Most? Which ones, specifically?
So there are only 3 atheists on this board? And I’m pretty certain that at least T_aq has clearly stated otherwise.
How is Ashwin’s claim off topic?
These are the most active athiest scientists on the board.
There are non scientists athiests too…
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.
That’s what the thread is about, as described in Daniel’s OP.
We’ve had claims about things being not allowed, with no explanation of who is responsible for not allowing them.
I think that’s a big, and unwarranted, stretch.
First thing, try to avoid unnecessary titles such as “evolution denialists”. It doesn’t really do anything to help discussions… words such as “evolution denialists”, “compromising Christian scientists” etc just poison the well and become noise that makes conversation difficult.
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 don’t have exact numbers here).
I don’t see why you take exception to historical facts.
Really? If there are, why do you, as an engineer, use handwaving like “huge” instead of specifying?
Name ten. And remember, the “huge number of them” you are naming must suffer from “self-imposed blindness.”
“A lot” is too vague to be meaningful. You’ve already failed to support your claim of knowing that
Please stop making claims about views that you can’t be bothered to ask about.
How can they be both “small” and “a lot”? 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 “self-imposed blindness,” this is a bit much.
Would you prefer “those who deny evolution”? How is it inaccurate?
Leave him alone to stew. Once again he has turned the conversation into a quarrel.
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 … Paul is.
Romans 1: 18 For God’s 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 God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have 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 all… denial is suppression of truth.
Different people have different excuses for this denial of God’s existence. One very popular one is lack of scientific evidence… this is because of accepting philosophical naturalism as a world view.
Think about it… even YECs don’t deny evolution. They point to adaptation working upto even the species level.
Like most YECs and OECs, I am also skeptical of “macro evolution”.
“Evolution denier” is just a lie used for polemics… like science denier…
It’s possible that I do. Define, please.
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 there’s 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:
They still deny most evolution, Ashwin.
And I’ll bet you can’t 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 can’t speak for the others, but I’ve 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 “life’s work” 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 life’s work?
@Jordan: the title is misleading. No one is arguing that “most Scientists” are philosophical naturalists… I don’t 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 “irrelevant accusations by stressed scientist” when you do… it might also lead to people just ignoring what you have to say overall.
It’s your call.