Belief in evolution

[Seamus]

theists tend to refer to evolution as 'just a theory' and therefore like to offer their own agendas as evidence.

In doing so they demonstrate a willful ignorance of scientific method,the difference between an 'hypothesis' and 'a theory' as well as the meaning of the word 'evidence'

A cynical person might observe such people are actually quite stupid and live a state of permanent denial ,having learned to ignore facts. (Those intellectual giants Ray comfort and little Kirkie Cameron are graphic examples)

I don't think it's usually stupidity,but then I consider willful ignorance far worse than simple stupidity (OK, Kirkie is willfully ignorant AND stupid)

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

On top of that they will go to extreme lengths to hide their ignorance without success. Once they realize that they have made a mistake, they will also try not to admit it, or at least attempt to admit it in a way that they do not look stupid, also without much success as it makes them look even more stupid trying to admit it.

[davo]

One important point here, is you can not believe in evolution, and still be an atheist.

It's religious people that are confronted by the FACT of evolution, and the THEORY about how the mechanics of it work, that associate it to atheism.

There are plenty of theists that accept the FACT of evolution.

I don't 'believe' in evolution, I know it is true due to the overwhelming observable, testable, falsifiable evidence for the fact of it.

Dog breeding = evolution

Equating this with a leap of faith based on no evidence is ridiculous.

[zebba]

Originally Posted by davo

One important point here, is you can not believe in evolution, and still be an atheist..

Important? Rubbish more like it... Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here. "Belief" does not automatically imply a leap of faith.

[davo]

Originally Posted by zebba

Important? Rubbish more like it... Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here. "Belief" does not automatically imply a leap of faith.

maybe you are misreading what I am stating?

There is no requirement to believe in evolution to be an atheist or any other type of 'belief'. you can 'not believe in evolution'. EDIT: not 'cannot', maybe that's where the line was confusing?

It IS important.

Atheism is not a doctrine or concept of belief and does not require it.

I am not saying that belief is necessarily a leap of faith, UNLESS you are referring to religious belief, which is called faith, and synonymous with it.

Words can have a few varying meanings based on context don't forget.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Exactly: atheist = non-theist just as asynchronious = non-synchronious
Only thing atheists are united in is that they do not believe in any gods.

[two dogs]

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Exactly: atheist = non-theist just as asynchronious = non-synchronious

-i

[Atrax Robustus]

Originally Posted by Seamus

In doing so they demonstrate a willful ignorance of scientific method,the difference between an 'hypothesis' and 'a theory' as well as the meaning of the word 'evidence'

Originally Posted by Crocodile

On top of that they will go to extreme lengths to hide their ignorance without success.

It's not all willful ignorance guys. In my experience, there are three categories of proponent for the "Just a Theory" approach: the mendacious liars, the willfully (read as indoctrinated) ignorant, and the ignorants (non-pejorative).

The first are those who, through a cursory review of their curriculum vitae are very aware of what a scientific theory is and they know that the popular understanding of the word is easily used to convince the ignorants. These are the lying charlatans (like Ray Bananaman and his comfort toy, Harun Yahya, Ken Ham, Bill Dembski and Kent Hovind et al.) who know that what they are saying is illogical, irrational and misleading but are businessmen who have secured a seat on the theism gravy train - so they can say anything they want and stilll have a huge following who will believe them without question.

The second category comprises those who understand that a scientific theory is different from a position of speculation but could care less than to challenge the pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/ID-Creo spokesperson who is spruiking the position - as that position supports their worldview. These are usually the well practiced proponents of overcoming cognitive dissonance. Typically, these are the ones who are happy to use any number of 'arguments' provided by spruikers and various webpages and will actively avoid reading a book written by a reputable scientist that discusses valid scientific investigation or even looking at pages like this one - even when they're given the link!

The third are those who are simply ignorant of the scientific model (BTW - there are MANY atheists out there who are also ignorant of the model). These people have never learned science beyond early high school level and will probably never need to. They are happy to accept without question whatever their pastor/priest/rabbi/imam/ID-Creo spokesperson tells them . . . usually because that spokesperson is, to them, speaking from a position of authority. (This also applies to a LOT of atheists as well although the authority figure is most often a scientist or doctor)

BTW: These categories apply to the users of just about any of the ID/Creo arguments.

[zebba]

Originally Posted by davo

maybe you are misreading what I am stating?

There is no requirement to believe in evolution to be an atheist or any other type of 'belief'. you can 'not believe in evolution'. EDIT: not 'cannot', maybe that's where the line was confusing?

You're right, I did. My apologies

[atheist_angel]

I haven't even been able to bring myself to vote yet,
because as far I'm concerned ... It's just a word game 'faithers' play to level the playing field between delusion and reality.

...either a person is exercising their brain, or they're not. Manipulating language doesn't change facts... it only puts a spin on them.