Originally Posted by Malorn
Interesting article I just read regarding Atheism as a religion and having the characteristics of a religion.
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
Relating to this original discussion, the article has this quote
This is a concise capture of my position and purpose for creating the thread. |
Now why would
creation.com want to try to paint atheism as a religion? Hmmm...
Humanism is an ideology at least with some more structure to it. However, atheism itself is
not humanism as this article tries to argue. Even more so, the article makes some insinuations on some random observations of random atheists and then basically calls it true in general. That's just improper.
It also makes some generalized assertions, such as scientists including evolution when it's not needed... When it's not needed? Who determines what is not needed? And what if the author simply didn't have the research, but for a biologist to have some ideas about the relationship between previous forms and this is quite important. The history of an animal is quite interesting from an educational and general knowledge perspective. Plus linking one species to another can lead to new insights and further research into both species.
The chameleon tongue example he refers to and the explanation HE GIVES himself though... I mean. What the hell?
|
Created, not evolved
One of the papers5 on the tongue’s design had a curious section, ‘Evolutionary considerations’. The author admitted that the suction cap and the ballistic tongue are both essential to capture prey, i.e. one is useless without the other. Yet he interpreted this as evidence that they must have ‘evolved simultaneously … early in their evolutionary history.’ A far better interpretation is that chameleons have always been chameleons, and were designed with both these mechanisms fully functional.
|
THIS IS NOT BIASED AT ALL? He doesn't back up this claim at all! He just qualifies it as better and trivialises the other argument while he doesn't even comprehend it. He just deemed it absurd and that's that. He doesn't even look into it at all!
Look, this guy is a fraud with an agenda. Malorn, I don't know why you give him credence at all. Evolved simultaneously does not mean they both happened to come to be at the same time, just that they
evolved side by side. The guy doesn't understand what the biologist argued at all, as the guy can only think in spontaneous creation. He cannot consider that mutation on either element over time grew into this. I'll look up some chameleon evolution examples.
The article also seems very circle argumentative. Before establishing it's a religion, it already calls it a religion and then tries to fit in observations. This article is a clear example of induction.