Religion

[Glenn]

If ID is religious, so is

"Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/

"As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment."

https://uncommondescent.com/physics/what-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe-really-meant/

[RonO]

Remember when the IDiots used to lie about IDiocy not being about
religion? Were those the good old days?

https://www.theclergyletterproject.org/

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

The only idiot here is you.

[RonO]

Why keep lying? Was it the good old days when IDiots used to claim that
IDiocy had nothing to do with religion? That changed after Dover and
the ID perps started putting up their religious web sites. Willful
ignorance is just sadly stupid.

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

If you will admit that evolution is religious, I'll tell you about the good old days.

[RonO]

Ask Behe and Denton if biological evolution is religious. Just like any
other science IDiots incorporate it into their religious beliefs or they
don't. IDiocy turned out to be a religious crusade because it was just
a religious crusade and no science ever was produced. After this had
been demonstrated in public the ID perps gave up on lying about it and
put up their religious web sites and started talking about their
religious beliefs. Meyer just published the God Hypothesis. There is a
difference between science and religious beliefs, but all you want to do
is wallow in denial and be lied to. Look how willfully ignorant you
kept yourself about Behe's understanding about the science of biological
evolution. He obviously doesn't believe it for religious reasons. It
is just something that he has to deal with, just like looking both ways
before you cross the street. It is just something that is.

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

So how's that getting "misinformation and speculation from
evolutionists" working out for you?

[Glenn]

I think more and more people are getting the message. I won't swear to the effectiveness of what is read here though.

But if ID is religion, then it is more popular than evolution, at least in the US.

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

<https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/>
********************************
“From 1985 to 2010, there was a statistical dead heat between
acceptance and rejection of evolution,” said lead researcher Jon D.
Miller of the Institute for Social Research at the University of
Michigan. “But acceptance then surged, becoming the majority position
in 2016.”
*********************************

So acceptance of evolution in the U.S. has recently increased. Whether
that acceptance is accompanied by a reduced acceptance of ID/religion
is unclear.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Kalkidas]

Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> Wrote in message:r

> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wr

Weinberg's statements are certainly religious statements.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[israel socratus]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 2:30:09 AM UTC+3, Glenn wrote:
> If ID is religious, so is
>
> "Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago,

---------
Religion began 13.8 billion years ago, when God created the big-bang
Another religion began when Father Georges Lemaître created the big-bang theory
----

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:43:01 -0700 (MST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

>Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> Wrote in message:r
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wr
>
>Weinberg's statements are certainly religious statements.
>

Absolutely! And "bald" is a hair color...
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 1:45:09 PM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 11:43:01 -0700 (MST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:
> >Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> Wrote in message:r
> >> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wr
> >
> >Weinberg's statements are certainly religious statements.
> >
> Absolutely! And "bald" is a hair color...
> >

No, but atheists can be and often are religious.

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

According to OED:
*************************************************
religious: adjective: Chiefly of a person: devoted to religion;
exhibiting the spiritual or practical effects of religion, following
the requirements of a religion; pious, godly, devout.

religion: noun: Action or conduct indicating belief in, obedience to,
and reverence for a god, gods, or similar superhuman power.

atheist: noun: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

God: noun: A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature
and human fortunes.

superhuman: adjective: Of a person, being, or agent: more than human;
having a nature superior to that of an ordinary human.
****************************************************

Usng the above definitions, atheists logically can't be religious.

So, either you use different definitions, or your statement above is
logical nonsense, or both.

[Glenn]

Or I 'use different definitions" and my statement above is logical, and you're a troll.
> --
'I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/


Have at him.

[Glenn]

Or I use the same definitions and my statement above is logical, and you're still a troll.

[Glenn]

Here, let me get you interested;

"Belief in God associated with stronger endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210224143306.htm

[jillery]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 22:14:49 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

All you have to do is use different definitions, and your statement
above might be logical, depending on what they are.

Whether I'm a troll has nothing whatever to do with it. But you're
the one who didn't define your terms, a standard tactic of trolls.

[Burkhard]

Mhh, not sure about that. It depends a bit how much heavy lifting the
"or similar superhuman power" can do. If this is not a deity (and the
definition of "God" doesn't rule that out, as it is limited to persons,
not powers, and anyway only states necessary conditions) then there are
possible religions that are at the very least non-theistic, and that
means their adherents fit the second prong of the above definition of
atheist.

Candidate religions could be e.g. forms of ancestor worship. And it
could even go further. I don't consider the term "secular religion" a
contradiction in terms myself, and would argue that from the 18th
century onward, and Rousseau coined the term "civic religion" for this:
a personified vision of the nation state became the secular religion of
choice, appropriating all the trappings of religions. Personification
(Marianne, Uncle Sam), rituals (saluting the flag), symbols (flags,
again), communal singing (national anthems) other communal celebration,
often with fireworks to cast out demons (4th July, last night of the
proms), holy texts (constitutions) and of course a license to kill
unbelievers both foreign and domestic en mass, As a power that
transcends the individual, I'd say with a bit of good will "nations" can
be subsumed under "superhuman power that demands obedience"

Leaving that aside, while the OED definition tracks how most people use
the term in ordinary language, it is a bad fit for the way the terms
would be used in theology, sociology and anthropology of religion, so
deviating from it would not be a big deal. Some form of Buddhism e.g are
non-theistic/atheist, and still would be included even in a discussion
within comparative theology which tends to use narrower definitions of
religion than say sociologists (though what makes the picture a bit more
complicated is that historically most Buddhists would also follow a
local religion and import a deity from there, e.g. a city deity)

Even closer to home, there were historical examples of movements that
were both religious and explicitly atheist - Robespierre 's "religion
of pure reason: during the French revolution e.g, including the
"veneration" of the leaders of the revolution. Another influential
variety was Hebert, and his celebration of the goddess "Reason" in Notre
Dame Cathedral on 10 November. "Goddess" here in a strictly secular
sense: Antoine Momoro, his friend, wrote thus:

"Liberty, reason, truth are only abstract entities.
In the true meaning, they are not gods,rather,
they are part of ourselves."

From that it was one short step to deify the collective, or as Baron de
Cloots (the self styled "personal enemy of god) put it, "there is only
one God, Le Peuple" In the temples, you'd therefore get everything from
anthropomorphic representations of 'reason" to that of
"the people", and the worship intentionally carried out in church
buildings taken over by the revolution.

The "Religion de l'Humanité or église positiviste" would be another
example of a secular religion, created by Auguste Comte with chapels of
Humanity in France and Brazil still in use.

In the early 20th century, there was a lively debate within European
humanist organizations whether it would be a good idea to turn the
movement into a religion, and in modern times Alain de Botton, in his
"Religion for atheists" same the same point

I'd argue that all these discussions were about substantive points, the
participants were not confused about mere word meaning, so the OED
definition is just incomplete.

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:32:42 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

The "heavy lifting in the above definitions is done by the term
"superhuman". My understanding is its analogous to "supernatural", to
mean with powers beyond material humans. This definition disqualifies
human celebrities and heroes, regardless of abilities, and material
non-human persons. And so also ancestors.

My understanding of "person" excludes concepts like "reason" and
"civics". Persons are conscious, self-aware, indivisible entities.
Extraterrestrials and artificial beings might qualify as persons, but
their materialsim disqualifies them as "superhuman"

I provided the above OED definitions only as a starting point, not to
imply they are the only definitions, or even correct definitions. So
while I acknowledge the validity of your comments, they are arguments
against the OED definitions, and not of my assertion; based on the OED
definitions, atheists logically can not be religious, a point you did
not address.

To be explicit, my point here is that the veracity of Glenn's
assertion, that atheists can be and often are religious, depends on
his definitions. I am more than happy to consider any definitions
Glenn cares to provide to support his assertion, if only he would.

[Glenn]

It is quite clear what you are more than happy to "consider".

[Glenn]

Actually if you believe there is no religious beliefs in science, you're either delusional or dishonest.

[jillery]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:17:19 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

If only I could say the same about you.

[RonO]

It isn't religious belief. Ask anyone that has a clue about it. If it
is a religion what type of religion is it? Go for it and describe what
type of religion it is.

There are atheists that are scientists and that is sort of an
anti-religious belief, that can wrap around and shake hands with the
guys that they don't believe about their religious beliefs, but
scientists don't have to be atheists. There are religious people who
are scientists, but the good ones leave their religious beliefs out of
their science.

Denial and such willful ignorance is stupid and dishonest. That you
need to lie to yourself in this way is pretty sad.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[israel socratus]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:05:09 AM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
There are religious people who are scientists, but the good ones leave
their religious beliefs out of their science.

> Ron Okimoto
--------------
???
====
Scientists about science.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you
into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
― Werner Heisenberg
#
“One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science,
measured against reality, is primitive and childlike --
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
― Albert Einstein
=====

[Burkhard]

ah, but the ghosts of ancestors are immaterial, and do have at least
some powers living humans have, so they would still be in (as they
should, excluding ancestor worship from the very definition of religion
would run counter to common usage - e.g. Chinese ancestor worship and
Chinese patriarchal religion are used synonymously

>
> My understanding of "person" excludes concepts like "reason" and
> "civics". Persons are conscious, self-aware, indivisible entities.
> Extraterrestrials and artificial beings might qualify as persons, but
> their materialsim disqualifies them as "superhuman"

Fair enough, but I still think the definition of religion as clarified
above, and the definition of person, permit as a logical possibility
God-less religions, that is not all superhuman entities capable of
veneration are necessarily also persons. That would make religions with
a personified deity a proper subset of all religions. Some forms of
ancestor worship I'd argue definitely qualify even under your
definition, as do some forms of panentheism that has no personal deity

>
> I provided the above OED definitions only as a starting point, not to
> imply they are the only definitions, or even correct definitions. So
> while I acknowledge the validity of your comments, they are arguments
> against the OED definitions, and not of my assertion; based on the OED
> definitions, atheists logically can not be religious, a point you did
> not address.
>
> To be explicit, my point here is that the veracity of Glenn's
> assertion, that atheists can be and often are religious, depends on
> his definitions. I am more than happy to consider any definitions
> Glenn cares to provide to support his assertion, if only he would.
>

yup, that's fair enough.Personally I would go for a much thinner
definition of religion, the OED ones seem terribly western centric and
exclude a lot of things considered religion even within comparative
theology, which tends to have a narrow concept to start with. I'd go for
a more sociological one myself, and under that it would be unsurprising
to find that many atheists are also religious, just not (necessarily)
religious about their atheism.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 08:56:19 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Ok, I acknowledge ancestor *spirits* would fit the... spirit... of
OED's definitions, as would animal spirits, and spirits of inanimate
objects. My understanding is some humans somewhere and/or when have
considered just about everything to have anthropomorphic spirits.

>> My understanding of "person" excludes concepts like "reason" and
>> "civics". Persons are conscious, self-aware, indivisible entities.
>> Extraterrestrials and artificial beings might qualify as persons, but
>> their materialsim disqualifies them as "superhuman"
>
>Fair enough, but I still think the definition of religion as clarified
>above, and the definition of person, permit as a logical possibility
>God-less religions, that is not all superhuman entities capable of
>veneration are necessarily also persons. That would make religions with
>a personified deity a proper subset of all religions. Some forms of
>ancestor worship I'd argue definitely qualify even under your
>definition, as do some forms of panentheism that has no personal deity

And just as humans have imagined spirits of material objects, they
have also imagined spirits of concepts, ex. evil spirits. The
"gotcha" here is it's the *spirits*, not the material or conceptual
manifestations, that's being worshipped, ex. the spirit of science is
different from the concept and/or practice of science.

In any case, my impression is those who identify as "atheist" would
deny/disbelieve the existence of spirits for the same reasons they
deny/disbelieve the existence of God, and so spirits don't salvage
Glenn's assertion.

>> I provided the above OED definitions only as a starting point, not to
>> imply they are the only definitions, or even correct definitions. So
>> while I acknowledge the validity of your comments, they are arguments
>> against the OED definitions, and not of my assertion; based on the OED
>> definitions, atheists logically can not be religious, a point you did
>> not address.
>>
>> To be explicit, my point here is that the veracity of Glenn's
>> assertion, that atheists can be and often are religious, depends on
>> his definitions. I am more than happy to consider any definitions
>> Glenn cares to provide to support his assertion, if only he would.
>>
>yup, that's fair enough.Personally I would go for a much thinner
>definition of religion, the OED ones seem terribly western centric and
>exclude a lot of things considered religion even within comparative
>theology, which tends to have a narrow concept to start with. I'd go for
>a more sociological one myself, and under that it would be unsurprising
>to find that many atheists are also religious, just not (necessarily)
>religious about their atheism.

[RonO]

This doesn't make science a religion. Science is just the study of
nature. You could put up where these guys used their religious beliefs
to do their science. What you have put up is just their claims that by
understanding nature you might get a better understanding of your
religious beliefs. The ID perps claimed that they could use science to
better understand their religious beliefs, but they lied, and never did
the science. Nothing was ever tested and verified. Just the religious
claims were made. The scientists that you quoted above didn't do that.
They actually did something that was tested and verified. Science
isn't claimed to be perfect. It is just the best means we have of
understanding nature. Science actually works. IDiotic science failed
to amount to anything. Right now IDiocy is only used as the bait to run
in the obfuscation switch scam that the ID perps claim has nothing to do
with IDiocy. The Top Six evidences for IDiocy that the ID perps put up
are the same god-of-the-gaps denial arguments that the scientific
creationists resorted to when they figured out that there was no
creation science that they wanted to do.

Ron Okimoto

[israel socratus]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 2:05:10 PM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 10:15 PM, israel socratus wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 1:05:09 AM UTC+3, Ron O wrote:

> >> Ron Okimoto
-------------
Physicists say: quantum physics is weird.
Quantum theory says: physicists have strange thinking
---
Interview with a renowned scientist:
- Tell me, why did you decide to start searching for intellect in space?
- On earth I have already searched ...
--------------.

[Ernest Major]

On 15/09/2021 11:30, jillery wrote:
> And just as humans have imagined spirits of material objects, they
> have also imagined spirits of concepts, ex. evil spirits. The

> "gotcha" here is it's the*spirits*, not the material or conceptual

> manifestations, that's being worshipped, ex. the spirit of science is
> different from the concept and/or practice of science.
>
> In any case, my impression is those who identify as "atheist" would
> deny/disbelieve the existence of spirits for the same reasons they
> deny/disbelieve the existence of God, and so spirits don't salvage
> Glenn's assertion.

A distinction can be made between those who identify as atheists and
those who are atheists. While I expect that nearly all of the former ar
the latter, the reverse isn't true; many atheists don't identify as such.

Movement atheists in Europe and the Anglosphere are, I believe, mostly
physicalists, but atheism does not entail physicalism.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Ernest Major wrote:
> On 15/09/2021 11:30, jillery wrote:
>> And just as humans have imagined spirits of material objects, they
>> have also imagined spirits of concepts, ex. evil spirits.  The
>> "gotcha" here is it's the*spirits*, not the material or conceptual
>> manifestations, that's being worshipped, ex. the spirit of science is
>> different from the concept and/or practice of science.
>>
>> In any case, my impression is those who identify as "atheist" would
>> deny/disbelieve the existence of spirits for the same reasons they
>> deny/disbelieve the existence of God, and so spirits don't salvage
>> Glenn's assertion.
>
> A distinction can be made between those who identify as atheists and
> those who are atheists. While I expect that nearly all of the former ar
> the latter, the reverse isn't true; many atheists don't identify as such.

Good point, and also a possible distinction between atheists who grew up
in a society where this is the norm like the state atheist systems of
China or the Soviet Union, where people inherit their belief from their
parents and do not normally have to justify it, and those were atheists
are the minority and as a consequence more prone to develop a reflective
attitude.

Even then though I think you get at best a probabilistic argument -
belief in ghosts e.g. as common among Victorian agnostics and atheists,
though they often gave it a vaguely scientific bend

>
> Movement atheists in Europe and the Anglosphere are, I believe, mostly
> physicalists, but atheism does not entail physicalism.

True of course. I'm not even sure though if there is a strong tendency
to physicalism. Do you think atheists are less likely to be platonists
when it comes to the existence of numbers and sets e.g.?
>

[Ernest Major]

Possibly I conceive physicalism more broadly that you do; I see no need
for physicalism to take a position on whether mathematics is discovered
or invented.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Glenn]

On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
> >> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
> >> > If ID is religious, so is
> >> >
> >> > "Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”"
> >> >
> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/
> >> >
> >> > "As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment."
> >> >
> >> > https://uncommondescent.com/physics/what-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe-really-meant/
> >> >
> >> So how's that getting "misinformation and speculation from
> >> evolutionists" working out for you?
> >
> >I think more and more people are getting the message. I won't swear to the effectiveness of what is read here though.
> >
> >But if ID is religion, then it is more popular than evolution, at least in the US.
> <https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/>
> ********************************
> “From 1985 to 2010, there was a statistical dead heat between
> acceptance and rejection of evolution,” said lead researcher Jon D.
> Miller of the Institute for Social Research at the University of
> Michigan. “But acceptance then surged, becoming the majority position
> in 2016.”
> *********************************

The "study" is paywalled, of course. These are outspoken atheist activists.

>
> So acceptance of evolution in the U.S. has recently increased. Whether
> that acceptance is accompanied by a reduced acceptance of ID/religion
> is unclear.
>

If evolution really was the majority position in 2016, then it drastically changed in only 3 years to be the minority position:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/

"48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely"

[jillery]

I presume there are many reasons why someone is an atheist but doesn't
identify as one, some having to do with how they define the term. I
specify "those who identify as atheist" to constrain my assertion to
those with a denial/disbelief in all gods. Others would limit atheism
to denial/disbelief in the Abrahamic God of the Covenant, or to
denial/disbelief in Christ as Savior.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 12:55:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 11:40:09 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> >> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>> >> > If ID is religious, so is
>> >> >
>> >> > "Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”"
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/
>> >> >
>> >> > "As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment."
>> >> >
>> >> > https://uncommondescent.com/physics/what-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe-really-meant/
>> >> >
>> >> So how's that getting "misinformation and speculation from
>> >> evolutionists" working out for you?
>> >
>> >I think more and more people are getting the message. I won't swear to the effectiveness of what is read here though.
>> >
>> >But if ID is religion, then it is more popular than evolution, at least in the US.
>> <https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/>
>> ********************************
>> “From 1985 to 2010, there was a statistical dead heat between
>> acceptance and rejection of evolution,” said lead researcher Jon D.
>> Miller of the Institute for Social Research at the University of
>> Michigan. “But acceptance then surged, becoming the majority position
>> in 2016.”
>> *********************************
>
>The "study" is paywalled, of course. These are outspoken atheist activists.

As contrasted with the outspoken cdesign proponentsists from your
Uncommondescent cite.

>> So acceptance of evolution in the U.S. has recently increased. Whether
>> that acceptance is accompanied by a reduced acceptance of ID/religion
>> is unclear.
>>
>If evolution really was the majority position in 2016, then it drastically changed in only 3 years to be the minority position:
>
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/11/darwin-day/
>
>"48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely"

The UMICH surveys I cited asked people about this statement:

"Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species
of animals."

Accepting an interpretation that evolution is the mechanism God uses
to create species, eliminates any logical conflict between these two
statements.

[broger...@gmail.com]

And in any case, the paper is available without going through a paywall -

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eugenie-Scott/publication/353934277_Public_acceptance_of_evolution_in_the_United_States_1985-2020/links/611aa54d1e95fe241ad6ddc7/Public-acceptance-of-evolution-in-the-United-States-1985-2020.pdf

[Glenn]

I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.

I suppose a pseudoskeptic wih no principles or integrity would make
asinine assertions without even trying to define his terms or back up
his claims.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
> >I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.
> I suppose a pseudoskeptic wih no principles or integrity would make
> asinine assertions without even trying to define his terms or back up
> his claims.
> --

Like equating "evolution" with "common descent"...

[jillery]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:21:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>> >I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.
>> I suppose a pseudoskeptic wih no principles or integrity would make
>> asinine assertions without even trying to define his terms or back up
>> his claims.
>> --
>Like equating "evolution" with "common descent"...

That's what Behe does. So yes, like that.

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:00:12 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:21:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.
> >> I suppose a pseudoskeptic wih no principles or integrity would make
> >> asinine assertions without even trying to define his terms or back up
> >> his claims.
> >> --
> >Like equating "evolution" with "common descent"...
> That's what Behe does. So yes, like that.
> --

That is what you want to believe he does. In that way you're like irreducibly complex.

[jillery]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 08:00:39 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 11:00:12 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 20:21:16 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, September 15, 2021 at 8:05:09 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >I suppose an atheist with no principles or integrity would say that "allowed by God" could mean random mutation, and "guided by God" could mean God is natural selection.
>> >> I suppose a pseudoskeptic wih no principles or integrity would make
>> >> asinine assertions without even trying to define his terms or back up
>> >> his claims.
>> >> --
>> >Like equating "evolution" with "common descent"...
>> That's what Behe does. So yes, like that.
>> --
>That is what you want to believe he does. In that way you're like irreducibly complex.

I freely admit I want to believe what other write about their own
opinions. I suppose it's just me.

[Glenn]

Liar.

[jillery]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>Liar.


Idiot.

[Glenn]

Liar.

[Pro Plyd]

Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, September 13, 2021 at 8:45:09 AM UTC-7, Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 9/12/2021 4:25 PM, Glenn wrote:
>>> If ID is religious, so is
>>>
>>> "Having told the story of how our universe came into being with the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago, and how it may end untold billions of years in the future, he concludes that whatever the universe is about, it sure as heck isn’t about us. “The more the universe seems comprehensible,” he wrote, “the more it also seems pointless.”"
>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-to-live-in-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe/
>>>
>>> "As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment."
>>>
>>> https://uncommondescent.com/physics/what-steven-weinbergs-pointless-universe-really-meant/
>>>
>> So how's that getting "misinformation and speculation from
>> evolutionists" working out for you?
>
> I think more and more people are getting the message. I won't swear to the effectiveness of what is read here though.

That feeling based on what?

> But if ID is religion, then it is more popular than evolution, at least in the US.
>

You have stats for that?

[Pro Plyd]

RonO wrote:
> On 9/12/2021 9:26 PM, Glenn wrote:

> Ask Behe and Denton if biological evolution is religious.  Just like any

Behe admitted ID is on a level with astrology. Nuff said.

[Glenn]

For you, nuff said.