Originally posted by ivanhoeI think it exists in other countires as well, not just the US.
Richard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
And you can feel the affects of Dawkins ideology here on the forums repeatedly.
So many times I read people talking about the "flying spaghetti monster" only to recently learn that this is one of the parables of Dawkin's new "religion"...which he calls New Atheism.
Originally posted by Red NightDawkins has nothing to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think it exists in other countires as well, not just the US.
And you can feel the affects of Dawkins ideology here on the forums repeatedly.
So many times I read people talking about the "flying spaghetti monster" only to recently learn that this is one of the parables of Dawkin's new "religion"...which he calls New Atheism.
The FSM is a parody god instigated by Bobby Henderson.
Try to get your facts straight.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBogus! Based on scientific evidence it is statistically VERY unlikely that God created the world. Is that what you meant by "prove"? Dawkins does not claim to explain how the world was created. NEVER does he do this and he explicitly repeats this point.
Richard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
What he does say is that it boils down to either two essential concepts: either something infinitely small somehow over massive amounts of time got larger until we have what is in the world now, or there was a "sky crane" which somehow came from above/outside the earth and created what we currently see around us.
Neither one of these explain the crucial moment when nothing turned into something (unless you call God always existing an explanation). It comes down to probability. There is very strong evidence for one of these methods and none for the other...
Originally posted by The Dude 84These two options do not exclude each other. So I'm confused as to why you think that evidence for the first option constitutes evidence against the second option.
What he does say is that it boils down to either two essential concepts: either something infinitely small somehow over massive amounts of time got larger until we have what is in the world now, or there was a "sky crane" which somehow came from above/outside the earth and created what we currently see around us.
My response is in Spirituality where this has been copy-pasted. I'll bring it over.
Here:
but it seems to me that in the present American ideological landscape "Evolutionism" ( ... with a capital "E" !) is more and more seen and treated as a new overall ideology, both by its advocates and its opponents.
That capital E is all yours, Ivanhoe. The only reason people even discuss evolution at all in the US for anything other than academic reasons is because so many aggressive Christians are so obsessed with it. Remember when there was actually a proposal to teach ID, a completely unsupported hypothesis, to children? Talk about taking science out of the realm of science! You don't teach kids random unsupported hypotheses as something to take seriously!
Likewise, the opponents of this fictional "Evolutionism with a capital E" are the only ones who consider it an ideology.
not just capable of explaining how species evolved, but also capable of explaining how everything else "evolved" and "came into being"
Abiogenesis is not the same as the Theory of Evolution, though evolutionary processes are hypothesized to be a central part of it. At least I hypothesize that. In any case, what if it is capable of explaining all that? It's still science, not ideology.
What is "ideological Darwinism" and why are you attributing that concept to people who believe in the TOE's correctness?
Likewise, 99% of the people who talk about Dawkins are his haters. I'm an excellent example of an atheist who likes to think of himself as an intellectual and who believes in evolution. In fact I have a Bachelor's degree in a closely related field from an excellent school. I've never even SEEN Dawkins' book! Never bothered to look for it while I was in a bookshop or library. He's that unimportant to me. I imagine I'd like his book and I bet he has good stuff to say. But there are MANY little projects like that to work on - like my careful analysis of the Book of Daniel as a source of scientific predictions, which I also don't have time for but takes precedence over finding Dawkins' book. I don't have the time or energy. For some reason, only Christians have the time and energy for Dawkins in my experience.
You're being a paranoid drama queen.
By the way, why is this in Spirituality? It seems to be slander against people who believe that life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is no longer earthworms being made from mud and rain in the space of a day. It takes much longer than that, and the initial stages are vulnerable to free oxygen.
No, nobody's done it in the lab yet. Nobody's even tried.
Originally posted by ivanhoe[Dawkins] (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God.
Richard Dawkins's fundamental claim, made on the basis of his scientific authority, that believing in God is a delusion. He (mis)uses the scientific theory of evolution to "prove" that there is no God. In short: The ideology of Evolutionism more or less implicetely claims atheism is a scientifically based position.
Now, do you agree with the fact that this ideology of "Evolutionism" exists in the USA and is being spread ?
I am not entirely sure what that means. I will say this, however. I have read most of the God Delusion, and Dawkins' main argument oriented toward the de facto question of God's existence is, in my opinion, horribly bad. I am talking about what I would call his argument from complexity (I forget what he calls it). His one chapter where he addresses some of the main theistic arguments for God's existence is also just utterly vacuous. His knowledge of ethical theories also seems primitive. Basically, I think Dawkins should leave the philosophy to other people who actually know what they are doing in that arena. On the other hand, Dawkins' science seems good, and I enjoyed some of his "Darwinian" explanations of religiosity. He also is a good writer and excels at presenting some of the silly and/or baleful aspects of religion.
I think I actually largely agree with your sentiment, ivanhoe (for once!!). I don't think Dawkins' latest book has really much at all to say about the truth of theism per se. I think the main utility of the work lies in the area of what I would call practical anthropology.
Originally posted by StarValleyWy"why do I have the same base gene set as a chimp"
Hey Joe,
It is exactly like "Global Warming". There is the political part where everyone grabs a hand full of poop and starts screeching. Then there is the science part where we just take the best possible evidence and formulate various explanations.
So evolution isn't a movement or a big debate. It is Ockums razor applied to "why do I have the s ...[text shortened]... ose out to make a religious buck, try to turn it into a circus. There is no threat from it.
wow, i like that bit ... had not thot of it that way before ....
not to mention, pigs ...
Originally posted by LemonJelloI still maintain that Evolution is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. A theory can be tested, over and over, by scientists anywhere in the world, and the results always match the theory. One can no more test Evolution than one can test the Big Bang Hypothesis.0🙂
I don't know. What is 'Evolutionism' according to you? I thought it was just a pejorative that some creationists use to do basically what it is you seem to be doing -- to just sort of assert that evolutionary theory is more like an ideology than a scientific theory. I always thought they did this because they wrongly think that the supporter of evolutionary theory is thereby committed to certain normative claims.
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou can test evolution!
I still maintain that Evolution is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. A theory can be tested, over and over, by scientists anywhere in the world, and the results always match the theory. One can no more test Evolution than one can test the Big Bang Hypothesis.0🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloydThen you apparently know the meaning of neither word, and I say that as a scientist myself.
I still maintain that Evolution is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. A theory can be tested, over and over, by scientists anywhere in the world, and the results always match the theory. One can no more test Evolution than one can test the Big Bang Hypothesis.0🙂
A hypothesis is a testable idea, normally to explain a small number of observations. A theory explains a whole body of data, and generates testable predictions. Evolution is a theory.
There are many excellent books on the subject, as well as many documentaries detailing slews of information on the subject. Try watching this clip from one of Ken Miller's recent seminar on the subject;
Originally posted by scottishinnzI still don't see it. There may indeed be some tests I might try yo run, to confirm or debunk evolution, but I still haven't been presented with one. If evolution generates testable predictions, I'm game; where do we start? The platypus perhaps? 😀
Then you apparently know the meaning of neither word, and I say that as a scientist myself.
A hypothesis is a testable idea, normally to explain a small number of observations. A theory explains a whole body of data, and generates testable predictions. Evolution is a theory.
There are many excellent books on the subject, as well as many docume ...[text shortened]... om one of Ken Miller's recent seminar on the subject;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M