[skinster]

It looks to me like they are actually practising what it says in the Koran, they are not extremists they are authentic Muslims. That is why Islam is such a dangerous faith.

Like the KKK are authentic Christians.....not!

That's silly, Decky. The vast majority of Muslims oppose ISIS, does that mean they're inauthentic Muslims?

Islam is no more dangerous than other religions within monotheism.

[Decky]

The KKK are Protestants, they are not Christian at all let alone authentic.

Anyway, yes people who follow religions they command huge amounts of violence against unbelievers (most of them ha) but ditch the violence and just keep the good stuff are practising an inauthentic version of their faith. I never said that was a bad thing. Christianity (in Europe) has been castrated. They don't practice most of their own faith any more which makes them far better people live with. No more beheadings or witch burnings etc.

[Godstud]

Very few atheists act like atheism is a "belief system". I totally disagree with the OP, in this regard. Mocking the religious just goes with the territory, as it were. I know a couple who area bit out-spoken on this, but that's because some people see religion as causing a few problems in our modern world.

This is certainly justified when you consider the people who believe Creationism, and dismiss cold hard science(like evolution) in favour of religious dogma. That simply dumbs down everyone. Education is not about making people stupider.

[jakell]

Very few atheists act like atheism is a "belief system". I totally disagree with the OP, in this regard. Mocking the religious just goes with the territory, as it were. I know a couple who area bit out-spoken on this, but that's because some people see religion as causing a few problems in our modern world.

This is certainly justified when you consider the people who believe Creationism, and dismiss cold hard science(like evolution) in favour of religious dogma. That simply dumbs down everyone. Education is not about making people stupider.

So you agree that some do. Rather than get bogged down with statistical (in)significance, it's worth pointing out again that it is the brief phenomena of the New Atheists that is being discussed here.

I wouldn't describe the theory of evolution as hard science and I've seen the label of 'historical science' (amongst others) attached to it which IMO is a wise move. Hard science better describes current, repeatable and falsifiable instances, preferably able to be done under laboratory conditions. It is still science though, but the framework needs to be appreciated
If you conflate these two then creationists can convincingly argue that you are expressing a belief system and are not attending to 'proper' science (which they equate with hard/laboratory science).

[Godstud]

Yes, some do. It's a very, very small percentage, mind you. Most of the time, you simply have people who are very strong atheists and are very vocal about it. That doesn't mean they are fanatical. Many religious people are vocal about their religion, and not fanatical. Many are only spiritual.

I wouldn't describe the theory of evolution as hard science and I've seen the label of 'historical science' (amongst others) attached to it which IMO is a wise move.

Evolution IS hard science. It's a fact.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
http://io9.gizmodo.com/8-scientific-dis ... 1729902558

[jakell]

I allowed that the theory of evolution can be described as science. That you seem to want to add extra weight (with probably more to come, maybe some videos too) indicates that you are edging towards a belief system with all the baggage that accompanies such a thing.

It's sufficient to say that the theory of evolution is scientific, no need to protesteth too much.

[Godstud]

What I am saying is that believing in Evolution has nothing to do with "faith", and that is is indeed hard science.

The rest of your argument is simply shit. I protest idiots who dismiss hard science in favour of religious dogma.

The weakest scientific theory is more valid than religious dogma.

[Suntzu]

The universe is 6,000 years old. The Bible says so.

[jakell]

What I am saying is that believing in Evolution has nothing to do with "faith", and that is is indeed hard science.

The rest of your argument is simply shit. I protest idiots who dismiss hard science in favour of religious dogma.

The weakest scientific theory is more valid than religious dogma.

I haven't made an argument (yet).

It's not logical to compare scientific theory (especially that relating to historical science) and religious dogma and conclude that one is more valid than the other because they are qualitatively different.
Of course, the two are often very very conflated (as exemplified by Hindsite's video-heavy posts), but that's due to poor thinking creating strawman positions that are reassuringly easy to defeat.

[Godstud]

Your smarmy remark about protesting too much was what I was referring to.

I do protest when people want to spread ignorance, instead of knowledge.

[jakell]

Your smarmy remark about protesting too much was what I was referring to.

I do protest when people want to spread ignorance, instead of knowledge.

Actually, the term "..protesteth too much" tends to refer to something more than measure of protestation, ie, an internal state and impetus that is not fully realised.

I allowed that the theory of evolution can be described as science. That you seem to want to add extra weight (with probably more to come, maybe some videos too) indicates that you are edging towards a belief system with all the baggage that accompanies such a thing.

It's sufficient to say that the theory of evolution is scientific, no need to protesteth too much.

Referring to the thread topic, I may hold onto this phrase as it seems a good description of what may differentiate the 'New Atheists' from regular ones, especially as the two keep being used interchangeably here. I know I'm not alone in this observation as such a thing has motivated this thread (amongst other conversations).

[Pants-of-dog]

To throw my two cents into this tangent, evolution is a fact in that it has been observed in the laboratory.

So, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (which explains these facts) is "the theory of evolution through natural selection".

[jakell]

To throw my two cents into this tangent, evolution is a fact in that it has been observed in the laboratory.

So, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution (which explains these facts) is "the theory of evolution through natural selection".

I'm fairly familiar with what has been observed, and it doesn't really show us much, it just demonstrates adaptation, not speciation (which could represent the proof needed). Unfortunately, the adaptation observed can also be explained away via epigenitics, and this was from a Creationist source no less. It's notable that Creationists (in their less flaky moments) are the main (only?) people questioning evolution in the robust fashion that proper science demands.
I'm thinking of the E-Coli and citrate experiment if anyone wants to look it up.

Really though, it's a waste of time trying to demonstrate evolution in a lab, the timescales and importance of contingency don't lend themselves to this so, unless we invent time machines or develop extreme longevity, it not really going to happen.
Science doesn't require proof here though, all it needs to is show that evolution is possible. Those who do require proof sound a bit defensive to me.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm fairly familiar with what has been observed, and it doesn't really show us much, it just demonstrates adaptation, not speciation (which could represent the proof needed).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to 5.0, Observed instances of speciation.

[jakell]

The article also discusses quite well the problems with defining a species, so I was referring mainly with the 'folk definition', and also limiting the scope to the aforementioned laboratory conditions.

Really though, do you think it is necessary to hunt for such proof? I hardly think anyone will be convinced either way from what they already believe, especially as the data becomes more and more technical. It's mostly wasted effort.
It's more useful (and understandable to the average person) to talk of the mechanism by which natural selection can occur, and onwards from there to speciation (however we define it). Creationists allow for the first but not for the second, and therefore the onus is upon them to show why there would be a barrier to speciation, this is where the their denial falls down.

Darwin's entry into the subject is generally the more elegant and accessible, and he knew nothing of genetics etc. why stretch for technicality when a simpler approach is sufficient.

[Besoeker]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to 5.0, Observed instances of speciation.

Another article on the subject of speciation that you may find of interest:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

[Pants-of-dog]

Another article on the subject of speciation that you may find of interest:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Thank you, but as you can see, I am already aware of observed instances of speciation.

[jakell]

Thank you, but as you can see, I am already aware of observed instances of speciation.

Which of those do you think represent the best proof? After all, if the demonstration is sufficient, then there is no need for so many instances.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not think that the point is to find the best example of speciation. That would suggest that the point of these experiments and observations is to convince the Creationists, which is probably not that important compared to other concerns of science.

[jakell]

I do not think that the point is to find the best example of speciation. That would suggest that the point of these experiments and observations is to convince the Creationists, which is probably not that important compared to other concerns of science.

We could use 'Creationists' to represent general skeptics, and the idea would be to sway someone who is a skeptic, so I don't mind thinking of Creationists as they are the most obvious (and active) group of evolution skeptics.

I asked about narrowing that list down because the layperson (lazyperson) tends to be swayed by a weight of evidence, even if those elements, taken in isolation, are sketchy. Also, it is easier to examine particular cases, and I settled on a couple that I find the most convincing.

A Creationist critique that I have found to successfully throw doubt upon such claims is based upon epigenetics, ie that the underlying genome has not changed, but only the gene expression, ie, the species has not actually changed and the phenotype could actually revert, as with F1 hybrids... a new species has to be stable. This could only be countered if the actual genome were mapped and compared, which narrows that list down considerably, there are very likely only a handful of experiments where this has been done, and these would be very recent

There is one exception though.. if we look at the first example about the Evening Primrose, the number of Chromosomes has changed, and this (possibly inadvertently) demonstrates that the genome must have changed, it is a course way of mapping the genome. TBH, my understanding of genetics only really covers diploid species and I hadn't considered plants at all.