Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
Michael - Your claim, that a God that cannot be detected at all may be "nonbaryonic matter", is purposely intellectually dishonest.
That dark matter is postulated at all, is because an effect is evident through experiment and observation - "nonbaryonic dark matter" is evident through its gravitational effect.
There are a number of competing theories to explain the effect and they broadly fall into the categories of modified gravity laws and quantum gravity laws.
Should WIMPS be detected then we will have a very viable explanation for dark matter. This would also be a major boost for the supersymetry hypothesis.
Should any of the competing hypotheses gain ascendancy then the hypothesis for dark matter will have effectively been falsified.
The current hypothesis for "nonbaryonic dark matter" is dependent on supersymetry which in it's current form is effectively falsifiable in a number of ways, one newsworthy candidate is the nature and mass of the Higgs Boson.
There is also a fifth force being postulated now. The Chameleon force to account for dark matter and energy. The Hadron LHC has found what appears to be the Higgs particle at 14Gigavolts/c^2. But there is a bigger particle accelerator being proposed in the States. However the Hadron LHC will at least match the energy of the big bang. Surpassing that energy level in the States sounds scary, however we should not be afraid of any black holes since upon birth they would quiclkly Harkins radiate away (evaporate).
No, no... there's no fallacy. You asked a question. I answered it. That's how that thing works. Atheism is not predicated on any scientific theories. Here's your receipt. Have a nice day.
Ryan, you neglected to ask if he'd like fries with that --
Here's another cool quote (but I can't remember from whom):
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
When science postulates something that up until now has been invisible, it does not have the arrogance (or insecurity?) to declare it as an eternal, unquestionable truth.
And here's another cool idea based on observation rather than faith/arrogance: It seems that complex, organic compounds have been discovered in other star systems, but not all. What if this discovery makes it easier to discover life (and perhaps even intelligent life) on other planets, as we learn better the best places to look for it? The Bible or the GodDitIt theory can't predict this kind of stuff.
Yikes, I'll bet science eventually heals more cripples than Jesus ever did. How's *that* for a scientifically reasonable prediction? I'd like very much for you to disagree with me here, on record. Medicine will heal more and more cripples, and without invoking miracles or faith.
Paulo - RE: "It seems that complex, organic compounds have been discovered in other star systems, but not all."
The quantity and diversity of complex, organic compounds in a particular star system depends on how many times the constituent atoms of that particular system have been part of super novae. It takes three supernovae for the atoms of a star system, such as Sol, to create the element Au 79 - gold.
Since you and I and gold exist on the same planet, that means that our collective, constituent atoms have experienced condensation into a massive star and been hurrled out into space in the subsequent super nova that consequently occurred, only to have the material reassemble and a similar event to happen two more times. I didn't feel a thing, did you?
Yes it is arrogant that life must begin with baryonic material that we can taste, see and touch. Life has no limits with respects to framework. Many science now at least acknowledge that it can possibly be present in a plasma or cloud. But I say, why limit it to the baryonic world? UFOs have been observed to move through the sky and make impossible turns, as if they are massless. If something were not subject the Higgs field that the Hadron LHC is attempting to find then by by all means you would expect to see motion as if the body were lacking inertia. IF there is a pre-existing universe that non-baryonic beings existed (call them angels, aliens) in, I would expect them to be free from the laws of physics that govern baryonic matter subject to the Higgs field.
Well, I was the first to use the word arrogant, so I'll take my lumps here. Well played.
What I was trying to say is that when a religionist tries to point out all the things that science can't answer yet, it completely ignores all the millions of questions science has already answered, and will continue to answer. Science doesn't come up with a theory set in stone, like dogma. Science questions itself and keeps working out the kinks, because of its willingness to self-reflect and self-doubt, and not just stick to someone's imposed dogma.
Newton's research informed us and paved the way to put humans on the moon, but even Newton's science wasn't perfect or final. Einstein added to Newton, but even Einstein couldn't answer all the new questions. Science succeeds not because of arrogant belief that refuses to be scrutinized, but because it does NOT hang on to beliefs just because they are traditional, not even traditional scientific beliefs.
Various versions of dogmatic certainty will forever remain stagnant, by definition; in arrogant defiance of new ideas and discoveries. I'm not just saying that about your religiousity, but you know as well as I do how most "other" religion of the world has their own religious brand of arrogant refusal to be scrutinized or enlightened by people of a different faith, or different view of reality.
Unlike religion, science is not afraid of saying, "I don't know."
The Darwinist Theory of Evolution has NOT been overturned or disproven in any way. Over the years, new discoveries have led to refinements in the theory, while at the same time strengthening it. The Theory of Evolution is the ONLY scientific theory ever presented for the ongoing development and extinction of species that has stood the test of time. God is NOT a theory. He is not even a hypotheis. At best, He is a wild conjecture totally devoid of any kind of scientific evidence. EVOUTION RULES!
This discussion is limited to hominid evolution. And you find debate, debate...
No. Although the Darwinian theory seems to imply atheism given its 'blind' nature, the absence of such a (naturalistic) theory does not necessitate a supernatural explanation. It would merely be a gap in knowledge. I think evolution in a way supplements it; if it was opaque to anyone that we can gaze at the world intelligibly without expecting it to watch us back - let alone with any interest, the theory in a way makes the plausibility of it more apparent.