Most? Which ones, specifically?
So there are only 3 atheists on this board? And Iām pretty certain that at least T_aq has clearly stated otherwise.
Off topic.
How is Ashwinās claim off topic?
These are the most active athiest scientists on the board.
There are non scientists athiests tooā¦
Is there a point you want to make?
My point is that evolution denialists seem to be far more interested in making sweeping claims about the views of scientists than they are in learning about those views.
Thatās what the thread is about, as described in Danielās OP.
Weāve had claims about things being not allowed, with no explanation of who is responsible for not allowing them.
Youāve claimed,
I think thatās a big, and unwarranted, stretch.
First thing, try to avoid unnecessary titles such as āevolution denialistsā. It doesnāt really do anything to help discussionsā¦ words such as āevolution denialistsā, ācompromising Christian scientistsā etc just poison the well and become noise that makes conversation difficult.
Why?
Do you think such people dont exist? There are a huge number of them.
And my point is that a lot of scientists have out forth their view using Science to back athiesm. These are not claims. Just facts.
These scientist are small vocal and respected part of the scientific community. They seem to have quite a following who are not so vocal (I will admit, I donāt have exact numbers here).
I donāt see why you take exception to historical facts.
Really? If there are, why do you, as an engineer, use handwaving like āhugeā instead of specifying?
Name ten. And remember, the āhuge number of themā you are naming must suffer from āself-imposed blindness.ā
āA lotā is too vague to be meaningful. Youāve already failed to support your claim of knowing that
Please stop making claims about views that you canāt be bothered to ask about.
How can they be both āsmallā and āa lotā? Are they respected for their science, or for their views on atheism?
I take exception to your vague claims about what other people believe.
Coming from someone who accuses others of having āself-imposed blindness,ā this is a bit much.
Would you prefer āthose who deny evolutionā? How is it inaccurate?
Leave him alone to stew. Once again he has turned the conversation into a quarrel.
1 Like
Are you saying you cannot name ten scientists who use science to back up their atheistic claims? Start with Jerry coyne, Dawkins, and go from there.
As to blindness. I am not the one saying it ā¦ Paul is.
Romans 1: 18 For Godās wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world Godās invisible attributesāhis eternal power and divine natureāhave been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him. Instead, their thoughts turned to worthless things, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
As per Paul, the existence of God as an inference from observation of nature(not referring to any scientific activity here) is obvious to all, because God has revealed it to allā¦ denial is suppression of truth.
Different people have different excuses for this denial of Godās existence. One very popular one is lack of scientific evidenceā¦ this is because of accepting philosophical naturalism as a world view.
Think about itā¦ even YECs donāt deny evolution. They point to adaptation working upto even the species level.
Like most YECs and OECs, I am also skeptical of āmacro evolutionā.
āEvolution denierā is just a lie used for polemicsā¦ like science denierā¦
Itās possible that I do. Define, please.
Hi Dale,
Letās add some context. You, @terrellclemmons, @Eddie, and @Ashwin_s are claiming that the way I have gone about my lifeās work is wrong.
I and others are the people who do the work here, and you are doing nothing but sniping at us from a position of enormous arrogance and ignorance. I would say that in context, my responses are measured.
So, if you think thereās something wrong with methodological naturalism, why not start a pharma company that rejects it? Or a YEC oil exploration company?
Or at the very least, if you really believe in your position in this quarrel, read this paper and tell me how rejecting MN would have improved it:
2 Likes
They still deny most evolution, Ashwin.
And Iāll bet you canāt name a single mechanistic difference between micro and macro that would justify your skepticism.
No, someone who denies most of evolution is still an evolution denialist. Besides, the YEC position on evolution has evolved only recently.
I canāt speak for the others, but Iāve neither said nor implied any such thing.
In fact, just the other day, when you described a piece of research you did, I said it was exactly the sort of thing a good research biologist would do.
I have criticized not your ālifeās workā in your particular scientific field, but (a) your leisure time, blog-site-debating, speculative extrapolations outside of your field, when you wander into the scientific specialty of evolutionary mechanisms, and speak sweepingly about the meaning of 150 years of scientific literature of which you appear to have read very little; (b) your manner of conversation here, which aside from the problem of aggressiveness in tone, an aggressiveness which many people here (and on other websites) have noted, suffers from a record level of one-sidedness; I have never seen you grant even the smallest point to any ID proponent in any discussion; always your position is right, right, right and every single point made by any ID proponent is wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody takes seriously an intellectual conversation partner who is so mechanically nay-saying as you are. Maybe if you changed the way you treated other people in conversation, you would in return get back the respect you seem to crave.
We have discussed mainly about athiest Scientists who use Science to promote athiesm. How is that connected to your lifeās work?
@Jordan: the title is misleading. No one is arguing that āmost Scientistsā are philosophical naturalistsā¦ I donāt know where you got that idea from.
You are just making excuses for name calling right now.
You can call people whatever you want. I will just file it under āirrelevant accusations by stressed scientistā when you doā¦ it might also lead to people just ignoring what you have to say overall.
Itās your call.
Fixed
2 Likes