Nature's Laws

[Cyberman]

Expect the bacterial flagellum in 3... 2... 1...

[Crossless2.0]

Expect the bacterial flagellum in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, our cold dish of leftover Behe is long overdue.  I suppose it's too much to hope that, before it comes to that, he'll just demonstrate a bit of humility and actually make an effort to learn something about the science involved instead of tossing out more arguments by analogy and raiding creationist sites for 'ideas'.

[Cyberman]

All while complaining that everyone else is making unfounded assertions, in violation of Matthew 7:5.

[Angrboda]

The unstated assumption of the assertion "atheism is (or ought to be) the default position" certainly sounds like skepticism on its face, but in practice it gets turned (by some atheists) into dogma. 

What dogma specifically does it get turned into? What assertion are you claiming that (some) atheists make?

(And is what only some atheists do to be considered diagnostic of the whole category 'atheists'?)

[Esquilax]

Expect the bacterial flagellum in 3... 2... 1...

Hmm, yes, that may be coming, so I should point out, well in advance, that the bacterial flagellum is in no way irreducibly complex, and that in fact we know how it can evolve. It is also reducible to the type 3 secretory system, so our theist interlocutor can look that up before he makes that claim, if indeed that claim is what's in our future.

I believe in being proactive.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because the process of evolution doesn't require a god to exist.
Of course that doesn't mean anything.

It's the religios who are afraid that evolution proves them wrong with respect to "other" issues.
Go figure?  They're a wacky bunch, aren't they!

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

This is factually incorrect. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of life, but rather, it's diversity.

---

I thought I made it perfectly clear that my baseball glove story was my attempt to explain my (fairly ignorant) understanding of the second law as it relates to abiogenesis, not how it relates to stuff that is already alive.

"Fairly" is not even close to being an apt adjective describing the paucity of your understanding of evolution.

[Freedom4me]

The unstated assumption of the assertion "atheism is (or ought to be) the default position" certainly sounds like skepticism on its face, but in practice it gets turned (by some atheists) into dogma. 

What dogma specifically does it get turned into?  What assertion are you claiming that (some) atheists make?

(And is what only some atheists do to be considered diagnostic of the whole category 'atheists'?)

No, I'm not saying that what only some atheists do is to be considered diagnostic of all those who call themselves atheists.  The word, "atheism" (until fairly recently) used to mean:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

In recent years, it seems that a different definition has appeared:

a lack of belief in deities.

I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of the second definition, but under the "old" definition, "atheism" is clearly a dogmatic belief in stark contrast with skepticism.

---

Expect the bacterial flagellum in 3... 2... 1...

Yeah, our cold dish of leftover Behe is long overdue.  I suppose it's too much to hope that, before it comes to that, he'll just demonstrate a bit of humility and actually make an effort to learn something about the science involved instead of tossing out more arguments by analogy and raiding creationist sites for 'ideas'.

What I'm saying (hopefully in a humble way) is that living things show "teleonomy" planning, purpose, and know-how.  Just to provide a quick example, the ability of an organism to reproduce itself is one example of teleonomy.  There are other ways that teleonomy is seen in nature.

---

This is the claim that atheists keep making.  But evolution is just another story about creation.  The thing that evolution and creation have in common besides the fact that they are both stories is that they both begin with a supernatural event.  Creation starts with God creating, and evolution begins with raw inorganic matter self-organizing in direct contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.  Strictly speaking, neither story is scientific since there is apparently no way to falsify them.

This is factually incorrect. Evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of life, but rather, it's diversity.

You might be right.  But "evolutionary theory" might be viewed as something much broader than just Darwinism or NeoDarwinism.  Some people might include abiogenesis as a subset of evolutionary theory.  

[Angrboda]

What dogma specifically does it get turned into?  What assertion are you claiming that (some) atheists make?

(And is what only some atheists do to be considered diagnostic of the whole category 'atheists'?)

No, I'm not saying that what only some atheists do is to be considered diagnostic of all those who call themselves atheists.  The word, "atheism" (until fairly recently) used to mean:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity
. . . . . . . . .
I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of the second definition, but under the "old" definition, "atheism" is clearly a dogmatic belief in stark contrast with skepticism.

Which you were referring to is unclear, but even under the old definition, 'a', atheism aligns with skepticism. Skepticism is the withholding of belief until such reason is given that compels assent. The 'a' definition is just the codification of the skeptical result, namely disbelief. If that's true, it seems you are spreading a partial definition to cover a whole. Beyond that, words change over time; why are we stuck on a previous definition of the word? That's courting the genetic fallacy.

[rexbeccarox]

Dude, "Darwinism" isn't a thing. It's a word made up by people who don't know anything about evolutionary biology.

Also, since I literally lack belief in gods, what would you call me if not an atheist?

[Jenny A]

No, I'm not saying that what only some atheists do is to be considered diagnostic of all those who call themselves atheists.  The word, "atheism" (until fairly recently) used to mean:

a :  a disbelief in the existence of deity

b :  the doctrine that there is no deity

In recent years, it seems that a different definition has appeared:

a lack of belief in deities.

I'm not sure that I understand the meaning of the second definition, but under the "old" definition, "atheism" is clearly a dogmatic belief in stark contrast with skepticism.

Let me try to make it simple for you.  An theist is a person who believes in a god or gods. An atheist does not.  That encompasses two views: 1) there is no god or gods (dogmatic or gnostic); 2) there isn't sufficient evidence of a god or gods to believe in them (agnostic).

It's like this.  I have a quarter on my desk.  It could be heads up or tails up.  If you believe definitively that the coin is either heads or tails your are gnostic in your headism or tailsim.  If you rationally say you don't know, you are agnostic with regard to my coin.  

Now suppose the question is whether I have a three dollar bill on my table.  Many people across the country swear I do.  But there's no evidence of that except cryptic writings by me.  Those who believe in the three dollar bill are threeist.  Those who don't know one way or the other and those who are sure I don't are athreeist.