atheism doubled since 2001

[Job]

Punisher wrote:

<quoted text>Its always been my POV that since Jesus NEVER mentions a Bible, anything similar to such a thing, as HIS one and ONLY Book - that the Bible is nothing but a Book compiled by men to only help them in a Church-like organization to teach a right line of story. The book was compiled for that purpose - to define the story line.

Jesus often quoted scripture, and John was instructed by God to write down the words written in the book of Revelation (I seem to recall this already being mentioned by another poster).

While Jesus didn't directly state that a Bible will be mass produced, again I would say there is 'logic' involved. If one comes into a firm belief in Jesus Christ, why 'shouldn't' they believe the Bible to be the entire Word of God?

The Bible really doesn't favor religious institutions any way. If the Bible 'could' have been changed by religious leaders further on down the road, I think it would have been. And it would have been changed in such a way to give religious piety a greater advantage. And I would say this is why the Bible was actually kept away from commoners in Europe. They couldn't read it (many not understanding Latin), so they didn't realize how the Bible 'doesn't' favor piety.

[Roland_Deschain]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
As I stated, if there was no Bible, or any references to a worldwide flood, I'm sure it would never come into consideration.
That doesn't mean that it did not happen. One doesn't have to succumb to the idea of a creator's intervention just because others claim it. The problem is the absolute refusal to consider its possibility. It may not be fun. It may not appear scientifically interesting. But 'fun' and 'interesting' are not requirements for truth.

Ask yourself, why don't 'creation scientists'(ROFLMHO) walk the walk? Why don't they actually do some science - write a hypothesis, do the research, produce papers and submit them for peer-review? If they really thought they could prove global flooding took place this would be the way to go.

[Gillette]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
No. There are scientists who had a problem with evolution 'before' they embraced Creationism.
Gillette, I hope you're not suggesting that proponents of evolution are all biased-free. If you don't think evolutionists ignore certain problems involving evolution, you may want to think again.

Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.

There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?

Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.

What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.

Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?

[Jeff]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.
There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?
Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.
What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

Bill Buckley's National Review must use really big print if that's all they can fit in four pages.

Here is Shapiro explaining his understanding of the contribution of genomic feedback and hybridization to evolution in response to environmental disruption. Toward the end he calls intelligent design ridiculous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch ...

Don't bother with it, Jeff, since Shapiro uses big words.

[Big Al]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

“…one may wonder how Shapiro [James A. Shapiro] remains a member in good standing with the scientific community. Cells, according to Shapiro, are intelligently guiding their own evolution.…This certainly isn’t Darwinism. Nor is it theistic evolution… To be sure, it’s not creationism…it certainly sounds close to intelligent design. And yet there’s a crucial difference, one that Shapiro is able to exploit and that keeps him safe. The difference between intelligent design and Shapiro’s view is not that organisms evolved.…but it is also compatible with an evolutionary process under intelligent control in which the guidance given to evolution is extrinsic, substantive, and detectable.”- William A. Dembski, Book Review, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century

James A. Shapiro agrees that organisms have evolved he disagrees with the mechanism of natural selection.

[Roland_Deschain]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.
He is right. Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

This has already been posted in another thread by a different poster. You appear to have missed it.

"As you may know, Shapiro’s beef against the modern theory of evolution is that it neglects sources of variation that have been discovered only in recent years, e.g., hybridization, genome rearrangement, and capture of genes from distantly related organisms. He sees these, in a way that he’s never specified, as the drivers of evolution, neglecting or denigrating well-understood processes like natural selection and genetic drift."

"... Shapiro, like [Richard] Sternberg, is widely admired in the “intelligent design” community and there’s a good reason for this. This book is highly critical of old-fashioned evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism) using many of the same silly arguments promoted by the Fellows of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Those fellows are dead wrong and so is Shapiro."

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/...

[Gillette]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:
“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity. James Shapiro, "In the Details...What?," National Review, September 19, 1996, pp. 62-65.

Just exactly the kind of dishonest an unintelligent partial-quoting and complete misunderstanding of what that particular scientist is REALLY saying. Thanks, Jeff!

This is just what I described to Job, and, right on cure, you chime in with it!

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Just ask someone to explain how natural selection creates information for DNA in billions of cells.

Well, they COULDN'T because natural selection doesn't CREATE information, it selects from what information is THERE. Information is created by gene duplication, mutations, gene recombination during sex and probably other ways.

[Jeff]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Just exactly the kind of dishonest an unintelligent partial-quoting and complete misunderstanding of what that particular scientist is REALLY saying. Thanks, Jeff!
This is just what I described to Job, and, right on cure, you chime in with it!
<quoted text>
Well, they COULDN'T because natural selection doesn't CREATE information, it selects from what information is THERE. Information is created by gene duplication, mutations, gene recombination during sex and probably other ways.

What evolutionary process is creating the specified information in DNA? How does gene duplication create information?

BTW- that quote was not dishonest. I have no reason to think he did not say that and we know a lot of assumptions are made about evolution that are never demonstrate or proven.

[Big Al]

Jeff wrote:

<quoted text>
What evolutionary process is creating the specified information in DNA? How does gene duplication create information?
BTW- that quote was not dishonest. I have no reason to think he did not say that and we know a lot of assumptions are made about evolution that are never demonstrate or proven.

“…genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time.…A theory is a hypothesis that has been subsequently confirmed by abundant, consistent data obtained from tests of the hypothesis.…The theory of evolution by natural selection is… such a confirmed hypothesis…Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics…’Scientific creationism,’‘intelligent design,’ and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However, these represent a collection of beliefs usually based on a literal interpretation of religious texts and are thus disguises for religious doctrine, and not scientific theories.”- The Genetics Society of America, Public Policy Statement

[Job]

Roland_Deschain wrote:

<quoted text>
Ask yourself, why don't 'creation scientists'(ROFLMHO) walk the walk? Why don't they actually do some science - write a hypothesis, do the research, produce papers and submit them for peer-review? If they really thought they could prove global flooding took place this would be the way to go.

What makes you think they don't do the research?

As far as "peer review", not all credible works were subject to peer review, or some even initially rejected.

Do you think that there's never bias among
editors of journals who have the final say in what eventually gets published? The editors don't 'always' agree with the 'reviewers'.

[Job]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Virtually all modern scientists in the biological field and closely related fields that have to do with evolution, ACCEPT evolution basically as Darwin laid it out, i.e. descent with gene modification (through mutation, genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This idea has become the backbone of all the modern life sciences for the past 150 years.
There is no doubt among scientists (who are not Christian evangelicals wanting to work a religious agenda here) that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.
There have always been disputes and discussion with the walls of science about the various MECHANISMS of evolution, i.e. HOW it takes place. Is it all gradual, slow development? Or does it go by fits and starts depending on the environment (i.e. pressure from asteroid or volcanic catastrophes, etc.)?
Or is it a combination of both the above? That is the general consensus among scientists.
What Christians trying to work an agenda here have done over the years (starting with the Jehovah's Witnesses) is creatively cut and snip quotes from scientific papers and books that make it SEEM as if established evolutionary scientists don't actually "believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score.

And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?

1. It sounds to me as if you're mainly referring to "non-scientist creationists", as opposed to actual 'scientists'. To claim that "Creation scientists" are deliberately misrepresenting themselves is no different than me claiming a "conspiracy theory" that evolution scientists are out to deceive everyone. Whoever you're getting this info from is merely projecting propaganda.

Your average American probably does 'not' receive most of their info on evolution from scientists, but from general media.

What science (collectively) is doing now is not working in America. We (the U.S.) fall to number 17 as far as nations academically in the study of science. And it's not because of 'Creationism'(that little monkey trial didn't happen yesterday). More than likely, it's due to a lack of interest as opposed to lack of intellect. It's very obvious that many Americans embrace evolution because it's the thing to believe. Let the big dogs do the research for them.

When people are intimidated into believing evolution, there's a serious problem. All I have to do is tell 'you' I believe in evolution (macro), and unless I tell you 1 + 2 = 5, I'll be intellectually 'okay' in your book.

As an example, I didn't see this myself, but I heard about a stand-up comic actually say on stage (paraphrasing) "How can those religious folk (or nuts) not believe in evolution (or young earth)? We have "carbon dating" that proves how old the earth is". And as far as I know, everyone 'laughed'(with him, not at him). If referred to comedian said this in a club within a 40 mile radius of a university (as is fairly common), he should have been arrested by the university police, taken to that nearest university, and flogged in the science department synagogue.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that 'evolution' is 'fact'. Maybe it's time to put away egomaniacal comments like "creation science is not science", " creationists are morons", etc., and bring both to the educational table and let people decide for themselves. Maybe this 'monopoly' has allowed for lackluster interest in science, to where people just assume evo is fact....

continued....

[Job]

continued....

Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.

As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.

I heard a creationist debate on a non-creationist. Both of them were 'not' professional scientists. The 'creationist'(the one who held a view of creationism) knew more about science than the non-creationist. She laughed at the creationist when he said he believed in a young earth. But when the creationist called her on it, she couldn't respond. Her fall back was (paraphrasing), "I wish an evolutionist was here who could properly answer you". It reminded me of a kid saying, "if my big brother was here, he would beat you up".

And this, I would say, represents the average American 'evo', who merely stands behind the big dogs of evolution theory.

If this continues on, your average evo is going to get stunned when confronting a 'real' scientist who believes in Creationism. And can only get reassurance when going back to the words of an evo 'scientist' to give them their comfort zone back.

[Big Al]

Job wrote:

Maybe evo 'needs' creationism. Rather than try to eliminate it, maybe it needs to embrace it. I think it's time for the evos to get a grip, realize that they can't 'undo' hundreds of years of Biblical teaching; and since they can't prove that God doesn't exist, they really can't prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Maybe it's time to drop 'ego', and allow for 'both' to be placed on the educational table.
As I said, people are intimidated into believing evolution. And when that happens, we shouldn't expect science academics to rise. I can give you an example.

You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…

“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”

The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences says…

"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”

The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…

"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."

unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation

[Thinking]

Bollocks.

Since gravitation is also "only" a Theory, why don't you and the other time wasters just float the f**k off?

Job wrote:

continued....
Maybe evo 'needs' creationism.

[Job]

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
"believe in evolution" at all. Or that they really reject it.
Very dishonest on the part of these religious folks. They do not cover themselves with glory on this score. And why should the religion they profess be believed or given any credence at all if they cannot even understand the science they oppose or be bothered to get it right -- or worse yet, deliberately misrepresent it?

Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?

[Thinking]

The scientific method.
Science, unlike religion, is continually peer reviewed.
Science, unlike religion, is not scared to question itself.

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite frankly, we have this same problem of 'honest' when it comes to evo scientists. If they can't be completely honest, why should I give 'them' credence?

[Job]

Big Al wrote:

<quoted text>
You continue to ignore the fact that science is not based on “belief”. Science is based on evidence. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection there was an uproar in the scientific community (scientists require evidence not “divine proclamations”). However as Thomas Dixon “member of the International Society for Science and Religion said…
“By the end of the 19th century, there was no serious scientific opposition to the basic evolutionary tenets of descent with modification and the common ancestry of all forms of life.”
The evidence supporting Darwin's theory was forthcoming and overwhelming. Darwin never asked anyone to “believe” his theory on the basis of a divine revelation or that read about it in a “holy book”. Darwin's theory was accepted on the basis of evidence.
The National Academy of Sciences says…
"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes… They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis.”
The only thing “creation scientists” do is criticize the vast amount of empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. They provide no empirical evidence to support their conclusions, just as the religous people of Galileo's day critcized his conclusions but while providing no evidence (other than the bible)to support theirs. The truth of the matter is as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology puts it…
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time..."
unequivocally - allowing for no doubt or misinterpretation

Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.

As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.

Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.

Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.

[15th Dalai Lama]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.
Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.
Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.

That's one tenth of one percent. How does that one tenth of one percent probability prove to you beyond a shadow of doubt that Biblegod did it all?

You really don't know anything at all about science in general nor evolution in particular.

[Big Al]

Job wrote:

<quoted text>
Science may theoretically not be based on belief, but that doesn't mean it (belief) is not practiced among evolutionary scientists.
As I mentioned earlier, not all creation scientists embraced creationism 'because' of scriptural belief. There are those that embraced creationism because as scientists, they had a problem with the theory of evolution.

“Creation scientists” present no evidence (other than the bible) to support their various positions. All they do is criticize the evidence presented. Scientists from many different fields provide empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution by natural selection. Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence and the changes in species through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.

“Evolution is an undisputed fact within the scientific community and in academia, where the level of support for evolution is essentially universal.”- National Science Teachers Association (2007), AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)

Job wrote:

Now it's true that as they've thus considered creation over evolution (I'm speculating here) they then 'matched' scientific possibilities with scripture, and found Genesis to be a 'viable' rendition of our beginning. So yes, in that sense 'belief' steps in. But that in itself does not disqualify 'Genesis' as being an accurate account of our creation.

"...Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However…no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories…”– National Academy of Sciences

Job wrote:

Even if evolutionary scientists based their view on a percentage of 'probability', a 1,0000 to one or what have you, that one percent should trouble them to know end. The fact that we've never 'seen' a living entity evolve 'outside' of it's own kind should be troubling enough.

Evolution takes a long time.

“The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones.”—Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.