Many of those who doubt evolution do so on the basis of Bible literalism, but not all. I find it interesting that some non-believers like Thomas Nagel and Raymond Tallis say we need step back and question some key assumptions.
Evolution or Creation Poll
by Vanderhoven7 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
cofty
some non-believers like Thomas Nagel and Raymond Tallis say we need step back and question some key assumptions - SBF
That is equivocation. Nobody is asserting that any particular detail regarding evolution is unassailable.
The fundamental fact that every species evolved from a common ancestor is only rejected by religiously motivated ideologues.
-
cofty
Hooby - The material for my series Evolution is a Fact came from a large number of sources. Mostly from books on my bookshelf. I did use TalkOrigins among other sources for some of the early threads on DNA. It is a very good website and also exists as a series of podcasts. The ERV diagram came from google images.
On a number of occasions I have listed many of these sources including books and websites when posters have asked for further research.
Have you checked out your dishonest use of sources on the ERV thread yet?
-
Earnest
cofty : ...there is no comparison in intellectual rigour and honesty between creationists who reject evolution, despite admitting never having read a single science book in their entire lives, and [those] who have done the work and follow the evidence.
On that we agree, although we do not necessarily agree where the evidence leads.
However, what I was asserting was that not everyone who maintains all species evolved from a single cell are motivated by an honest, objective consideration of the facts. Many accept evolution because others do, not because they have investigated the matter for themselves.
My objection to your statement was that it was so sweeping, that everyone who did not accept all species evolved from a single cell had not done the work or followed the evidence. There are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours.
-
cofty
There are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours
Who has studied the scientific evidence for evolution - NOT from critical sources - and concluded that evolution is false who is not a theist?
I will be very surprised if you know of such a person.
-
slimboyfat
Who has studied the scientific evidence for evolution - NOT from critical sources - and concluded that evolution is false who is not a theist?
David Berlinski and Thomas Nagel raise questions about Darwinian evolution.
Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Cosmos-Materialist-Neo-Darwinian-Conception/dp/0199919755/
The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensionshttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0465019374/
-
Earnest
cofty : Who has studied the scientific evidence for evolution - NOT from critical sources - and concluded that evolution is false who is not a theist?
That was not my assertion. My assertion was that there are many who have made an honest, objective study of the facts and have come to conclusions different to yours. The fact that a person is a theist does not preclude him from being honest and objective.
-
cofty
I do not accept that a theist can honestly and objectively reject the basic fact of common ancestry.
That's like saying a JW can study all the facts and honestly and objectively believe that Jerusalem fell in 607 BC.
However much they protest you just know they are deluding themself about their motives.
-
slimboyfat
I do not accept that a theist can honestly and objectively reject the basic fact of common ancestry.
I accept that you honestly think that.
-
Vanderhoven7
The more I hear and read about David Berlinski, the more I like him despite his agnosticism.
. Has anyone provided proof of God's inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.
David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions