The reason atheist promote Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe in equal opportunity. Intelligent Design is not given equal
opportunity in the classroom, even though it is a better scientific
theory than evolution. The students are indoctrinated into one way
of thinking without the opportunity to think about all the problems
with the theory of evolution. They come away with the belief that
evolution is proven fact as you have.

you can't really give it equal time. ID only takes about 10 seconds to explain and reject as a failed model.

"oh by the way, there is another theory that claims some intelligence is behind all or some of creation, but there is absolutely no evidence for it, and now on to working models..."

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you can't really give it equal time. ID only takes about 10 seconds to explain and reject as a failed model.

"oh by the way, there is another theory that claims some intelligence is behind all or some of creation, but there is absolutely no evidence for it, and now on to working models..."

I did not say equal time only an equal opportunity. I don't think
it would take much time for most students to see that the theory
of evolution does not make as much sense as Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well you seem capable of reading just about anything into anything. The fact is, the quote in question does not mention evolution and is not about evolution at all.

[b]Biological evolution does not include the Big Bang event.
There are some forms of Evolutionary thought that include non-living things, and including the evolution of the universe.
...[text shortened]... or communicator, or just keep changing the meaning of your words to avoid admitting your errors.

You lose.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but you don't know what you are talking about so we are ignoring you on the subject.

I guess I should ignore you also, since you don't know what you are
talking about. It is superstition and science fiction mixed together.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually I was never taught evolution in school, I missed the relevant years that would teach it.
I was never brainwashed into believing in evolution, I was old enough to make informed decisions
and assessed the theory and evidence and made my own mind up.

However you answered my point which was that you champion your belief that evolution is wrong ...[text shortened]... links to religion built in.

Thus ID should not be treated equally with Evolution.

I don't know what makes you so arrogant to think you are smarter than I.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You lose.

If it was a competition to see who could talk the most nonsense, then yes, I loose, and you and Dasa would win every time.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "We didn't go to the moon with faith."

I say we would not have gone to the moon without faith.

You say, "ID is not a scientific theory and has not been shown to be true
(or even reasonable)."

Long time atheist Antony Flew disagrees with you and supported the
teaching of Intelligent Design in British schools. He said that he had
always f ...[text shortened]... lso say Intelligent Design is not a religion; but it is a fact of
scientific observation.

I also say Intelligent Design is not a religion; but it is a fact of scientific observation

If ID is a fact of scientific observation, explain how God created the diversification of life on this planet then please Ron.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess I should ignore you also, since you don't know what you are
talking about. It is superstition and science fiction mixed together.

I said you don't know what your talking about when you say black holes don't exist.
Which is true because the stuff you have spouted about them is complete nonsense
and shows you don't know what you are talking about.
If you were asking a question about black holes, then I would be happy to discuss
them.
But you simply stated that 'you had already dismissed them as non existent'.
You might well have, but that doesn't mean we should pay any attention to that
as you have demonstrated that you don't (not that you can't) understand them.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't know what makes you so arrogant to think you are smarter than I.

I don't think I am smarter than you... I might be, I don't know.
My point was not that I am smarter, but that we have different and mutually
exclusive ways of dealing with the world, which is why we keep arguing and
disagreeing, and why I think the argument matters.

I don't see anything 'so arrogant' about this, certainly if it is arrogant for me
to try to convince you I am right, then you are equally guilty of the same thing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "We didn't go to the moon with faith."

I say we would not have gone to the moon without faith.

You say, "ID is not a scientific theory and has not been shown to be true
(or even reasonable)."

Long time atheist Antony Flew disagrees with you and supported the
teaching of Intelligent Design in British schools. He said that he had
always f ...[text shortened]... lso say Intelligent Design is not a religion; but it is a fact of
scientific observation.

I am not sure what you mean by 'we would not have gone to the moon without faith'.
However I would like to clarify I meant we got to the moon with science not faith.
Faith didn't make the rockets, or plot trajectories.
Science did.

As I have said I don't care who says something but if that something is true.

I don't care Antony Flew disagrees with me, because he was wrong.
Also he converted to deism, which is theistic because it includes a deity.
This means he stopped being an atheist.

If you are going to play the 'some scientists support ID game' then
I simply point out the VASTLY overwhelming majority of scientists that don't.
And we land up back where we started.
I care about arguments, not who is making them.

I know you say ID is a scientific fact... that is what we are arguing about.
The thing is many very smart people have tried to prove what you say is true,
and failed, including in court.
In the education you get in school, (rather than the more specialised education you get
in university) you get taught simplified versions of the truth, that get more complicated as
time goes on, and you get taught the most prevalent and supported ideas over the less
supported ones.
As this is true (rightly or wrongly in some cases), the fact that evolution has the overwhelming
support of the vast majority of relevant scientists, would mean it would, and should, still dominate
lessons.
Evolution is the cornerstone of ALL biology and medicine. Without it we wouldn't have made
all the amazing advances in both that we have made in the last century or so.
Evolution is not only right, it is indispensable.
And thus must be taught, to make any sense of the relevant subjects.

Comparatively, even if true, ID is completely useless.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "We didn't go to the moon with faith."

I say we would not have gone to the moon without faith.

You say, "ID is not a scientific theory and has not been shown to be true
(or even reasonable)."

Long time atheist Antony Flew disagrees with you and supported the
teaching of Intelligent Design in British schools. He said that he had
always f ...[text shortened]... lso say Intelligent Design is not a religion; but it is a fact of
scientific observation.

Long time atheist Antony Flew disagrees with you and supported the
teaching of Intelligent Design in British schools.

You've been told this before, but I think it bears repeating. Anthony Flew advocated a form of ID which involves the 'creation' of the first replicating cell followed by millions of years of darwinian evolution leading to the proliferation of species we now see. He has never suggested that this should be taught as a scientific theory however. He is a philosopher, you know. Not a scientist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not sure what you mean by 'we would not have gone to the moon without faith'.
However I would like to clarify I meant we got to the moon with science not faith.
Faith didn't make the rockets, or plot trajectories.
Science did.

As I have said I don't care who says something but if that something is true.

I don't care Antony Flew disagrees wi nse of the relevant subjects.

Comparatively, even if true, ID is completely useless.

What I meant is that for man to have gone to the moon, he first had to
have the faith to attempt it. Without this faith it would not have happened
regardless of what science said about anything. The astronauts made
comments about God while they were on the moon or returning from the
moon. Are you saying all these astronauts were atheists and had no faith
in God? If so, can you prove it?

Antony Flew was wrong when he said that there was no God. But He
corrected that error. And like Francis Collins, there are many scientist
that believe in Intelligent Design and the number is growing. Whether
or not the majority of the people beleive in a theory, is not a good
reason to exclude an opposing theory from being taught in school.
The students are there to learn not to be indoctrinated.

We do not always have the best people in positions of judgement;
but if they were better educated perhaps they would make more
correct decisions in the courts.

Many scientific discoveries have been made by scientist that have
believed in God. And if Intelligent Design had been taught in school,
instead of evolution, I believe there would have been just as many
amazing advances in biology and medicine as we see today, if not
more.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What I meant is that for man to have gone to the moon, he first had to
have the faith to attempt it. Without this faith it would not have happened
regardless of what science said about anything. The astronauts made
comments about God while they were on the moon or returning from the
moon. Are you saying all these astronauts were atheists and had no fa ...[text shortened]... have been just as many
amazing advances in biology and medicine as we see today, if not
more.

I am not sure what you mean by 'have the faith to attempt it'.
You don't need any religious faith to want to go to the moon, and the moon missions were driven by
cold war politics, and ICBM technology. Not much religion there.
Do you mean faith in science? or faith in the abilities of people?

I don't know the religious status of any astronauts, but I would have been very surprised if they were all atheists.
I don't know actually if any were/are, although I would be moderately surprised if none were/are.



You ask me to prove my supposed statement that the astronauts were all atheists (which is fine, if I were to make a claim
like that I would expect to have to justify it) and yet don't acknowledge vast amounts of evidence for evolution, and also
don't provide or expect to need to provide any evidence for your belief in god, or ID. You are selective about the need to
provide evidence and reason.
You state the existence of god as fact... prove it.


There is a thing known as scientific consensus, it is not enforced or policed, in any real sense, but it is the product of
scientists in a field agreeing on certain positions/facts/theories and deciding that the evidence for them is compelling
enough that they can be accepted as true. Of course if evidence is found that throws doubt on any of those positions
then they would need to be re-evaluated, and if necessary changed.
To become the consensus view an idea has to undergo rigorous testing and analysis. And also not have any major plausible
rival ideas.
Evolution has had no serious rival for 150 yrs. The ideas in ID were debunked at the time of its inception, and nothing has
changed since, except the sheer quantity of evidence for evolution.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of relevant (ie scientists actually working in biology ect) scientists accept evolution
is the product of this consensus.

It makes no sense to teach anything to kids but the consensus view, because everything else hasn't been tested and validated
and is not certain.
In fields where there is no consensus view then of course teach the competing ideas, assuming that you have actually reached a
point in education where you are looking deeply enough into a subject for it to be relevant.
Also while good science lessons do include the theories of the relevant field, the most important parts are the bits that teach
the method itself and how to test ideas and theories.
It is the scientific method that is crucial, and why indoctrination doesn't happen in a good science curriculum



I can't agree more that people should be better educated, and that it should lead to better decisions... I just think we would differ
over how you defined 'better educated' and 'correct decisions'.



I am aware that many discoveries were made by people/scientists who believed in god.
But what I am saying is that those discoveries were not made by their belief in god, or were given to them by god.
They were made by following (to varying degrees of accuracy throughout history) the scientific method.


My point was that Evolution made the discoveries Possible.
It is not just part of biology and medicine, it is at the core, one of the foundations, what everything else is built on.

Evolution is predictive, it has explanatory power.
ID does not. If you say it was designed by god, that tells you nothing about why it is like this, because god wanted it that way
doesn't get you anywhere.
Evolution gives you reasons and explanations for how things came to be the way they are, and lets you build on that.

Even if god did design everything himself, he did it in such a way as to be indistinguishable from if things had evolved.
Thus as of the two theories, only one is useful, evolution is still the theory that would get taught.

If we still accepted ID/creationism science and medicine would not have made many of the breakthroughs of the last century or so.
However evolutions discovery was inevitable, it was discovered twice independently at the time of Darwin.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not sure what you mean by 'we would not have gone to the moon without faith'.
However I would like to clarify I meant we got to the moon with science not faith.
Faith didn't make the rockets, or plot trajectories.
Science did.

As I have said I don't care who says something but if that something is true.

I don't care Antony Flew disagrees wi nse of the relevant subjects.

Comparatively, even if true, ID is completely useless.

I am not sure what you mean by 'we would not have gone to the moon without faith'. However I would like to clarify I meant we got to the moon with science not faith. Faith didn't make the rockets, or plot trajectories.
Science did.

I saw a documentary on the Apollo project. When Apollo 13 was in trouble and the world was not sure the astronauts were coming back alive, there was much prayer. One of the high officials at NASA, I distinctly remember saying on that documentary, that Apollo 13 was a little more of a "spiritual" experience than the other Apollo fights.

Don't be mad with me for mentioning it. That is just what I heard the NASA space engineer say to the interviewer. (No it was not a religious documentary).

If you want to point to some other engineer who spent the time praising the glories of Atheism, that's fine with me. I am just recounting what I remember being said.

I'm pretty sure, that along with the families and friends of some of the men, some of those scientists were turning their petition to God.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I am not sure what you mean by 'have the faith to attempt it'.
You don't need any religious faith to want to go to the moon, and the moon missions were driven by
cold war politics, and ICBM technology. Not much religion there.
Do you mean faith in science? or faith in the abilities of people?

I don't know the religious status of any astronauts, ...[text shortened]... very was inevitable, it was discovered twice independently at the time of Darwin.

I agree with some of what you say; but your problem is that you don't
see the big picture and I don't think you want to see it.