creationists. Something like 95%.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest association of Baptists in the US, and it is extremely hostile to evolution. The largest Baptist ministry in the world is led by Jerry Falwell, and joined the SBC after years of criticism, when it was completely taken over by biblical literalists a few years ago.

The other two largest ministries in the SBC are Billy Graham and Pat Roberston.

I'm really reluctant to call this organization "evolution-friendly".

[blutoski]

Evidence for this claim that hundreds of millions of Catholics believe that evolution is un-Christian?

Be careful with hasty generalizations. Whichever sample of Catholics you have observed directly or indirectly is not a random sample from the catholic population...

Possibly. I'll try to recover the stats. The source was a Vatican report, republished in the BC Catholic. I figure they'd be in the best place to say.

Something like 5% of Catholics globally accept evolution. This is not surprising, since probably only about 30% get any sort of education whatsoever, and considering that Catholics are disproportionately elderly. They grew up in a world where only maybe ten countries have had evolution on the gradeschool curriculum, and even then, only since the '60s.

[hammegk]

The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.
Why yes. Dualism.


No- one can believe that the universe is goverened purely by physical law, but still had a creator. Look up the "clockmaker hypothesis":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis
I fixed your url; no charge.

And more dualism nonsense.


What's more, physicalist and evolutionist are VERY different things. For that matter, physicalist and skeptic are very different terms as well...
Most prefer to believe that.


- I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.
Apparently not.

[Admiral]

My observation is that in Canada and the US, probably the majority of anti-evolutionists are Catholics.

Actually, according to a Gallup study:

belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest "among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and ... Catholics," and weakest among "those with the least education, older Americans ..., frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans."

That agrees with my impression- that Protestants are more anti-evolution than Catholics.

[blutoski]

Actually, according to a Gallup study:



That agrees with my impression- that Protestants are more anti-evolution than Catholics.


I think we're in agreement, and there was a misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that Catholics are more likely to be creationists: I was saying that in Canada and the US, the majority of creationists are Catholics. This is because the majority of religious people in these countries are Catholics. (Something like 70% of Canadians who are Christians are Catholic, in the US it's about 55%, last count)

So, the small percentage differences between denominations do not have much impact on the overall problem that materializes in a dioces when a bishop makes his opinion known.

Also: I have a feeling that your quotation is specifically in regards to the US. I think by 'West', they mean the Western US, not "The West". What I'm saying is that outside the US, Catholics would be as (un)educated as their peers, and most live in countries that don't have biology classes. It's not even a choice, since they haven't even heard of a creation/evolution controversy. It's all creation out there.


ETA example: http://www.cathnews.com/news/605/120.php

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not completely versed in the others, except for Baptists, as my wife is one. Baptists do not have an authority (aside from the bible) - they are ministry-focused - so it is impossible to say what 'Baptists' should believe regarding evolution. My observation, though, is that they are mostly creationists. Something like 95%.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest association of Baptists in the US, and it is extremely hostile to evolution. The largest Baptist ministry in the world is led by Jerry Falwell, and joined the SBC after years of criticism, when it was completely taken over by biblical literalists a few years ago.

The other two largest ministries in the SBC are Billy Graham and Pat Roberston.

I'm really reluctant to call this organization "evolution-friendly".Yes, but we have some Baptists, which makes it harder for other Baptists to play the "no true Christian" card.

[Mojo]

Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty.;)

[blutoski]

Yes, but we have some Baptists, which makes it harder for other Baptists to play the "no true Christian" card.

In the words of ALF: "You'd think..."

[I less than three logic]

I'm not sure why you introduced physicalism into this.
I believe his goal to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum. :D

[Upchurch]

I believe his goal to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum. :Dwith the intent of provoking a reaction. There is a term for this, as well.

[hammegk]

with the intent of provoking a reaction. There is a term for this, as well.
Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?

Got topic?

[hammegk]

I believe his goal is to systematically introduce it into every thread on this forum. :D
No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here. :)

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

[Upchurch]

Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?What personal attack?

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary article of faith for the great majority of posters here.Which has nothing to do with the topic. Do you "Got topic?"

[Dr Adequate]

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here. :)

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?

[Upchurch]

Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?
That isn't his purpose here, or so he says.

[hammegk]

Why are you unable to argue with the opinions that people actually express?
I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) makes argument at the level you seem to think appropriate irrelevant.

If I agree physicalism/atheism is the correct worldview there's usually nothing to argue about.


What personal attack?

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Do you "Got topic?"
A helluva lot more than you do .... an admin/troll/post-whore ... interesting, huh?

[drkitten]

I do.

This is another of hammegk's lies.

But what do you expect from a self-admitted troll and liar?

[Dr Adequate]

I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) ... Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?

[jj]

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here. :)

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

Could you be more specific? Other than reject the concept of tautological solipcism (i.e. the idea that we are all figments of Hammegk's (for instance) mind), what question of faith is required to CONCLUDE that beings external to the self exist. Once we establish that, then we can use those external beings to help confirm the nature of our surroundings, and so on.

[hammegk]

... personal attack deleted ... Perception is the closest to reality we'll ever get. That's true. And you are of course free to provide your opinion of me.

Feel better now? :)


Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?
Point out the lie, please. You cannot.

[Dr Adequate]

Point out the lie, please. The lie would be the false statement you made which I just pointed out. As follows:

I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) ...Why are you lying to me about my opinions instead of debating my actual opinions?

You cannot.It's pathetic that you should pretend that I cannot do something which I did in my last post.

[Upchurch]

hammegk, you've derailed the thread nicely.

Based on the accusations you've made against me elsewhere, I can only assume that you did this because you feel you cannot argue the actual topic and are, thus, trying to shift it to a different target. Well done.

[drkitten]

Could you be more specific? Other than reject the concept of tautological solipcism (i.e. the idea that we are all figments of Hammegk's (for instance) mind), what question of faith is required to CONCLUDE that beings external to the self exist. Once we establish that, then we can use those external beings to help confirm the nature of our surroundings, and so on.

No, don't. This is a deliberate attempt by hammegk to shift the discussion away from something that might be useful, and as usual, he's resorting to lies, misrepresentation, and fraud.

Let's instead ignore him for the lying troll that he has stated himself to be -- and return to the thread itself and whether there's a relationship between "Darwinism" and atheism and the rest of the Homeric catalog of social ills.

[I less than three logic]

Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”. I assume we’re taking it to mean the evolution of living creatures through the course of natural selection. However, some people seem to attach so many other ideas to the term, including concepts that have little to do with evolution, or even biology, such as the “big bang” theory. So it may be good practice to define exactly what context we intend to interpret from this term.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's instead ignore him for the lying troll that he has stated himself to be -- and return to the thread itself and whether there's a relationship between "Darwinism" and atheism and the rest of the Homeric catalog of social ills. The Trojan War only lasted ten years.

If Homer could have seen what Eris can do when she really sets her mind to it, he'd have handed in his stylus and taken up chicken farming.

[Upchurch]

Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”. I assume we’re taking it to mean the evolution of living creatures through the course of natural selection. However, some people seem to attach so many other ideas to the term, including concepts that have little to do with evolution, or even biology, such as the “big bang” theory. So it may be good practice to define exactly what context we intend to interpret from this term.
well, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism) was of no help.

[drkitten]

Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”.

I suspect it's being used (incorrectly) as shorthand for methodological naturalism in general, which some idiots cannot distinguish from ontological naturalism.

Obviously "Darwinism" in any sense remotely associated with Darwin himself cannot be "the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it," since atheism was well-established long before Darwin himself was even born. Darwin was born in 1809. Voltaire was a famous atheist who died in 1778, Benjamin Franklin a famous atheist who died in 1790. Gallileo, Napoleon Bonaparte, Denis Diderot,.... the list goes on and on. Similarly, I can trace "humanism" back to the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam without much effort.

Even "secularism" dates to well before Darwin; the phrase "separation of church and state" dates back to the writings of Jefferson, and the equivalent French phrase "laïcité" to the French Revolution.

I suspect that the problem can be traced back at least to the famous quotation "I had no need of that hypothesis." If you accept that an explanation for some phenomenon can be offered that does not include God, then the case for God is thereby weakened. But Darwin is in the relatively unique position of offering a hypothesis-free explanation of one of the areas that has been a favorite of undereducated clergy (and laity) for a long time as an illustration of the necessity of God.

[hammegk]

There were a couple of on-topic thoughts amid all that whining & caterwauling crap:

.. it may be good practice to define exactly what context we intend to interpret from this term.
Indeed. And my aim is to point out -- in this thread -- the underlying problem; Physicalists who are logical are atheists, and that is a logically coherent and defensible position. Various flavors of idealism are also logically defensible ( I prefer objective idealism). Since idealism at least to me at best can say it is unknown if god exists, the remainder of the position is as a ~Physicalist who does not categorically deny god.

drk has mentioned the 'epsilon' problem, and I continue to suggest that one's interpretation of the class of reality that is addressed by epsilon has two valid choices; for physicalists, atheism (or we could say, just more physical stuff); for ~physicalists, ~atheism. Any other choice for a physicalist is dualism of some sort.


we can use those external beings to help confirm the nature of our surroundings, and so on.
Your choice of physicalist vs ~ physicalist defines this nature apriori.

[TonyL]

This is because the majority of religious people in these countries are Catholics. (Something like 70% of Canadians who are Christians are Catholic, in the US it's about 55%, last count)

Do you have a cite for that? Last I heard Catholics were still a minority in the US, somewhere around 25 % of the population.

[I less than three logic]

Do you have a cite for that? Last I heard Catholics were still a minority in the US, somewhere around 25 % of the population.
25% of the US total population, or 25% of the US Christian population? I think you two may be talking about the same thing with different numbers. Catholic could make up 55% of the Christian population and still only be 25% of the total population.

I don’t know the exact numbers, just stating this is possible.

[Upchurch]

Indeed. And my aim is to point out -- in this thread -- the underlying problem; Physicalists who are logical are atheists, and that is a logically coherent and defensible position.So, what's the problem?

[Ryokan]

Obviously "Darwinism" in any sense remotely associated with Darwin himself cannot be "the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it," since atheism was well-established long before Darwin himself was even born.

Using the Pali canon, the oldest Buddhist scriptures, it's hard to say wether Gautama Buddha was an agnostic, an atheist or a theist. The evidence points to him being agnostic, since he sometimes said 'if there are gods, then...' (on the very rare occasions when the subject came up). He does invoke the names of some gods at times, though, but wether he believed in those gods or just used them as symbols are up for debate.

However, Gautama Buddha does meet, and debate with, quite a few atheists in the Pali canon, so we know there were atheists around at that time.

So atheism certainly predates Darwin.

[TonyL]

Do you have a cite for that? Last I heard Catholics were still a minority in the US, somewhere around 25 % of the population.

Well, I checked wikipedia. Based on 2001 census numbers, 79.8% identify as christians, 25.9 % identify as Catholics, meaning that about 32.4 % of US christians claim to be Catholic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

[hammegk]

So, what's the problem?
Nothing from my viewpoint.

Per The Op "So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.".
I am; it's true. Either that, or you don't know what you are. ;)

[chriswl]

I think the theory of evolution, if properly understood, is pretty much incompatible with theism.

Catholicism doesn't endorse the ToE - it endorses its own bowdlerised version of it which claims that natural processes are inadequate, in themselves, to fully explain the natural world and the guiding hand of God is required. The real ToE is a naturalistic theory that has no place for supernatural entities. If a scientific theory has a god-shaped gap in it's mechanism then it is just not a properly formulated theory.

Now, one can believe that God set the conditions for evolution to happen and then just sat back and watched while it took a random walk (complete with dead ends and mass extinctions) through biological complexity space and eventually, by chance, ended up with us. But does any established religion actually advocate this?

It would be an odd way for a "creator" to behave when he could just create a world exactly the way he wanted it, in one go.

[Upchurch]

Nothing from my viewpoint.
So, the underlying problem that it is your aim in this thread to point out is ...that there is no problem. :D

Thanks for your input, hammegk.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Nothing from my viewpoint.

Per The Op "So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.".
I am; it's true. Either that, or you don't know what you are. ;)

Wait. So if I do believe in God, yet I also believe in evolution, then I must be an atheist and not realize it?
And if so, am I hard atheist, soft atheist, crunchy atheist . . .?

[Upchurch]

Wait. So if I do believe in God, yet I also believe in evolution, then I must be an atheist and not realize it?
And if so, am I hard atheist, soft atheist, crunchy atheist . . .?
hammegk appears to be saying that you are a hard atheist or else you are simply irrational. The crunchy part is up to you.

[hammegk]

hammegk appears to be saying that you are a hard atheist or else you are simply irrational.
Why Uppie; I can actually agree with that statement! Well, in the sense that 'irrational = illogical'. Maybe you ought to change it.

Or maybe you don't understand what you said? ;)

[Admiral]

I think the theory of evolution, if properly understood, is pretty much incompatible with theism.

Catholicism doesn't endorse the ToE - it endorses its own bowdlerised version of it which claims that natural processes are inadequate, in themselves, to fully explain the natural world and the guiding hand of God is required. The real ToE is a naturalistic theory that has no place for supernatural entities. If a scientific theory has a god-shaped gap in it's mechanism then it is just not a properly formulated theory.

Now, one can believe that God set the conditions for evolution to happen and then just sat back and watched while it took a random walk (complete with dead ends and mass extinctions) through biological complexity space and eventually, by chance, ended up with us. But does any established religion actually advocate this?

There is deism- it's not exactly an established religion, but it was once a popular philosophy based on the idea that God created the Universe, but then has had no influence on it since.

And unlike hammy thinks, deism and dualism are NOT the same thing. Nor are physicalism and skepticism the same- and yet he accuses most of the forum of "calling themselves physicalists."

Conclusion- Don't give any regard whatsoever to any philosophical terms that hammy uses. They exist only as their own entities without any relation to anything outside of hammy's mind.

[Upchurch]

Or maybe you don't understand what you said? ;)Or maybe you just aren't as complex as you like to think?

Who knows?*


* I've got a pretty strong idea.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.

Unless God is physical.

Go ahead, rip me to shreds.

[Mojo]

(i.e. the idea that we are all figments of Hammegk's (for instance) mind)I don't think I could live anywhere that small.

[hammegk]

Or maybe you just aren't as complex as you like to think?

Who knows?*


* I've got a pretty strong idea.
Good for you. Please advise how complex I think I am. I do know how complex I think you are anyway.

As to the swabbie who gave himself a promotion .... LOL. Nooby, you couldn't buy a clue about what I'm saying, go read some history here. Meantime pontificate all you want about subjects that are not necessarily what you think they are.


Better yet, chat with Uppie; he's sometimes good for a laugh.

[Mojo]

Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”. It's a tag attached to the theory of evolution by natural selection by people who want to make it sound like a religion or a political movement.

[hammegk]

Unless God is physical.
If you can stretch your acceptance of the meaning of physical to allow it, that's your choice although not a popular one in the usual meanings of the term (well, I guess we could then chat about the meaning of choice :) )

My dichotomy places "dead and passive" on the physical side of the ledger, opposed to my ~physical side "alive and active".

[SuperCoolGuy]

As to the swabbie who gave himself a promotion .... LOL. Nooby, you couldn't buy a clue about what I'm saying, go read some history here. Meantime pontificate all you want about subjects that are not necessarily what you think they are.

Dude. Seriously. Dualism and deism are not the same thing. If they are, I would really like for you to start a thread on that.

[hammegk]

Dude. Seriously. Dualism and deism are not the same thing. If they are, I would really like for you to start a thread on that.
Nor did I say they were. Deism is a subset of dualism -- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.

[SuperCoolGuy]

Nor did I say they were.

Sure sounded like it:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1670106&postcount=20

Deism is a subset of dualism

Do you mean mind-matter dualism? Even if, I don't see how deism is a subset of dualism.

-- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.

Or, instead of how I defined "physical", perhaps how I defined "God".

[SuperCoolGuy]

Nor did I say they were. Deism is a subset of dualism -- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.

Or, unless I am a monist physicalist deist. My name is SuperCoolGuy. Nice to meet you.

And yes, I would like a cookie.

[Admiral]

The word is deist- it's a philosophy that became popular during the Age of Enlightenment.
Why yes. Dualism.


It sounds like you're saying they're the same thing, but very well, you were saying deism is a subset. Except it's not.

Please come up with some evidence that deism is a dualist philosophy, if you're going to make that claim?

And physicalism is STILL not related. It is NOT the same thing as skepticism, nor atheism. One can believe in souls but not God, or evolution but not souls.

As for your disparaging comments, "Admiral" is a nickname my friends gave me. The origin is a long story. And your post count is absolutely irrelevant to your arguments. Someone that has nearly 7,000 posts and is wrong is still wrong.

[hammegk]

Sure sounded like it:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1670106&postcount=20
We are now sure that isn't what I meant.


Do you mean mind-matter dualism?
In often-used terms, yes.


Even if, I don't see how deism is a subset of dualism.


Please come up with some evidence that deism is a dualist philosophy, if you're going to make that claim?
Did that help?


Or, instead of how I defined "physical", perhaps how I defined "God".
A monist definition includes all there is/was/can-be.


monist physicalist deist
Isn't language fun? :)



Someone that has nearly 7,000 posts and is wrong is still wrong.
Ditto for the person with a few hundred.


And physicalism is STILL not related. It is NOT the same thing as skepticism, nor atheism. One can believe in souls but not God, or evolution but not souls.
God? Souls? LOL. Where do get that crap?

And, sorry, they are related in that most skeptics are wannabe physicalists, and that physicalists who are not atheists are illogical. I again suspect closet dualists rule the day.

[CP489]

Before the thread progresses too far, we should establish what is meant by “Darwinism”. I assume we’re taking it to mean the evolution of living creatures through the course of natural selection. However, some people seem to attach so many other ideas to the term, including concepts that have little to do with evolution, or even biology, such as the “big bang” theory. So it may be good practice to define exactly what context we intend to interpret from this term.


I can't speak to his exact meaning of "Darwinism" but up until that point the conversation had revovled around evolution vs. creationism. I can only assume that is what he meant.

[I less than three logic]

I think the theory of evolution, if properly understood, is pretty much incompatible with theism.

Catholicism doesn't endorse the ToE - it endorses its own bowdlerised version of it which claims that natural processes are inadequate, in themselves, to fully explain the natural world and the guiding hand of God is required. The real ToE is a naturalistic theory that has no place for supernatural entities. If a scientific theory has a god-shaped gap in it's mechanism then it is just not a properly formulated theory.

Now, one can believe that God set the conditions for evolution to happen and then just sat back and watched while it took a random walk (complete with dead ends and mass extinctions) through biological complexity space and eventually, by chance, ended up with us. But does any established religion actually advocate this?

It would be an odd way for a "creator" to behave when he could just create a world exactly the way he wanted it, in one go.
As Admiral has said, Deism isn’t incompatible with this idea. Perhaps the Creator isn’t omnipotent (although, the definition would suggest otherwise I suppose). Voltaire has some thoughts on this subject as well.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volpower.html
I SUPPOSE that the man who reads this article is convinced that this world is formed with intelligence, and that a little astronomy and anatomy suffices to make this universal and supreme intelligence admired.

Can he know by himself if this intelligence' is omnipotent, that is to say, infinitely powerful? Has he the least notion of the infinite, to understand what is an infinite power?

The celebrated historian philosopher, David Hume, says in " Particular Providence '' : '' A weight of ten ounces is lifted in a balance by another weight; therefore this other weight is of more than ten ounces; but one can adduce no reason why it should weigh a hundred ounces."

One can say likewise: You recognize a supreme intelligence strong enough to form you, to preserve you for a limited time, to reward you, to punish you. Do you know enough of this power to demonstrate that it can do still more?

How can you prove by your reason that this being can do more than he has done?

The life of all animals is short. Could he make it longer?

All animals are the prey of each other: everything is born to be devoured. Could he form without destroying?

You do not know what nature is. You cannot therefore know if nature has n0t forced him to do only the things he has done.

This globe is only a vast field of destruction and carnage. Either the great Being has be en able to make of it an eternal abode of delight for all sentient beings, or He has not been able. If He has been able and if He has not done so, fear to regard Him as malevolent; but if He has not been able, fear not to lock on Him as a very great power, circumscribed by nature in His limits.
Perhaps, evolution was the best the Creator could do limited within the bounds of nature.

Now, as for hammegk’s Deism = Dualism, I’m going to leave that can of worms alone.

[hammegk]

Why would one think 'deism is a form of dualism' means 'deism equals dualism'?

[wollery]

Why would one think 'deism is a form of dualism' means 'deism equals dualism'?If deism is a subset of dualism then it follows that to be a deist one must be a dualist, hence deism=dualism. Of course, that doesn't mean that dualism=deism, since dualists could have a stance other than deist.

[hammegk]

The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic.

BTW, that is not a stance I take in that I don't consider myself a deist; neither do I categorically deny the possibility "Deism is The Answer" although my epsilon for that possibility is very very near 100%. :)

The probability of True is 100%-epsilon. Capische?

[wollery]

The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic. So God is incapable of creating a purely physical Universe?

[hammegk]

I know not; indications in this universe are that that isn't the case. You would need to ask god, should he exist. ;)

[SuperCoolGuy]

The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic.

There you go, deism is dualism IF deism is taken as a subset of physicalism. That is NOT "deism is a subset of dualism".

And as for specific dualism, (which I had to first propose and get you to confirm) mind-matter dualism does not necessarily come from physicalist deism.

Dualism: mind is not physical.

Physicalists: everything is physical, including the mind.

Physicalist deist: everything including God and the mind is physical.

If Descartes, a deist, was also a physicalist, would he still be a dualist?

[stamenflicker]

with the intent of provoking a reaction. There is a term for this, as well.

Nice cookie, Upchurch. Now I have to get up from my computer and ease this growling stomach. :)

[wollery]

I know not; indications in this universe are that that isn't the case. You would need to ask god, should he exist. ;)What indications are you referring to?

[Roboramma]

Hammegk why is evolution incompatible with idealism?

If I understand you right, you're saying that dualism is illogical, physicalism is okay, so long as you don't allow any dualism to creep in, and so is idealism.
You then say that evolution is a physicalist theory.

Why isn't it compatible with idealism?

[drkitten]

Hammegk why is evolution incompatible with idealism?

Because he doesn't understand either one, of course.

[Belz...]

Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?

Got topic?

I feel better now, knowing you use this term indiscriminately.

[Upchurch]

I feel better now, knowing you use this term indiscriminately.
You're a fan of irony, or he's used that one on you before?

[hammegk]

Because he doesn't understand either one, of course.
You are wrong, as well as acting like an ass. Have you chosen Upchurch as your mentor?



What indications are you referring to?
Science to date plus the logic of what-is being a monism.



If I understand you right, you're saying that dualism is illogical,
Yes.


physicalism is okay, so long as you don't allow any dualism to creep in, and so is idealism.
Yes.


You then say that evolution is a physicalist theory.
No. I said it must be the complete theory if one is a physicalist. What else is there? Your epsilons of doubt can only hide more physicalism, and you must deny at 100% certainty even the possibility of god existing (or you are a dualist).


Why isn't it compatible with idealism?
It is; and I'd say neo-Darwinism is a necessary condition. It is just not proven a sufficient condition.

[Dr Adequate]

and you must deny at 100% certainty even the possibility of god existing (or you are a dualist). http://winace.andkon.com/pics/broken_record.jpg

[hammegk]

... more nonsense deleted ...


You're a fan of irony, or he's used that one on you before?

I feel better now, knowing you use this term indiscriminately.

Because he doesn't understand either one, of course.

It's a tag attached to the theory of evolution by natural selection
by people who want to make it sound like a religion or a political
movement.

I don't think I could live anywhere that small.

So, the underlying problem that it is your aim in this thread to point
out is ...that there is no problem.
Thanks for your input, hammegk.

That isn't his purpose here, or so he says.

This is another of hammegk's lies.
But what do you expect from a self-admitted troll and liar?

hammegk, you've derailed the thread nicely.

Based on the accusations you've made against me elsewhere, I can only
assume that you did this because you feel you cannot argue the actual topic and are, thus, trying to shift it to a different target. Well done.

No, don't. This is a deliberate attempt by hammegk to shift the
discussion away from something that might be useful, and as usual,
he's resorting to lies, misrepresentation, and fraud.

The Trojan War only lasted ten years.
If Homer could have seen what Eris can do when she really sets her mind to it, he'd have handed in his stylus and taken up chicken farming.
.....

Good stuff, guys. About 15% of the posts in this thread are personal attacks.
:D

[Dr Adequate]

So stop substituting them for argument and, for once, say clearly and intelligibly IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE what it is you want to say.

[sphenisc]

So stop substituting them for argument and, for once, say clearly and intelligibly IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE what it is you want to say.

Hammegk only point is that there is an equivalence between Deism and dualism, and Deism and Darwinism, and in addition that Dualism and Darwinism are tautological.

Or more succinctly



























De=Du, Du=Du
De=Da, Da=Da
That's all he wants to say to you.

:D

[hammegk]

Thanks for more meaningless trash.

I find it strange that few of you have sufficient sense to find merit in any of my posts ...

Then as long as you know hard atheism is equally a fact, your worldview is logically defensible.


Sure you can, if you a dualist of some type, or an idealist of some type. As a physicalist, that doesn't work sfaik.
And yes, we can split hairs all day defining atheist, hard atheist, soft atheist, agnostic. Your problem as a physicalist will remain until you accept that physical is all there is, which leaves no room for god of any stripe.


Why yes. Dualism.
I fixed your url; no charge.
And more dualism nonsense.
Most prefer to believe that.
Apparently not.


Uppie, why are you, an admin, post-whoring via personal attack?
Got topic?


No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here. :)
Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.


I do. I just cut to the chase pointing out that your initial bias to accept physicalism as True (or at least pretend so) makes argument at the level you seem to think appropriate irrelevant.
If I agree physicalism/atheism is the correct worldview there's usually nothing to argue about.
A helluva lot more than you do .... an admin/troll/post-whore ... interesting, huh?


Perception is the closest to reality we'll ever get. That's true. And you are of course free to provide your opinion of me.
Feel better now? :)
Point out the lie, please. You cannot.


There were a couple of on-topic thoughts amid all that whining & caterwauling crap:
Indeed. And my aim is to point out -- in this thread -- the underlying problem; Physicalists who are logical are atheists, and that is a logically coherent and defensible position. Various flavors of idealism are also logically defensible ( I prefer objective idealism). Since idealism at least to me at best can say it is unknown if god exists, the remainder of the position is as a ~Physicalist who does not categorically deny god.
drk has mentioned the 'epsilon' problem, and I continue to suggest that one's interpretation of the class of reality that is addressed by epsilon has two valid choices; for physicalists, atheism (or we could say, just more physical stuff); for ~physicalists, ~atheism. Any other choice for a physicalist is dualism of some sort.
Your choice of physicalist vs ~ physicalist defines this nature apriori.


Nothing from my viewpoint.
Per The Op "So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.".
I am; it's true. Either that, or you don't know what you are. ;)


Why Uppie; I can actually agree with that statement! Well, in the sense that 'irrational = illogical'. Maybe you ought to change it.
Or maybe you don't understand what you said? ;)


Here I apologise having sunk to others' level.
Good for you. Please advise how complex I think I am. I do know how complex I think you are anyway.
As to the swabbie who gave himself a promotion .... LOL. Nooby, you couldn't buy a clue about what I'm saying, go read some history here. Meantime pontificate all you want about subjects that are not necessarily what you think they are.
Better yet, chat with Uppie; he's sometimes good for a laugh.


If you can stretch your acceptance of the meaning of physical to allow it, that's your choice although not a popular one in the usual meanings of the term (well, I guess we could then chat about the meaning of choice :) )
My dichotomy places "dead and passive" on the physical side of the ledger, opposed to my ~physical side "alive and active".


Nor did I say they were. Deism is a subset of dualism -- unless you are an idealist, or define 'physical' as you suggested.



We are now sure that isn't what I meant.
In often-used terms, yes.
Did that help?
A monist definition includes all there is/was/can-be.
Isn't language fun? :)
Ditto for the person with a few hundred.
God? Souls? LOL. Where do get that crap?
And, sorry, they are related in that most skeptics are wannabe physicalists, and that physicalists who are not atheists are illogical. I again suspect closet dualists rule the day.


Why would one think 'deism is a form of dualism' means 'deism equals dualism'?


The real point is deism as a subset of physicalism is dualism; as a subset of idealism it is not dualistic.
BTW, that is not a stance I take in that I don't consider myself a deist; neither do I categorically deny the possibility "Deism is The Answer" although my epsilon for that possibility is very very near 100%. :)
The probability of True is 100%-epsilon. Capische?


I know not; indications in this universe are that that isn't the case. You would need to ask god, should he exist. ;)

That was my 15% plus posts in this thread. The reader may decide which 15% have actual merit.

[drkitten]

I find it strange that few of you have sufficient sense to find merit in any of my posts ...


You can't find what isn't there, dude....

[Anacoluthon64]

I find it strange that few of you have sufficient sense to find merit in any of my posts ...
I find it equally strange that you feel compelled always to write in what appear to be condescending riddles.

Care to illuminate your curiously perverse approach? ("Curmudgeon" is not an explanation.)

'Luthon64

[hammegk]

I find it equally strange that you feel compelled always to write in what appear to be condescending riddles.
Take what you like, leave the rest; ignore is always your option.


Care to illuminate your curiously perverse approach? ("Curmudgeon" is not an explanation.)

'Luthon64
Sure. It's my way of seeing if anyone is paying enough attention to various ongoing and historical discussions to perhaps provide a new idea for contemplation.

drk could certainly do so; possibly DR.A as well. I'm sorry they often choose to respond otherwise.

[drkitten]

Sure. It's my way of seeing if anyone is paying enough attention to various ongoing and historical discussions to perhaps provide a new idea for contemplation.

The drivel you post is not a "discussion," it contains new ideas, and the only "contemplation" necessary was performed for me, well before my birth, when the then-new ideas were seriously considered -- and found to be lacking.

I see no reason to revisit old mistakes in thinking.

[Anacoluthon64]

Take what you like, leave the rest; ignore is always your option.
No substantially different approach has so far occurred to me. I asked purely out of curiosity.

Sure. It's my way of seeing if anyone is paying enough attention to various ongoing and historical discussions to perhaps provide a new idea for contemplation.
A bit self-defeating, IMO, to antagonise those you disagree with. Perhaps you yourself might set the example in terms of providing a new idea.

'Luthon64

[Dr Adequate]

Sure. It's my way of seeing if anyone is paying enough attention to various ongoing and historical discussions to perhaps provide a new idea for contemplation. How do you expect that speaking in hammygibble will help you find that out?

Your behavior seems to bear no relation to your stated objective.

[Dr Adequate]

And another question that springs to mind ... why do you think that reciting exactly the same nonsense over and over again will elicit a new response?

We've told you what dualism means. Do you suppose that the definition has changed since the last time you performed this pointless ritual?

[hammegk]

I see no reason to revisit old mistakes in thinking.
Most know-it-alls agree that their thinking never contains mistakes.


We've told you what dualism means.
When did the pregnancy occur/ Unexpectedly, I hope.

And if you think you know what dualism means, you've hidden it well so far.


A bit self-defeating, IMO, to antagonise those you disagree with. Perhaps you yourself might set the example in terms of providing a new idea.
That's an idea, anyway.

I choose to reject it, thanks. No contemplation required.

[Dr Adequate]

What language do you think you're speaking?

[hammegk]

Precisely nuanced English; perhaps that's why you don't understand my meaning. Or is it because you do understand the meaning, dislike it, cannot counter it, and choose to attack the messenger?

[drkitten]

Precisely nuanced English;

The syntax is indeed English -- the semantics has little or nothing to do with the standard meanings of words, even as used by those trained in philosophy.

perhaps that's why you don't understand my meaning.

Alternatively, it may simply be that he doesn't understand your meaning because you are incapable of expressing yourself clearly.

I find it significant that no one can understand your meaning -- and that you take that as evidence of their poor language skills instead of yours. I suppose when you drive on the highway, all the other cars are the ones going in the wrong direction?

[hammegk]

If you need to be spoon-fed, look elsewhere. If no one understood my posts, I'd change my style. As it is, some choose to engage, and my posts provide the initial separation of those with an actual interest in discussion from those who offer nothing in return.

I suspect both you and the other "Dr" understand me just fine.

[Huntster]

.....But you need to know that Darwinism is the foundational belief in humanism, secularism, atheism whatever you want to call it....

Close, but not necessarily. It has certainly become a religion of sorts to some.

...To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty....

Not even close.

[I less than three logic]

Close, but not necessarily. It has certainly become a religion of sorts to some.
I’d sure like to meet one of these people that use Darwin’s ideas of evolution through natural selection as a religion. So far, I’ve seen mere fables of their existence; nothing more.

[drkitten]

I suspect both you and the other "Dr" understand me just fine.

As usual, your suspicions are both unfounded and wrong.

[drkitten]

Close, but not necessarily. It has certainly become a religion of sorts to some.

Huntster appears to be one of them. He believes in Darwinism as firmly (and as incorrectly) as he believes in Satan.

[Dr Adequate]

If you need to be spoon-fed, look elsewhere. If no one understood my posts, I'd change my style. I'm going to hold you to that (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57858)

I suspect both you and the other "Dr" understand me just fine. Curious. All the evidence suggests that we find your posts to be gibberish. For example, the fact that we say that they're gibberish. Which part of this do you have difficulty understanding?

Some people, such as myself, can put two and two together to make four. Others, less fortunate, can put two and two together and make "about five, call it six". But only you can put two and two together and make an epileptic aardvark snorkling down the Matterhorn playing a runcible harmonica in the key of Q flat.

It's word salad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad_(mental_health)), hammy. Word salad that's been left a couple of days: manky pieces of lettuce that have lost their crunch; sad, slimy pieces of cucumber; oil which has separated from the vinegar and started to turn --- served up with the self-sufficient air of one expecting three stars in the Michelin Guide.

Do I make myself clear, or do you still have some lingering delusion that I find you comprehensible?

[Huntster]

Huntster appears to be one of them. He believes in Darwinism as firmly (and as incorrectly) as he believes in Satan.

Correct, sorta.

I believe both Darwin's theories and the Christian religion.

[Huntster]

I’d sure like to meet one of these people that use Darwin’s ideas of evolution through natural selection as a religion. So far, I’ve seen mere fables of their existence; nothing more.

Darwinism (like environmentalism) is a sect of the new, all-encompassing secular (http://www.amasci.com/~rarnold/religion.htm) religion.

...Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists....

[I less than three logic]

Darwinism (like environmentalism) is a sect of the new, all-encompassing secular (http://www.amasci.com/~rarnold/religion.htm) religion.
Um, ok. Have any self-claimed “Darwinists”? You can label others however you like, doesn’t make it so. I have yet to see one person that uses Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as a religion. What exactly are the tenets of “Darwinism”, I suspect their scripture is The Origins of Species?

Also, I’m a bit skeptical of your “secular religion”. First, on grounds of definition, but also because I see no evidence of it, it seems to me that theists can’t fathom the idea of someone without religion and distort any idea someone holds into some religion of sorts.

Finally, you may find that many of us Atheists are also skeptical of some environmentalist, such as the ones explained in your link (which, by the way, had absolutely no mention of Darwinism).

[DavidJames]

This whole secular religion or Darwinism as religion is both a smokescreen and a strawman.

The religious people want to force religion (including creationism) into schools (and government) but keep getting smacked down by that nasty ol' constitution. Their response is to try and get the alternatives to their religion declared a religion to either get equal access or remove the "secular" elements.

And the biggest irony is this disingenuous and outright deceit is performed by those who claim the moral authority from their God.

[hgc]

What's the matter? hammy turning the thread into a cesspool of recrementitious nonsense? Do what I do, change the subject to something he really can express himself on...

The wonderful benefits coming from the African slave trade! The thread is old, but it's the same raving @sshole:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92

[hgc]

Here's an example of the wit & wisdom of hammy -- on life in Africa today:Too busy living in harmony with nature & each other probably to worry about extending their short, brutish, lives by going somewhere, and certainly not to "work". Why work when lunch is growing on the trees & it's too damn hot anyway.

[Huntster]

....You can label others however you like, doesn’t make it so.

Seems to work for folks around here when they label Christians.

I have yet to see one person that uses Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection as a religion. What exactly are the tenets of “Darwinism”, I suspect their scripture is The Origins of Species?

Zealots from both sides are foolishly competing for "the beginning", the dawn of not only man, but everything; creation itself.

Also, I’m a bit skeptical of your “secular religion”. First, on grounds of definition, but also because I see no evidence of it, it seems to me that theists can’t fathom the idea of someone without religion and distort any idea someone holds into some religion of sorts.

Example: (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter4.html)

A eulogy published by Dobzhansky's pupil Francisco Ayala in 1977 described the content of Dobzhansky's religion like this:

Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity.{4}
Evolution is thoroughly compatible with religion-when the object of worship is evolution.

Finally, you may find that many of us Atheists are also skeptical of some environmentalist, such as the ones explained in your link......

Well, I'm sure happy to read that. Those folks scare me.

[Huntster]

....The religious people want to force religion (including creationism) into schools (and government) but keep getting smacked down by that nasty ol' constitution......

The real reason all of us don't have choice in education is the takeover of primary education by state and federal governments.

Primary education began in this country as a local government responsibility, but that simply doesn't work for those in central power who need to start propaganda early.

[hammegk]

As usual, your suspicions are both unfounded and wrong.
You appear to have understood my supposition. Understand and agree are different words. ;)

I'm going to hold you to that (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57858)

All the evidence suggests that we find your posts to be gibberish.
LOL. Dr. Inadequate wrong, again.



Do I make myself clear, or do you still have some lingering delusion that I find you comprehensible?
I hold no delusions regarding you, although I didn't heretofore consider you hopelessly dense.

[Dr Adequate]

LOL. Dr. Inadequate wrong, again.` So you claim that there is evidence that I understand your gibberish?

You are wrong. There is none. I do not.

I hold no delusions regarding you, although I didn't heretofore consider you hopelessly dense. That would be another of your delusions about me.

Have you noticed, by the way, that your delusions contradict one another? Surely I cannot be both one of the fortunate few who understands hammygibble and hopelessly dense?

On second thoughs, maybe the two do go together ...

[hammegk]

You prefer I select "hopelessly dense" as the best answer? As to the apparent conumdrum, I consider you less than truthful in any case.

[Dr Adequate]

So, no evidence to support your idiotic fantasies?

I thought not.

[hammegk]

So, no evidence to support your idiotic fantasies?

I thought not.
I'd say the content of many of your recent posts indicates "Hopelessly Dense". Again.

[Dr Adequate]

...

So, no evidence to support your idiotic fantasies?

I thought not.

[hammegk]

Dr. Inadequate: Do you ever win arguments with yourself? I hope so!

[Aquila]

To try to harmonize evolution with Biblical Christianity or Judaism is intellectual dishonesty......

Evolution does seem incompatable with a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible, but not at all with a symbolic interpretation, such as that of mystical Judaism/mystical Christianity (Kaballah). Fundamentalist views will never approach the spiritual, intellectual or emotional element of the abstract concept we call God.

So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss.

Not at all. Evolution is not contrary to spiritual belief. Darwin in fact, maintained his Christian beliefs (which were obviously not fundamentalist) all his life, and the Church of England had no problem burying him in Westminster Abbey. It's only fundamentalist 20th century America which has such a problem getting beyond narrow minded dogma.

[CP489]

To clarify: I wasn't the one making the "If you believe in evolution..." comment, it's just obviously how the guy wanted his remarks heard.

You might not be able to get all of that from the message I shared originally, that's just one of the ones he sent to me.

[Huntster]

Dr. Inadequate: Do you ever win arguments with yourself?......

No, he doesn't.

That's because he doesn't argue. He condemns.

How do you "win" doing that?

[I less than three logic]

Seems to work for folks around here when they label Christians.
You are a self-proclaimed Christian, are you not? I haven’t labeled you anything, thus far.


Example: (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter4.html)
Again, Huntster, you’ve provided only another example of Christians labeling Darwinism a religion. I asked for a self-proclaimed Darwinist, one that practices the religion of Darwinism.

Also, there are a few things wrong with your example. First, it inaccurately cited where that was taken. Dobzhansky wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm),” not Francisco Ayala as your web page said. The passages that were quoted in your linked page were taken from Francisco Ayala’s article entitled, “Theodosius Dobzhansky: A Man For All Seasons (http://www.iisc.ernet.in/academy/resonance/Oct2000/pdf/Oct2000p48-60.pdf)”. The article you linked also left out some of that paragraph. Specifically the last sentence of that paragraph which read, “He was a meta-physical optimist”.

Then we come to the sentence you decided to bold for us, because it was important I’m guessing. Neither Dobzhansky nor Ayala wrote that sentence, it was written by author of the paper you decided to use as your example. Which I have reason to believe is not an unbiased opinion.

From your link (http://www.leaderu.com/menus/aboutus.html):
Leadership U is :

rooted in the university--sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade for Christ International, Leadership U includes resources from the high school to research levels, with an emphasis on the scholarly
a multi-disciplinary vehicle to help reach professors, students and other thinkers with the best in Christian thought on a variety of compelling issues
a growing community of apologists for the historical Christian faith who are engaging their culture on a variety of fronts

Seems like every time I search for this fabled religion of Darwinism, I find it to be nothing but the accusations from the religious. I suggest you examine your sources a bit more; this is a skeptic’s forum after all. You don’t expect anyone to take your word for it, do you?

[MRC_Hans]

Hven't read the whole thread, but to the opening topic:

Religion is belief. I will assume that "belive in evolution" means "hold evolution to be true", this does away with the issue that evolution is not a belief system.

Now, can I hold evolution to be true, and still be religious? Of sourse I can, if I so choose. After all, religion is belief, so I can believe in whatever I please, including that my religion is compatible with evolution.

Can I subscribe to a judaistic brand of religion and hold evolution true? Of course. There are several widespread judaistic interpretations that are held compatible with evolution, and obviously, I am free to make my entirely private interpretation.

Hans

[Dr Adequate]

Dr. Inadequate: Do you ever win arguments with yourself? I hope so! ...

So, no evidence to support your idiotic fantasies?

I thought not.

[Dogdoctor]

Back to the original topic.
So, if you believe in evolution, you're an atheist. Discuss. There are many people who believe in evolution and are religious so the premise is false. If you want to say it is intellectually dishonest then why? People have various beliefs that allow evolution and religion such as god created evolution or evolution created the human body but god created the human soul.

[senorpogo]

It's perfectly fine what ever anyone wants to believe. We all have that right.

No.

[blutoski]

This whole secular religion or Darwinism as religion is both a smokescreen and a strawman.

The religious people want to force religion (including creationism) into schools (and government) but keep getting smacked down by that nasty ol' constitution. Their response is to try and get the alternatives to their religion declared a religion to either get equal access or remove the "secular" elements.

Yeah. It's evidence that religion's on the defensive, when they wilfully forget what religion means, to achieve political gain. After failure to demonstrate that God is a science, they're hoping that proving science is religion will put them on the same political footing.

Or maybe they just have no sense of perspective. Religion is the belief in a supernatural intelligence. Chrighton has completely lost it if he really thinks that any political view is 'a religion'. Or maybe just the ones he disagrees with? The man's a fiction writer: he writes stories that he makes up in his head. I find it interesting that he makes stuff up, becomes convinced it's true, and then lecutres others that they should avoid making the same mistake. Absolutely no insight.

Maybe some people don't know the difference between analogy, metaphor, and equivalency. Darwinism has direction, advocates, body plans, variation, adaptation... Oh, hey! Darwinism's a car! Get real.


In any case, I ask them to put their money where their mouth is, and write a letter to their Congressman saying that Darwinism is a religion, and should now qualify for all of religion's tax breaks and access to the multibillion-dollar "Faith-based initiatives" funding. They don't feel *that* strongly about it, apparently.

[elliotfc]

*Everybody* believes in, or accepts, evolution, but there are a billion different ways to do that. The most hardened fundamentalist believes in evolution. He/She would agree that over a period of 2,000 years a particular species might "evolve" in a few minor details, or major details. Of course they'd insist that such evolution does not involve special differentiation.

-Elliot

[blutoski]

No.

Heh. I think the expression is: we all have the right to personal opinions, but not the right to personal facts.

[Jeremy]

There are many people who believe in evolution and are religious so the premise is false. If you want to say it is intellectually dishonest then why? People have various beliefs that allow evolution and religion such as god created evolution or evolution created the human body but god created the human soul.
While I agree that one can be religious and believe in evolution, and even that one can be intellectually honest believing in some religions and evolution at the same time. However, Christianity cannot be reconciled with evolution without significantly changing one or the other, which I would classify as being intellectually dishonest.

[Dogdoctor]

While I agree that one can be religious and believe in evolution, and even that one can be intellectually honest believing in some religions and evolution at the same time. However, Christianity cannot be reconciled with evolution without significantly changing one or the other, which I would classify as being intellectually dishonest.
This would be a skeptics position on it. However for religious people sources of information are different than that of skeptics. Many believe faith is a source of information , while that may be a totally whacked out belief , it makes a lot of things possible without being intellectually dishonest. Christians for instance do have those beliefs I mentioned. If the bible is interpreted literally it does not allow evolution yet other interpretations do allow it.