From Evolution News:
Moreover, the article by Rachel Gross spills the beans about something we knew already: that the real goal of most evolution educators isn’t simply to start a conversation about evolution. Rather, the aim is conversion, that is, convincing the public to “accept” evolution. Note these unusually candid admissions about the true goals of Darwin educators:
“Acceptance is my goal,” says Jamie Jensen, an associate professor who teaches undergraduate biology at Brigham Young University. Nearly all Jensen’s students identify as Mormon. “By the end of Biology 101, they can answer all the questions really well, but they don’t believe a word I say,” she says. “If they don’t accept it as being real, then they’re not willing to make important decisions based on evolution — like whether or not to vaccinate their child or give them antibiotics.”
[…]
These groups recognize that cultural barriers, not a lack of education, are what’s preventing more Americans from accepting evolution. “I never want to downplay the importance of teaching our students evolution, I think it’s the most important thing we do,” says Elizabeth Barnes, one of the co-authors of the biology education paper. “But it’s not enough if we want students to actually accept evolution.” More.
Chances are, your taxes pay for this. And we all know perfectly well that social elites would rush to defend Darwin’s religion at the taxpayer’s expense. As long as they are allowed to.
But then, as Michael Ruse makes clear, Darwinism is a rival religion to Christianity (or perhaps elsewhere, other religions?). And it is part of the fundamental creed of most science writers. Science writing is not the better for that.
See also: Michael Ruse: Christianity and Darwinism as rival religions Ruse has always been honest about the fact that, for is serious adherents, Darwinism is a religion.
and
Is the term Darwinism a “scientific slur”?
Interesting. Wouldn’t a non-belief in evolution, i.e. static “bugs” with static immunities, make vaccines seem more viable? I mean, if I didn’t know that the flu shot was such a hit-and-miss, I’d be far more likely to get it every year.
More than that: wouldn’t a belief that “bugs” have no limit to genetic plasticity be an important component to rationalizing the futility of vaccination?
I guess the bigger question is why the students are answering questions in ways they think are wrong. If it’s a mandatory course in some other major, I can understand it.
When I went through university, I had a couple friends who were fundamentalist Christians (don’t laugh, it can happen). I asked them why they were taking evolutionary biology when they don’t believe it. Both of them, independently, said that they were doing it to get ammunition against evolution. Not to learn about it with an open mind, but to learn enough so that they can use it in an argument.
That class didn’t seem to help you, Allan. 😛
Well heck, evolutionism was still a budding enterprise back in the 1950s. 😉
ET,
Ouch.
Allan Keith in another post, in answer to the question, “So Allan, why are you yourself an atheist?”, you stated:
Allan, the main bulk of your response is commonly referred to as the ‘argument from evil’. And as should be obvious, the ‘argument from evil’ is a philosophical, even theological, argument, not a scientific argument.
More specifically, the ‘argument from evil’ is a moral argument.
And herein lies the problem of morality for you as an atheist.
As an atheist you have no moral basis for determining whether anything is good or evil.
Objective morality simply does not exist within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.
In fact, Hitler used the ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking behind Darwinian evolution to ‘scientifically’ justify all sorts of moral atrocities against people he deemed to be racially inferior.
Yet we all agree, or should all agree, that Hitler’s actions were objectively evil.
Thus obviously morality must be something that is immaterial, that is binding towards all people, and that cannot possibly be reduced to any of the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution.
So Allan, as an Atheistic Materialist, how do you possibly account for the objective existence of immaterial moralilty?
In short, you need God in order to ground the objective morality that you seek to condemn God with.
It is obviously a self defeating proposition Allan.
You may say that it is only the God of the Bible that you are seeking to condemn as evil, and that you can easily find moral perfection in some other religion, but I would eagerly challenge you to try to find any other religion for moral perfection and point out exactly how that religion comes anywhere close to matching, much less exceeding, the moral perfection that is found in Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead.
Might I also suggest that your objection to God is not so much that you really think that God is evil, but is because you yourself inwardly know that you have fallen short of the moral perfection demanded by God?,,, And obviously the easiest way to avoid dealing with your own moral imperfection is to pretend that the holder of all moral perfection, i.e. God, is morally imperfect Himself?
Yet that supposed ‘easy’ route that atheists commonly try to take is not so ‘easy’ after all. As was previously shown, this supposed ‘easy’ route is a self-defeating proposition.
Video and Verse
Here are a few more notes on the self-defeating ‘argument from evil’ of atheists:
BA77,
My response was in two parts.
I am an atheist because there is no compelling evidience of god’s existence or his actions (i.e. the first part of my comment) and has nothing to do with the second part of my comment. The second part of my comment explains why I would not worship the sadistic, vengeful judo-christian god if he did exist.
If there was compelling evidence that he existed, I would be a theist, as would everyone. The fact that I would refuse to worship him does not make me an atheist. As such, the rest of your comment is irrelevant.
Need I reference the recent popularity of Flat Earthing?
There isn’t any evidence for materialism. There isn’t even a methodology to test its claims. The same goes for evolutionism.
Allan is clearly a hypocrite
Well Allan, as I already noted, I already addressed that point by pointing to the human brain, Moreover, I have studies that say you are lying to yourself in you denial of design:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asks-wintery-knight-can-a-person-believe-in-both-god-and-darwinian-evolution/#comment-657300
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asks-wintery-knight-can-a-person-believe-in-both-god-and-darwinian-evolution/#comment-657347
And in post 6, you just ignored the fact that I pointed out to you that you have no objective moral basis to judge God and just nonchalantly pretended you had the moral authority to declare God is evil.
As I stressed in my post at 5, You must provide a warrant for your supposed ‘moral’ authority and not just presuppose I will grant you that warrant.
As also pointed out Atheistic materialism certainly provides you no moral basis for declaring anything good or evil, Much less God Himself.
ET,
More pleasant words from ET.
LM,
If you want to equate atheism with flat earthers, that is certainly your prerogative. And, yes, you are correct in that even if there were overwhelmingly compelling evidence for god, some people would still refuse to believe that he exists. I would not be one of them. Which would make me a theist if I saw compelling evidence. But being a theist and worshipping him are not the same thing.
It’s an observation, Allan. You are clearly a hypocrite. You accept evolutionism and materialism even though there isn’t any evidence to support them- not even a way to test their claims. And you reject anything else just because.
BA77,
You may see this as compelling evidence, but I don’t and neither do most people who study biology. That does not mean that we are lying to ourselves. It just means that we disagree. Or are you suggesting that everyone who disagrees with you is lying to themselves?
Since I don’t think that god exists, he is neither good nor evil. What I am saying is that the god portrayed in the judo-christian mythology is sadistic and vengeful. This is not a moral judgment, this is an observation based on scripture.
What makes you think that I need you to grant me a warrant for my moral authority? Your morality is different than mine. We already know this. Whether or not I have the authority to impose my morality on others will depend on how many people I can convince that I am correct. You think that homosexuality is a sin and that same sex marriage is morally wrong. I disagree with you. But it seems that my moral authority has won out over yours. At least for now.
Since morality is subjective, your point is irrelevant.
Allan:
And yet they have nothing else to account for it. Most scientists would see that as a huge problem but somehow you don’t.
If they don’t have anything else to account for what we observe, yes.
No Allen, it is not me saying you are lying to yourself, it is your own ‘knee jerk’ reaction that tells me you are lying to yourself. You know, that whole providing empirical evidence for your claim thing! Oh wait, I forgot, you are a Darwinist so empirical evidence does not matter to you in the least.
,,, So then you deny morality exists, but if it did, you would hold God to be evil? ,,, Yet More Insanity!
Not only do you not have a moral basis to render such a judgement under atheistic materialism, you even lack a basis for claiming you have the free will necessary to make such a judgement! Not to mention that the entire concept of Allen Keith as a real person becomes merely a neuronal illusion. etc.. etc..
Bottom line, your worldview is completely insane.
Moreover, I am the only one between the two of us with the worldview with suffiient warrant that allows me to confidently proclaim your worldview is insane. For instance Your worldview does not even allow for reliable cognitive faculties,, or even for us to know which beliefs ar true and which are false,, (Plantinga)
,,,, In debates, a warrant is the glue that holds an argument together. It links the evidence to the claim.
If you want to have your completely ludicrous claims for Atheistic materialism to be taken seriously in a debate you must provide sufficient warrant. This is all basic stuff.
It is not me ‘granting’ you a warrant per se as much as it is you yourself providing the warrant for others to take your outlandish claims seriously.
as to: “Since morality is subjective, your point is irrelevant.”
For crying out loud, subjective morality is exactly what undermines YOUR claim that your opinions on morality should hold any weight for anybody but yourself!
Allan, you can play these insane games all you want, but there will come a day that your material body will fail and die, and your eternal soul will be separated from your material body. Let me sternly warn you, that day will be no game for you if you continue to want to be completely separated from God:
ET @ 13: You are spot on. Allan’s argument is based on his chosen a/mat philosophy, not science. There is no empirical science to support his position. He takes comfort in what “most people” believe, but that doesn’t help his argument at all.
BA77,
If my worldview is completely insane, what does that say about someone who continues to respond to my comments?
It says they are out to fight the ignorance and insanity of our opponents
Truth Will Set You Free-
Allan isn’t interested in facts nor science. It is just interested in keeping its little mind set on materialism.
Hi Allan
You wrote:
“I am an atheist because there is no compelling evidience of god’s existence or his actions”
This seems to be the most common reason given by atheists concerning the adoption of their worldview, so I have always been interested in the atheist’s response to the following question:
What evidence WOULD convince you of the existence of God?
CB,
The obvious would be if he presented himself to the world. But I am sure that there would be several more subtle things that would lean me towards a theist belief. Eliminating all cancer. Or giving everyone cancer. Stopping the moon in its orbit. Stopping the tides. Clear evidence of design.
Allan offers a very weak criticism of ID, since it is based on an erroneous understanding of what ID is.
ID is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose.
Contrary to what Allan believes ID is not about the identity of the designer.
Eric Anderson puts it like this:
Hi Allan,
Thanks for the reply. Your response covers much of what I would have expected, but there’s a problem with many of the types of evidence you suggest.
I started thinking about all this a few years ago when I wondered what would convert Richard Dawkins to theism. Dawkins, like the philosopher Thomas Nagel, not only disbelieves in God but doesn’t want there to be a God, for personal psychological reasons.
I imagined myself standing outdoors with Dawkins one starry night, and asking God to reveal Him/Her/It self in a way that would convince Richard.
Now God was in an unusually obliging mood that night, and graciously rearranged all the star constellations to spell out “Hi Richard, this is God. NOW do you believe I exist?”
“Well”, I say to Dawkins, “How about that?”
“I’m not convinced” says Richard.
“What?” I reply, “Surely this is irrefutable evidence?”
“Not at all” retorts Dawkins. “I believe aliens just did that. After all, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
“You’re kidding, surely, Richard?”
“Oh no, I’m quite serious. And anyway, there are many other explanations.”
“Such as?”
“Well, you might have hypnotised me. Or got a professional hypnotist to implant a trigger phrase months or years ago, just waiting for this moment. Or you could have slipped a hallucinogen into my tea this evening. Or I could be in the early stages of a brain tumour. Or maybe the stars rearrange themselves like this every few billion years, due to some cosmological glitch we’ve yet to discover.”
The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that there is ALWAYS an “out” for a committed atheist. (Benevolent aliens could be the cause of everyone’s cancer disappearing, for example.)
Of course I don’t know how this would relate to you personally, but the evidence is always dismissable by anyone who desires strongly enough to dismiss it.
Charles
CB, you are correct that there will always be some people who will continue to disbelieve regardless of the evidence. But I am not one of them.
Hi Allan,
I believe you are sincere in what you say. (It would be difficult call though, surely? God vs. benevolent cancer-curing aliens or fast-spreading undetectable anticancer virus?)
Also, I’m not entirely certain that if God presented Him/Her/It self to the world, that such a revelation wouldn’t obviate the whole purpose of the world existing in the first place.
Rather like watching a gripping movie, only to have a message appear on the screen at regular intervals: “Hi, this is the Director. Don’t forget you’re just watching make-believe and these people are just acting. None of this really matters.”
Or getting involved in a superb first-person computer game, and having a similar message flash onto the screen: “Hi, this is the Programmer. None of this is real and it doesn’t matter whether you find the treasure / defeat the bad guys. You have no reason to take this seriously.”
IOW there may be a reason that the All That Is doesn’t want to make the evidence of its existence utterly irrefutable. It would ruin the whole point of the game.
Charles
CB,
I don’t see why it would. I assume that you firmly believe in the existance of god. As is obviously also the case for KairosFocus and Bornagain77. Has this certainty ruined the whole point of the game for you? If anything, I think the added certainty would only provide more comfort.
You have proven that you don’t know how to assess the evidence.
Hi Allan,
Well, I don’t know about ‘firmly believe’. That’s too strong. I would prefer to say that I think there is more evidence pointing towards a God – or maybe Philip K Dick’s VALIS (Vast Active Living Intelligent System) would be a better description – than there is in the opposite direction. None – or at least very little – of the evidence that I find persuasive, has much to do with orthodox religion, BTW.
A ‘courtroom’ level of evidence, in other words. No absolute certainty, though.
Actually it’s the uncertainty that makes the whole game more interesting – I’m constantly evaluating the arguments pro and con which keeps the old grey matter working – a useful exercise at my age. (That’s why I’ve joined this Forum, after all)
(And maybe it’s another of the ultimate goals anyway – Near Death Experiencers usually claim that their NDE pointed towards the garnering of wisdom, and the deepening of unconditional love and compassion, as the prime objectives of our lives.)
I think having absolute certainty would actually make things a bit boring for me.
Charles
ET,
Do you ever contribute to a discussion? If not, please let the adults talk.
CB,
For me as well. Sadly, there are some here (BA77, KF, ET) who are absolutely certain of their views. And just as many on the other side (Dawkins and Coyne, for example). The bigger question is why they even bother to participate in a discussion. They are not interested in discussing. They are only interested in proclaiming.
Allan:
I have. You never do
Then shut up and let them
I am interested in a discussion. You don’t have anything but lies and denial
Charles Birch @ 27: Good comment. I am a committed theist, a true believer, but I appreciate the idea of a Vast Active Living Intelligent System. That certainly makes more sense than the hard-line a/mat position… at least to me.
TWSYF
‘VALIS’ seems to be the best approximation I can find for the sort of ‘God’ I think probably exists.
If I had a ‘revelation’, or smoked enough 5-MeO-DMT, I might be totally convinced through direct experience.
Interestingly, the atheist Zen Buddhist Dr. Martin Ball DID smoke enough 5-MeO-DMT to become convinced; his experience describes an entity very much like Philip Dick’s VALIS (although it has similarities to the ‘God’ experienced by the Christian mystics –
Try this video from 14.00 onwards:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PQctOMSmBuk
Charles