Is Darwinism the religion of atheists?

mickrock

Most atheists have a lot of faith that neo-Darwinism explains how evolution occurred. It seems to explain everything.

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.


"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive changes in organisms)."
--(Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK])


"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated . A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place."
--(Ho M.W. & Saunders P.T., "Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution")


“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”
―Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of biology, University of Bristol


"More recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a partial explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian theory as a *full* explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science that the universe has evolved. There is at the moment not one competing theory which can account for the observed facts."
--(Price, Barry [former Director, School Physics Project, Australian Academy of Science], "The Creation Science Controversy," Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990)

Sarky

The answer is no.


Did you have any other questions?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Most atheists have a lot of faith that neo-Darwinism explains how evolution occurred. It seems to explain everything.

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.


"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small-scale adaptive changes in organisms)."
--(Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK])


"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated . A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place."
--(Ho M.W. & Saunders P.T., "Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution")


“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.”
―Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of biology, University of Bristol


"More recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a partial explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian theory as a *full* explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science that the universe has evolved. There is at the moment not one competing theory which can account for the observed facts."
--(Price, Barry [former Director, School Physics Project, Australian Academy of Science], "The Creation Science Controversy," Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990)

Short answer in reply to your thread title is no. I've no problem with you thinking of it that way though if it helps you make sense of the world.;-)

fatmammycat

Third for 'no'. Good copy and paste though, very well reasoned argument put forth.

The Mad Hatter

mickrock wrote: »

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.

It explains so-called macroevolution perfectly well. However, as you have shown in several threads already that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any argument that disagrees with your position, I'm just going to recommend you go read a book.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

The answer is no.


Did you have any other questions?

Incorrect my dear sarky. The is no, but they do have faith that the op is massively unaware and misinformed on the workings of evolution.

Corkfeen

Sarky wrote: »

The answer is no.


Did you have any other questions?

I assume he has many more and every single one of them will return to the topic of ID. He's like a caricature of himself at this point (Didn't even think it was possible...). I want to invent a theory that no one has evidence for, hopefully Mick will inspire me.

strobe

I think we may need to consider setting up one of those Superman glass traps for Mickrock if this continues. Or maybe he can share JC's one? Superman fit three guys into the original one.

Sarky

That sound awfully deviant.

mickrock

fatmammycat wrote: »

Third for 'no'. Good copy and paste though, very well reasoned argument put forth.

Well reasoned arguments don't work very well with people with entrenched beliefs.

Improbable

For what will undoubtedly not be the last time, even IF it didn't explain it, which it does, that does not mean you get to automatically declare that god did it.

tricky D

No. Your next thread pls...

Turtwig

mickrock wrote: »

fatmammycat wrote: »

Third for 'no'. Good copy and paste though, very well reasoned argument put forth.

Well reasoned arguments don't work very well with people with entrenched beliefs.

You could at least try. . .

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

Most atheists have a lot of faith that neo-Darwinism explains how evolution occurred. It seems to explain everything.

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.

Even if the two above sentences are correct, I fail to see the relevance really. Presumably, given the quotes, this is a creationist argument. However, it doesn't disagree that evolution occurs. How, why or when evolution occurs isn't really relevant in the evolution -v- creationism debate.

Of course your first sentence is incorrect. You'll find that most atheists probably agree that evolution occurs and they understand the basic mechanism. But they probably don't know the ins-and-outs of the theory or of neo-Darwinism, whatever that is.
You would be incorrect to say that most Atheists have faith in any given proposal.

fatmammycat

My beliefs are not entrenched, if compelling evidence comes along that suggests a creator I will amend my thinking accordingly.

Sonics2k

mickrock wrote: »

Well reasoned arguments don't work very well with people with entrenched beliefs.

Ironic statement of the year.

I think all Atheists (or even the already Religious) would convert to any Religion, if it could be proven. Unfortunately the only way for that to happen would for the God in particular to actually show them self to the world, openly.

Seeing as they seemed to do this thousand of years ago, it baffles me they don't do the same now.

Ellis Dee

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It explains so-called macroevolution perfectly well. However, as you have shown in several threads already that you are either unwilling or unable to understand any argument that disagrees with your position, I'm just going to recommend you go read a book.[/QUOTE]


Isn't that a bit harsh? Surely expecting those whose faith has already given them all the answers to expose themselves to checkable, verifiable facts (shudder!) and thereby run the risk of serious cognitive dissonance is getting pretty close to cruel and unusual punishment. :rolleyes::)

mickrock

Improbable wrote: »

For what will undoubtedly not be the last time, even IF it didn't explain it, which it does, that does not mean you get to automatically declare that god did it.

Why do you always have to bring god into it?

I'm just pointing out the fatal flaw in neo-Darwinism.

[-0-]

Can we PLEASE dump all of this type of drivel in JC's thread? Or create a sub forum entitled 'Creationists Devoid of Clue' and dump everything there?

Improbable

mickrock wrote: »

Why do you always have to bring god into it?

I'm just pointing out the fatal flaw in neo-Darwinism.

I thought you might say that. If that be the case, the Biology forum is over there

---

>

If however you're trying to say that in order to somehow strengthen your position, which it doesn't, then you have failed miserably.

You're not pointing out the fatal flaw in anything, except for the fatal flaw in using quote mining as evidence for something...

mickrock

seamus wrote: »

Of course your first sentence is incorrect. You'll find that most atheists probably agree that evolution occurs and they understand the basic mechanism. But they probably don't know the ins-and-outs of the theory or of neo-Darwinism, whatever that is.
You would be incorrect to say that most Atheists have faith in any given proposal.

You're probably right in most of what you've said.

fatmammycat

Mickrock, you seem to scrambling about for some purpose, what exactly is it you wish to convey?

mickrock

[-0-] wrote: »

Can we PLEASE dump all of this type of drivel in JC's thread? Or create a sub forum entitled 'Creationists Devoid of Clue' and dump everything there?

I thought you'd be a hardier bunch. If these sort of threads annoy/upset you, just ignore them.

RichieC

fatmammycat wrote: »

Mickrock, you seem to scrambling about for some purpose, what exactly is it you wish to convey?

that there is a worldwide conspiracy between scientists and leading atheists to hide the obvious supernatural hand in our creation.

[-0-]

mickrock wrote: »

I thought you'd be a hardier bunch. If these sort of threads annoy/upset you, just ignore them.

If boards had an 'ignore all creationist filth' option, trust me, I would have used it a long time ago.

I would prefer to keep it all in one place, instead of seeing threads pop up again and again spouting the same crap that was shown to be false a long time ago.

I don't like clutter. I'm OCD like that.

mickrock

RichieC wrote: »

that there is a worldwide conspiracy between scientists and leading atheists to hide the obvious supernatural hand in our creation.

You're letting your mind run away with you.

fatmammycat

RichieC wrote: »

that there is a worldwide conspiracy between scientists and leading atheists to hide the obvious supernatural hand in our creation.

I wish he'd just say that then, instead of quote mining and attempting to play 'gotcha' based on arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

fatmammycat

mickrock wrote: »

You're letting your mind run away with you.

Well then tell us, what is it you are trying to convey? What is it you believe to be true?

mickrock

fatmammycat wrote: »

I wish he'd just say that then, instead of quote mining and attempting to play 'gotcha' based on arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

These arguments haven't been refuted at all.

fatmammycat

I'm afraid they have, on countless occasions in the Origins thread, if you care to cast your eye over them. Or read people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins. There is no credible science behind ID, never has been, unlikely to ever be, even some of the original ID proponents are backing away from it as it circles the plughole.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

However, the fatal flaw in the theory is that while it adequately explains microevolution, it can't explain macroevolution i.e how species evolve.

I'm able to walk hundreds of yards inside and around my house, but walk thousands of yards to the next town?

Mathematically impossible!

Kivaro

fatmammycat wrote: »

My beliefs are not entrenched, if compelling evidence comes along that suggests a creator I will amend my thinking accordingly.

After 14 BILLION years without any evidence, I wouldn't hold my breath ......

But time is relative, I suppose.

fatmammycat

Kivaro wrote: »

After 14 BILLION years without any evidence, I wouldn't hold my breath ......

But time is relative, I suppose.

No, nor I, but that's science for you, always prepared to amend when new evidence comes to light, unlike say, y'know, religion.

robindch

fatmammycat wrote: »

[...] prepared to amend when new evidence comes to light, unlike say, y'know, religion.

Religion is evolving all the time to meet new memetic requirements.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a meeting between a risen Jesus and a few of today's fundie christians.

Da Shins Kelly

To answer your original question, no, dear.

mickrock

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To answer your original question, no, dear.

Good for you!

Da Shins Kelly

mickrock wrote: »

Good for you!

It is pretty good, thanks.

RichieC

mickrock wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

that there is a worldwide conspiracy between scientists and leading atheists to hide the obvious supernatural hand in our creation.

You're letting your mind run away with you.

theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.

mickrock

RichieC wrote: »

theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.

You've hit the nail on the head.

Max Power1

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm afraid they have, on countless occasions in the Origins thread, if you care to cast your eye over them. Or read people like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins. There is no credible science behind ID, never has been, unlikely to ever be, even some of the original ID proponents are backing away from it as it circles the plughole.

There is however, credible science's more dangerous retarded cousin, "pseudo science". Oft used by creationists and other similar nutjobs.

mickrock

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
―James A. Shapiro, Dept of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago

MagicMarker

Another worthless thread, thanks mickrock.

18AD

Sorry if I missed this in an earlier post.

In what way do you think it's "quasi-religious"?

And most importanlty, what if it is?

RichieC

mickrock wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

theres very little to be gained from debating a person who cannot see the logical conclusion to the arguments they are regurgitating.

You've hit the nail on the head.

honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...

mickrock

MagicMarker wrote: »

Another worthless thread, thanks mickrock.

Cheers!


“Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved."
--Scott F Gilbert, Professor of Biology, Swarthmore College

Sarky

You keep using these quote about what genetics and evolution don't explain, but you completely ignore us when we show you stuff that DOES.

If you want a debate, you're going to actually have to enter into one.

fatmammycat

More quote mining, no surpise here, however appeals to authority are more to be pitied than laughed at. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the-unexpected.html

mickrock

RichieC wrote: »

honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...

Try to improve your spelling and punctuation and you might be better understood.

sephir0th

mickrock, every thread you've started has been a great example of the theological fallacy 'god of the gaps'.

RichieC

mickrock wrote: »

RichieC wrote: »

honestly, youre embaressing yourself now...

Try to improve your spelling and punctuation and you might be better understood.

why do you insist in dragging out youre complete failure with this type of post....

spelling and punctuation take a back seat when on my andriod.

mickrock

fatmammycat wrote: »

More quote mining, no surpise here, however appeals to authority are more to be pitied than laughed at.

Quoting professors of biology are not appeals to authority in this case.