Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 09:43:56 EDT

--- gordon brown <> wrote:

> I assume that you mean (neo)-Darwinian evolution
> rather than evolution in
> general. I can imagine an atheist remaining one if
> he finds fault with the
> Darwinian mechanism but not if he comes out against
> all possible theories
> of evolution. What other options does he have? Some
> natural phenomenon
> that creates complex life instantaneously with no
> intermediate steps? A
> universe (and perhaps earth) that have always been
> here and always
> contained complex life like us? That would sidestep
> the question of how we
> got here, but even back when it might have been
> possible to believe that
> the earth had always existed, I would think that an
> atheist would have
> assumed that complex life had to arise from
> something simpler, but then
> there would be the question of how simple is simple
> enough.

If one has an eternal universe, not a big ban universe
the alternative would actually be what Boltzman
suggested in relation to thermodynamics. It all came
together as we see it in one big statistical fluke
with our memories in tact. Given an infinite time,
every arrangement of matter is possible. And that is
an option open to the atheist who doesn't believe in
evolutio--not an appealing one I grant, but it is an

The point you raise is interesting. The problem I have
with all the claims made by apologists that the
evidence supports antievolutionism, yecism and other
such stuff, is that only the religious are advocates
of anti-evolutionaryism. If the evidence were
against evolution, an atheist could say, I don't know
how it happened but it didn't arise by evolution nor
did it arise via god. Surely someone would take this
agnostic position against life evolving if the
evidence for evolution were as bad as we are told.

At the ASA meeting 2 days ago, I had a conversatiuon
with gerald Bergman and Wade??? (I am embarassed that
I forgot his last name he didn't give me a card). Wade
asked Bergman why, if the evidence were against
evolution why was there not at least 1 atheist saying
that. Bergman couldn't answer but he simply told me
when I reraised the point that he couldn't be sure
that there werent atheists against evolution until he
could interview lots of atheists. Which is quite a
convenient escape mechanism because no matter how many
one interviews, one can always say he hasn't found
that one atheist.

When it comes to evidence of the young earth the same
argument is made and the yecs could answer it in the
same way--the atheist HAS to believe in an old earth
to give him time to evolve life. The problem with the
apologetical response is that it doesnt present any
data for their position, it just gives them a reason
to avoid changing their belief structure

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Received on Mon Aug 8 09:45:47 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 08 2005 - 09:45:49 EDT