Is atheism promoted as science ?

@iuliuxd (4453)
Romania
March 24, 2013 9:11pm CST
This is copied from a transcript of the Dover trial (taken from NCSE website): http://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/trial_transcripts/2005_0927_day2_am.pdf Ken Miller testimony : "...Q. Sir, is evolution random and undirected? A. I don't think that that is an appropriate scientific question. First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most definitely a non-random force, and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science... ...Q. Is a student believes that this was a scientific complaint -- let me strike that. If a student believes that this was a scientific claim, would that be a misconception? A. If a student believed that it was a scientific claim that evolution was random and undirected, would that be a misconception? And I think my answer to that is yes, that would be a misconception of what science can state about evolution. Q. Sir, in your 1995 edition of Biology, I believe it's the Elephant Book? A. That's correct. It's generally known by that name. Q. Did it not state in that book, "It is important to keep this concept in mind. Evolution is random and undirected," and the part "evolution is random and undirected" was in bold print? A. To be perfectly honest, which of course I swore to be, I don't remember if it was in bold print or ordinary print, but I'm sure you have a copy of that book, and I'm sure that you'll show it to me and refresh my memory... ...Q. I hand you what's been previously marked as Defendant's Exhibit 210. A. And in response to your question, sir, I note under Section 30-2 on the second page of the document you gave me, the complete sentence reads, "As we do so it's important to keep this concept in mind," and it is indeed in boldface, "Evolution is random and undirected," that's correct. So yes, sir, it does say that. Q. Now, isn't it true when you write your textbook, a boldfaced sentence is a way of telling the students that this is a key idea? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Now, you testified previously that that's not a scientific concept, correct? A. I did indeed, sir..." What do you think of this ? This guy promoted his atheist ideas into textbooks. And many of us believe today that science says evolution is a random and undirected process.
8 responses
@robspeakman (1707)
25 Mar 13
Atheism is not promoted as a science. Atheism is a generalisation for a lack of belief in a Deity. Evolution is not random. Bacteria and Viruses evolve on a much shorter time scale - They evolve to spread, to build up resistance to anti bacterial and antibiotic... That proves the evolution is shaped by the environment. I don't know why you posted this discussion - You will not listen to a differing opinion
1 person likes this
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science... Why do you believe he wrote that in his book ?
25 Mar 13
His book? That is one's persons opinion - you are clutching at straws The direction of evolution - That comes from life wanting to survive and reproduce
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
Yours is also one`s persons opinion. I asked something else. He admits that to say evolution is undirected (or directed i may add ) requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that is beyond the realm of science. Yet in his book he writes : "Evolution is random and undirected". And that is not an opinion, it is written in a textbook the kids will use to learn Biology. So why does he promotes his beliefs as science ?
@owlwings (38072)
• Cambridge, England
25 Mar 13
I don't believe that you have read the full transcript. Miller goes on to make it quite clear that it is a mistake which appeared in the third edition of the book only and was written by his co-author, Joe Levine. He also believed, on discussing the matter with Joe Levine, that it was a misunderstanding of an idea expressed by Stephen J. Gould (see p.7 of the transcript, Q.12 lines 4-20). I don't understand what point you are trying to make in this discussion.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Mar 13
Not to undercut the author of this topic, but the point: To show that "atheism" is being used to indoctrinate kids in the school system by way of intentionally removing God, using faith-based assumptions as science, and lying about science to make kids disobey their parents' religious teachings. Obvious quote-mining is obvious, but the fact remains that the fact remains. Atheism = a competing religion which has made its way into the highest levels of education and government and the new indoctrination nation to emerge will inevitably have every religious person thrown into Gulags and every church torn to rubble. Now that the atheists have successfully managed to dilute and twist evolution to fit their agenda, they're starting with the multiverse and will teach kids explicitly that if there are other universes like other galaxies, that must mean God doesn't exist.
@owlwings (38072)
• Cambridge, England
25 Mar 13
No, atheism is NOT promoted as a science. Atheism is a belief system. Science deals with the verification of ideas which may start out as 'beliefs' about the nature of a particular process or mechanism - called hypotheses in scientific terminology. Once it has been established from evidence that a hypothesis is correct, though, by the nature of the mechanism, it cannot be demonstrated by a reproducible experimental process, it is then known as a theory. The process of evolution is a fact. The exact nature of how the process is achieved is a 'theory' in scientific terminology because it has not, as yet, been demonstrated in a reproducible experiment, and probably never can be.
• United States
25 Mar 13
Simpatico. I was just giving you the shorthand of the reasoning behind the post from Iuiluxd. You'll read it soon enough. I just haven't trolled in a while. (And I doinked your name below. My bad. )
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
25 Mar 13
Owlings beat me to it. Focus up! Context matters. Even if it doesn't, even if this version were truth (which, let's face it, it's promoted as such amongst those who want it to be), this is one guy -- one guy, whom, if I'm remembering correctly, is actually pretty devoutly religious, just not a young earth Biblical fundamentalist. "Is atheism promoted as science?" Obviously not in this instance.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
If i write "atheism is stupid" in a textbook, and then i say it was a mistake (even if people are claiming it appeared in all four editions of my book), would you consider that to be scientific ? Do you like your kid to learn that atheism is stupid ? I don`t care if he says he is religious, the so called "undirected evolution" is an atheist concept as he actually admits when he says the questions about purpose is beyond the realm of science.
• United States
25 Mar 13
That someone dares to suggest that the evidence suggests evolution is apparently undirected, you take this as a direct shot against your beliefs. That's your problem. Hopefully kids are intelligent enough not to be so petty. "Atheism is stupid" isn't equivalent just because you feel "undirected" means "God isn't real." Grow up. Even pretending like the quote-mining was successful and he put it in all of his books intentionally and actually believed that, it still doesn't make it "atheist." Put the foil hat away. Guys like Miller are in that club that believe God (yes, your same God) planted the seeds of life and let evolution take its course naturally. So how's it atheist crap? Get real. Any kid that's actually paying attention in class to get more of a grasp of evolution than some folks around here who can't even explain what a species is -- well, that kid is going to know the context of "undirected" and understand that, no, science cannot make that call as it pertains to the reason the word is there: Divine direction.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
"As we do so it's important to keep this concept in mind," and it is indeed in boldface, "Evolution is random and undirected," that's correct. So yes, sir, it does say that. Q. Now, isn't it true when you write your textbook, a boldfaced sentence is a way of telling the students that this is a key idea? A. Yes, sir, it is. So it`s not simply a suggestion is a key idea. And yes it is an anti religious key idea that has the same value with "atheism is stupid".
• Indonesia
25 Mar 13
I think Atheism is a choice, like some choose to be a Muslem, a Christian, a Hindu, or a Buddhist. Some people choose to not believe in God. And as for me, science is a tool to prove that God is exists! I believe in Evolution theory even most people from my religious group deny it, but I am not an Atheist. And i think the randomness and undirectedness it self can be already being directed by God.
@owlwings (38072)
• Cambridge, England
25 Mar 13
There is no conflict between 'evolution' and a belief in an intelligent Deity. Those who do not accept the fact of evolution are very similar to those who believed that the Earth was flat or that the Earth was the centre of the solar system/Universe. The only conflict is artificially generated (and quite recently) by those who choose to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore literally and word-for-word 'true'. It is quite legitimate and within the meaning of 'belief in God' to accept that life on Earth (or elsewhere) was created by an intelligent being, whom we may choose to call God. It is also legitimate to assert that this intelligence guides the process of evolution in some way. Neither of these assertions, however, are scientific proofs, At best, they are hypotheses.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
Owlwings in the last time some books have appeared like "Where the conflict really lies" by Alvin Platinga or "Mind and Cosmos - why the material neo darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false " by Thomas Nagel. It`s not fair to say the only conflict is generated by those who choose to believe in Bible literally, for example Thomas Nagel is not a religious person. Anthony Flew was another example of a person who noticed a conflict between the limit of naturalism and the complexity of life and he was an atheist.
@urbandekay (18314)
25 Mar 13
I agree with Owlwings, evolution by natural selection posses not challenge to belief in an intelligent Deity. It is a very good theory with overwhelming evidence supporting it, from the fossil record of horses to the Japanese scientists that reported on the evolution of a new species of fish in Lake Victoria but however good it is not a scientific theory, since it is not open to falsification. Nancy Cartwright's books such as 'How science lies' are also very good all the best, urban
@cvodrey (228)
• United States
25 Mar 13
Atheism is not science. Atheism is non-theistic. They only believe there is not a God and follow science. That said, if science proved there was indeed a God, Atheists would not longer be Atheists because they use scientific research as their eyes to the truth.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
They follow science to where ? There is no science that studies the existence of God.
@owlwings (38072)
• Cambridge, England
25 Mar 13
There are plenty of people who have tried to establish (or refute) the existence of God scientifically. Most of them have been proven unscientific either because they depart from scientific discipline or because they fail to define the nature of God satisfactorily and irrefutably. If you cannot satisfactorily define what you are studying and trying to prove the existence of, you cannot begin to prove its existence and therefore there can be no 'science' involved.
@wapewe (173)
27 Mar 13
Every life style will find the way to spread it out, to get anyone attracted and accompany them. They will use anything in order to make their existances keep exist. Human rights under democration can force anything and everything.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
27 Mar 13
Thanks for your answer, i believe you are right.
@urbandekay (18314)
25 Mar 13
Atheism is not a science Many atheist attempt to justify atheism not with science but with scientism. The theory of Evolution by natural selection does not suggest that evolution is random but rather is directed by suitability to fit he environment all the best, urban
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
They can do whatever they want, i don`t have a problem with that, i believe the foundations of atheism are illogical since you need to apply a circular reasoning. But i was asking about atheism promoted as science, inside the text books or something like this : http://news.oneindia.in/2008/02/19/oxford-study-spend-2m-investigate-why-god-1203408360.html
@nyssa102 (749)
• United States
25 Mar 13
I know some atheists on facebook, and it's not a science, however they heavily promote science on their pages. Most of their pages revolve around science, rather than religion bashing.
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
25 Mar 13
I am talking about this particular case. That guy admits that to say evolution is directed or undirected is beyond the realm of science. But he writes in his own book with bold characters that evolution is random and undirected.