Evolution article at American Wiki

Discussions and related news items
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by markg » Sun Apr 26, 2009 2:57 pm

There is an article located here http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution that cites quite a few prominent evolutionary scientists who were atheists. For example, it cites Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin, and Richard Charles Lewontin.

Given that this is an atheist discussion board, I thought it might be interesting to get some commentary on this article. The article has been cited by some notable sources such as the Chicago Tribune.
marklen
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Dun Laoghaire, Dublin
Contact:

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by marklen » Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:14 pm

Frankly I couldn't get past the first paragraph.

To put it simply, whether or not scientists who have worked on evolution are atheists or not is completely irrelevant.

The argument that we should or should not believe something based on the subjective moral impact of that belief is also irrelevant.

A scientific theory is judged on consistency with evidence, amongst other things, and the evidence is over whelming. Also there aren't any alternative theories available.

The choices are between (A) science - a consistent, well documented, mature, objective explanation which matches a wide range of observations, not just in biology or (b) magic.

Honestly which choice to you expect the vast majority of atheists to pick?
Neil
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:27 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by Neil » Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:15 pm

Conservapedia? Oh, dear...
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
- Terry Pratchett
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by Ygern » Mon Apr 27, 2009 2:12 am

You've been here before promoting Conservapedia.

It's a right-wing repository of conspiracy theories, pseudo-science and creationism. It has nothing valuable to contribute to humanity, other than to demonstate just how deluded some humans can get.
The universe is huge and old, and rare things happen all the time ~ Lawrence Krauss
Cork Skeptics
CatHerder
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by CatHerder » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:03 am

Ygern wrote:You've been here before promoting Conservapedia.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1882 :)
Hemingway
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by Hemingway » Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:49 am

From my experience, the above link in the main, is a poorly researched website that contains information weighted heavily in favour of theism and is promoting a creationisd agenda.

As such unbiased information is quite scarce. Websites with an agenda usually produce information as a means to further that agenda.
Dont try to fix me, I'm not broken
markg
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:52 am

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by markg » Tue May 05, 2009 5:19 pm

Marklen,

You claimed there was overwhelming evidence for the evolutionary position. Yet the Conservapedia evolution article here http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution cites material like this from the beginning of the article and throughout the article:
"Scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed science journal Cell: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."[1] Evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, wrote: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."[2]"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
I think you owe it to your audience at this forum to comment on this matter.
Neil
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:27 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by Neil » Tue May 05, 2009 6:18 pm

That's a pretty lame appeal to authority. A quick Google reveals that Simon Conway Morris is a Christian.

Also, another quick Google reveals that Mark Ridley's quote is taken out of context there. Here's what he actually said:

(taken from http://www.rtis.com/NAT/USER/ELSBERRY/e ... idley.html)
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy. These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature.
So please learn to use the internet, do some reading, and don't swallow the propaganda.
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
- Terry Pratchett
nozzferrahhtoo
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by nozzferrahhtoo » Tue May 05, 2009 6:25 pm

If anyone wants to NOT take quotes out of context in a vauge and futile and dishonest attempt at quote mining, like this person above just did then you will find the full article of the former author here:

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve ... 7400816797

Morris, like Miller, is a theistic evolutionist, he accepts evolution and the evidence for it. He however thinks it is a god run process. There is a lot to read about him and from him, including articles as recent as Feburary in the Guardian.

He has never provided an ounce of evidence for the god he postulates, but he allows the assumption to cloud his science. Science does not proceed with assumptions but at least none of his peer reviewed material is clouded by this. If it was it would not have gotten past the peers.

As for the other quote, not only is it another quote mined misquote but it is also 28 years old and out of date. Science has moved on even further than it was at then. If you are going to falsely quote mine scientists, at least keep it up to date. The fossil record has hugely advanced since his quote. Also:
he following quote has been used to attempt to discredit evolution:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

However, the quote leaves out the very next sentence:

This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.

This article then later goes on to state that:

So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.
marklen
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: Dun Laoghaire, Dublin
Contact:

Re: Evolution article at American Wiki

Post by marklen » Tue May 05, 2009 7:18 pm

markg wrote:I think you owe it to your audience at this forum to comment on this matter.
No I do not.

This audience will start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and come to their own conclusions.

In Europe, this argument ended nearly 100 years ago. The only people left who care are biblical literalists and cranks.

If you need your own specially edited encyclopaedia you are only a step away from needing a tinfoil hat to keep the alien mind control rays out.

Stop wasting my time.
Post Reply