Belief in God has dropped to 81%, according to Gallup. This is down 6% from 2017, 9% from 2011, and 17% from 1953. Given the accelerated secularization of our society, this is not surprising.
What I find most interesting is who stopped believing in God. Atheism has claimed:
- More than twice as many women as men (7% drop vs. 3%)
- The unmarried (8% drop for the unmarried vs. 1% for the married)
- The young (10% drop for 18-29 year olds vs. 5% for 30-64)
- Democrats (12% drop vs. 3% for Republicans and Independents)
The last bullet is of particular interest to me. Atheists clearly favor the Democratic Party. Whether holding to Democratic Party ideals leads to atheism or whether atheism leads to favoring Democratic Party ideals, there is a clear correlation between the two. This is not surprising. The Democratic Party platform may not be officially atheistic, but many of their policy positions are opposed to religious values. As such, Democrats create and/or attract irreligious people.
Thinking to Believe 
July 1, 2022 at 1:21 pm
As an atheist who knows many atheists myself, I can confirm that atheists generally become Democrats, not so much the other way around. The reason is that Republicans are far more likely to discriminate against us and enact policies that impose their religious dogma on us (look at the recent SCOTUS rulings attacking the separation of church and state, despite it being considered extremely important to our most important founding fathers). For me personally, it’s the constant attempts by Christian and Muslim conservatives to undermine science that made the Republican Party unacceptable to me.
LikeLike
July 1, 2022 at 5:32 pm
derekmathias, lol ………… i dont know very many “atheists” because most people arent that delusional —- you should relabel yourself “a new atheist” so people dont know how cre cre you really are at first. and in case you didnt know —“new atheists” are really agnostics.
and i do know lots of agnostics —- and most of them agree “elective abortion” is abhorrent. they had no problem with the law against abortion with the exception of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is threatened.
lol ………… and what do you think the laws of the usa are based on ? passing laws against/restricting abortion is not “attacking the separation of church and state.”
LikeLike
July 1, 2022 at 7:32 pm
Derekmathias, what science are you referring to? Evolution?
LikeLike
July 2, 2022 at 4:04 am
So much wrong with your claims, starting with:
“i dont know very many “atheists” because most people arent that delusional —- you should relabel yourself “a new atheist” so people dont know how cre cre you really are at first. and in case you didnt know —“new atheists” are really agnostics.”
First, the only difference between “new atheists” and “regular” atheists is that the former are more outspoken. Instead of just ignoring irrational claims, we call them out. That’s it. But somehow calling problems out is “cre cre” to you? Okay….
Second, you and many others sharing your religion believe things like you can telepathically communicate with an invisible Jewish zombie who is his own father and who forgives you for contracting a curse (which was put on you when a woman made from a guy’s rib ate a piece of fruit 6,000 years ago), but only if accept his forgiveness and (possibly) eat a cracker and drink some wine, which will magically transform into that zombie’s flesh and blood in your stomach…but I’M the one who is delusional??? I don’t think that word means what you think it means….
“and i do know lots of agnostics —- and most of them agree “elective abortion” is abhorrent. they had no problem with the law against abortion with the exception of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is threatened.”
More problems: First, agnosticism is a claim of a lack of knowledge, whereas atheism is a claim of lack of belief. The vast majority of atheists are ALSO agnostics, and theists can ALSO be agnostics. I myself am an agnostic atheist, since I do not claim no gods exist but I don’t believe in any.
Second, what does this have to do with abortion? NOBODY on this thread said anything about abortion until you brought it up.
Third, if your objection to abortion is that you believe it is murdering a baby, then how is it any LESS murder if the baby was conceived by rape or incest? That’s not a very consistent position.
In any event, 83% of US agnostics are pro-choice, so are half of all Catholics (even though their religion forbids it) and even over a third of Protestants (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/13/which-religious-groups-members-abortion-poll). So I don’t know why you even bother mentioning your claim.
“and what do you think the laws of the usa are based on ?”
English common law, primarily, with Enlightenment philosophy. Our laws are not based on the Bible, if that’s what you are implying. In fact, our basic freedoms directly contradict almost all the 10 Commandments. In any event, I can show you plenty of examples from our main founding fathers to indicate that they did not think highly of Christianity.
LikeLike
July 2, 2022 at 4:11 am
“what science are you referring to? Evolution?”
Yes, along with biology, geology, physical anthropology, paleontology, abiogenesis, Big Bang cosmology, and so on. Attacks on science dissuade students from both trust in and academic pursuit of scientific careers, despite how critical it is for our success as a nation and as a society.
LikeLike
July 3, 2022 at 11:07 am
derekmathias lol ………… wrong again oh del usion al one —- the difference is an “atheist” would say — “there is no god” & a “new atheist” would say —“there is no evidence which proves god exists.” it’s hilarious your reprobate mind cant see the difference.
lol ……….. english coomon law which is based on the Judea/Christian worldview which has a biblical foundation.
lol ………… with every post you just keep proving yourself to be a fool. the foundation of theism is based on the scientific laws that prove there has to be “a first cause.” saying there is no god is not only cre cre because you are assuming facts not in evidence but is more delusional than theism because you are saying a creation doesnt have a creator. and besides all sane people would agree if the universes always was and always will be —- the first cause we call God …….. couldve always been and always will be.
LikeLike
July 3, 2022 at 5:25 pm
“common law.”
derekmathias lol ………. but you did indirectly mention abortion/similar moral concerns. you wrote —- “and enact policies that impose their religious dogma on us.” if you cant see (based on the context of recent events) ….. that is a reference to abortion — you are even more delusional than i thought.
but as i showed abortion is not really a religious issue — as many non-religious people i know agree it’s abhorrent. but for some silly reason — reprobates like you keep pushing it as one.
LikeLike
July 4, 2022 at 5:59 pm
I would imagine a lot of hit has to with the colleges and universities. Scientific materialism is the prevalent worldview there.
This is a topic I’ve been thinking alot about recently. As believers , it’s easy to just say “we believe in God, etc” . It wasn’t until the unexpected death of my step-dad about 4 years ago and seeing his lifeless body lay on a hospital table that I really examined “what I believe”. It was in those first few following hours or days where I realized , I have no idea what happens when we die. Do we just cease to exist ? Was that body on the table the totality of my step-dads existence ? None of us know for sure what happens. We are after all …alive.
But the experience got me to exploring and digging. And what I realized after many months and many, many, many hours were 2 things :
1. The overwhelming scientific evidence of a Transcendent Being responsible for life on this planet, and for the universe as a whole.
2. The utter vacuity of scientific materialism. I’ve listened to guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc and I’m always left disappointed. I always think ” This is it? This is your evidence?” . I always come in thinking these guys are the smartest among us and they must know something really powerful or convincing. And I always come away somewhat blown away with the logical fallacies, lack of scientific evidence, and intellectual emptiness.
I’ll never forget reading Michael Behe’s “Darwins Black Box” about 15 years ago. It made some pretty strong arguments that if true would absolutely cripple Neo-Darwinism , but I was anxious to see what the rest of the scientific community had to say. I thought that surely, they would have some strong counter arguments. Maybe they wouldnt be able to debunk his claims, but at least they would have something to challenge or cast doubt . And before the term “red pill” became a thing, I was red pilled. I was blown away that the smartest people in the world couldnt counter him. Here I was, a 21 year old with no college education who happened to be reading a college level textbook on logic and logical fallacies , watching the world’s leading biologists and scientists commit the most atrocious logical fallacies. From red herrings to straw men arguments, I realized these people would flunk a high school logic course.
Fast forward to today and this is what I still find among the MIchael Shermers , Sam Harris’ , and Richard Dawkins of the world.
Many leading evolutionary biologists have begun searching for a new theory of evolution. They know that Neo-Darwinism is dead.
Neo-Darwinism has no creative power. It has absolutely no plausible mechanism for generating new complex systems or proteins. This is indisputable at this point. Scientific Materialists I’m sure will disagree but ,as I’ve come to find out over the last few months, they will be lacking in any details.
Scientific materialists have no answer for abiogenesis , or the origin of life. Its understood among origin of life researchers that they have no idea. Sure, their mouthpieces in pop culture will tell you otherwise. But among the technical literature, its beyond lacking. The more we know about the complexity of life ( and thats keeps growing and growing) the more impossible it becomes that a living cell evolved from inorganic chemicals.
I havent even touched on the Cambrian explosion ( RIP Darwinism).
From everything we know, the universe had a definite beginning. With the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem , any universe that involves an expanding universe has definite beginning. Thats a HUGE problem for the materialist.
If I had time, I would get into point 1 and the overwhelming positive evidence for a Transcendent Being …but ice cream is calling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 5, 2022 at 9:57 am
Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation here. Allow me to explain:
“I would imagine a lot of hit has to with the colleges and universities. Scientific materialism is the prevalent worldview there.”
That is a common theist myth, but as anyone who has gone to non-religious universities (myself included) knows, nobody cares about one’s religious belief, nor do professors teach scientific materialism. What science classes do teach, however, is critical thinking, which certainly contributes to a loss of religiosity. But critical thinking has always been a fundamental part of science education.
A much bigger factor is that as the numbers of religiously unaffiliated increase, there are fewer negative social consequences for not being a Christian, and there are more opportunities for social ties with nonbelievers. Conservative Christian attitudes toward sexual orientation, women’s rights, immigration and non-Christians are increasingly being regarded as cruel, bigoted and immoral. And people are realizing that the common Christian beliefs of young earth creationism, climate change denial and flat-Earthism are not just unscientific, but they teach distrust of science and are thus harmful to society.
All this has severely damaged the Christian brand. Non-Christians hold increasingly negative views on evangelicals in particular, rating them highest in the categories of narrow-minded, homophobic, uptight, invasive, misogynistic and racist, and lowest in caring, hopeful, friendly, generous and good-humored (https://www.barna.com/research/evangelicals-political-lens/). And the fact that evangelicals overwhelmingly voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election—despite his behavior being everything they claim to abhor—has only increased the perception of moral hypocrisy (https://www.newsweek.com/2018/12/21/evangelicals-republicans-trump-millenials-1255745.html).
This shrinking of Christianity didn’t start just a decade ago. Black Protestants started declining in the 1970s, Mainline Protestants in the 1980s, and Catholics in the 1990s. But the biggest overall decline in Christianity coincided with the rapid rise of the religiously unaffiliated, which started in the mid-1990s (https://religionnews.com/2019/03/21/nones-now-as-big-as-evangelicals-catholics-in-the-us/). You know what also took off in the mid-1990s? Internet access. I suspect that’s no coincidence. After all, knowledge is power, and even in the 1990s the Internet gave people unprecedented access to information. Those who lived in insular religious communities suddenly had access to perspectives that challenged their beliefs, as well as revealed sexual, financial and other crimes conducted by their religious institutions. So it’s no wonder religious belief began to wither.
So blaming a loss of religiosity on universities is to miss the bigger picture.
“1. The overwhelming scientific evidence of a Transcendent Being responsible for life on this planet, and for the universe as a whole.”
Actually, having debated theists for decades, I’d have to say there is NO scientific evidence for the existence of any “Transcendent Being.” Every single claim I’ve studied has turned out to be either a logical fallacy or a simple error of fact. I can show you what I mean, if you’d like–just let me know what you consider the BEST evidence is and I’ll clarify. In fact, I’m willing to make a $1,000 bet that that best evidence isn’t even scientific.
“2. The utter vacuity of scientific materialism. I’ve listened to guys like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc and I’m always left disappointed. I always think ” This is it? This is your evidence?” . I always come in thinking these guys are the smartest among us and they must know something really powerful or convincing. And I always come away somewhat blown away with the logical fallacies, lack of scientific evidence, and intellectual emptiness.”
Really? Can you name even one fallacy committed by these people? I’m not saying they haven’t–after all, I’ve not heard everything they’ve said–but I’m willing to bet they’ve made very few fallacious arguments.
More importantly, though, is that reality doesn’t care whether you or I think an argument is vacuous, depressing, scary, boring or whatever. What matters is what can be demonstrated to be true, not what one might wish to be true.
“I’ll never forget reading Michael Behe’s “Darwins Black Box” about 15 years ago. It made some pretty strong arguments that if true would absolutely cripple Neo-Darwinism , but I was anxious to see what the rest of the scientific community had to say. I thought that surely, they would have some strong counter arguments. Maybe they wouldnt be able to debunk his claims, but at least they would have something to challenge or cast doubt . And before the term “red pill” became a thing, I was red pilled. I was blown away that the smartest people in the world couldnt counter him. Here I was, a 21 year old with no college education who happened to be reading a college level textbook on logic and logical fallacies , watching the world’s leading biologists and scientists commit the most atrocious logical fallacies. From red herrings to straw men arguments, I realized these people would flunk a high school logic course.”
Unfortunately, you have been deeply misinformed here. In 2005, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Behe was the star witness for defense, and he had his BEST opportunity to provide ANY scientific evidence for “intelligent design.” But Behe admitted that ID proponents have NEVER conducted even a single experiment that refutes evolution. Here is the transcript of an exchange between the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Eric J. Rothschild, and Michael Behe:
Rothschild: “Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?”
Behe: “No, I argued for it in my book.”
Rothschild: “Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?”
Behe: “That’s correct.”
Rothschild: “And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?”
Behe: “That is correct, yes.”
Rothschild: “And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin’s Black Box, you didn’t report any new data or original research?”
Behe: “I did not do so.”
(From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html)
Michael Behe even admitted that he redefined the word “theory” so that he could claim intelligent design is a scientific theory. He also admitted that intelligent design is no more valid than astrology. Here is the transcript of the exchange:
Rothschild: “Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.”
Behe: “Yes.”
Rothschild: “But when you call it a scientific theory, you’re not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.”
Behe: “Yes, that’s correct.”
Rothschild: “You don’t always see eye to eye with the National Academy?”
Behe: “Sometimes not.”
Rothschild: “And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?”
Behe: “Yes.”
Rothschild: “Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?”
Behe: “Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I’m a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.”
Rothschild: “And actually you said at your deposition, ‘I don’t think intelligent design falls under this definition.’ Correct?”
Behe: “Yeah…”
…
Rothschild: “But you are clear, under your definition—the definition that sweeps in intelligent design—astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?”
Behe: “Yes, that’s correct.”
(From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html)
At several points during the trial, all the witnesses for the defense admitted that there are mountains of scientific support for evolution, and that there is no objective, independent evidence against evolution. Judge John E. Jones III (a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush, BTW) declared that “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory … ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data, or publications.”
“Many leading evolutionary biologists have begun searching for a new theory of evolution. They know that Neo-Darwinism is dead.”
Well, first off, the term “Neo-Darwinism” was coined in 1883, before the discovery of genetics. It wasn’t until 1942 that genetics was integrated into evolutionary theory and dubbed the “modern synthesis.” It’s better to just use the terms evolutionary theory or theory of evolution by natural selection.
Second, evolutionary theory is THE most well-supported theory in all of biology, and arguably the most supported theory in all of science. I would know, since my degree is in evolution science and I’ve studied the topic for decades (I even taught the subject as a naturalist and guide in the Galapagos Islands). And I did graduate work in science philosophy. With well over 99% of all biologists, paleontologists, geologists and all other scientists actually working in fields related to evolution accepting evolutionary theory as the best explanation for species diversity, the number of relevant scientists NOT accepting the theory is vanishingly small–a few hundred in the US at most. In fact there are more scientists named “Steven” alone who accept evolutionary theory than there are creationist scientists in TOTAL (https://ncse.ngo/project-steve)! (It would be an argument from authority fallacy to say something is true BECAUSE all the experts accept it, but when virtually all the scientific experts on a topic who actually study and work with the evidence reach that same conclusion, the evidence is justifiably regarded as conclusive).
“Neo-Darwinism has no creative power. It has absolutely no plausible mechanism for generating new complex systems or proteins.”
Absolutely none? Really? The scientific evidence does not support that claim:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/ https://is.muni.cz/el/1431/jaro2008/Bi8350/um/5474473/Poole_98_The_path_from_RNA_world.pdf
https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-find-evidence-of-a-protein-that-existed-when-life-began/
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
https://scitechdaily.com/profound-discovery-on-origins-of-life-on-earth-evolution-of-metal-binding-proteins/
https://scitechdaily.com/solving-the-chicken-and-the-egg-problem-a-step-closer-to-the-reconstruction-of-the-origin-of-life/
Actually, I have dozens of links to links describing the scientific discoveries that support the abiogenesis hypothesis, which I’m happy to provide if requested.
Furthermore, when it comes to the “creative power” of evolution, we have numerous examples of exactly that happening. For instance, a ray-finned zebrafish with just a single mutation can cause the growth of functional bones, joints and muscles, which is how the first step in the evolution of lobe fins was predicted to occur, which itself was the first step in the evolution of walking limbs (https://phys.org/news/2021-02-fin-limb-mutations-zebrafish-fins.html). Mutations are the SOURCE of new information, and selective forces are what cause useful mutations to propagate throughout a population.
“This is indisputable at this point. Scientific Materialists I’m sure will disagree but ,as I’ve come to find out over the last few months, they will be lacking in any details.”
I think I’ve provided enough details to refute your claim that this is “indisputable.” This is why I’m confident you won’t find ANY scientists actually working in evolution science who would agree with your claim.
And if I may anticipate, no, scientists are not “required” to agree with evolutionary theory in order to keep their jobs. That is another false creationist claim. Scientists are not punished for making claims against ANY theory as long as they can provide EVIDENCE for their claims. Any scientist who could provide evidence overthrowing the evolutionary paradigm would become famous and a guaranteed recipient of the Nobel Prize. Science LOVES it when a paradigm is overthrown, because it tends to open up all sorts of additional avenues of study.
“Scientific materialists have no answer for abiogenesis , or the origin of life. Its understood among origin of life researchers that they have no idea. Sure, their mouthpieces in pop culture will tell you otherwise. But among the technical literature, its beyond lacking. The more we know about the complexity of life ( and thats keeps growing and growing) the more impossible it becomes that a living cell evolved from inorganic chemicals.”
I’ve provided you with several links in support of the abiogenesis hypothesis. If abiogenesis were impossible, we certainly wouldn’t expect to see the automatic formation of amino acids, nucleotides, RNA, proteins and lipid cell membranes, all of which have been observed to occur under prebiotic conditions. So saying scientists have no idea about the origin of life is clearly inaccurate. In fact, I challenge you to find even ONE scientist actually working in the field of abiogenesis who has come to the conclusion that it is impossible for a living cell to evolve from inorganic chemicals.
“I havent even touched on the Cambrian explosion ( RIP Darwinism).”
The Cambrian Explosion is something I’m quite familiar with. It took place over a 13-25 MILLION year period, which is hardly an overnight occurrence. Furthermore, we DO have many fossils that predate the CE, it’s just that almost all life was soft-bodied before then. Once hard parts (bones, teeth, etc.) evolved toward the beginning of the CE, preservation of fossils became FAR easier…which is why we see an “explosion” of fossils over that multi-million year period.
“From everything we know, the universe had a definite beginning. With the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem , any universe that involves an expanding universe has definite beginning. Thats a HUGE problem for the materialist.”
Actually, that’s not a problem at all. Our LOCAL incarnation of the universe definitely had a beginning, but its source is unknown. But quantum physics provides a plausible answer in the form of a quantum fluctuation and inflation. In fact, based on what we know about both so far (and both are observable), it appears that a multiverse with up to perhaps an infinite number of universes exists (https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/18748/20190316/the-multiverse-theoretically-inevitable.htm). Where did the quantum realm come from, you may ask? Nobody knows. It’s a mystery…but one doesn’t get to solve a mystery by positing an even GREATER mystery: a “transcendent being.” It’s fine to postulate that one exists, but there is no credible evidence to support the claim.
I certainly don’t blame you for being unaware of, well, all of this information. Few people are willing to dig into the actual scientific evidence to learn fact from fiction. Furthermore, creationists have had an ongoing propaganda campaign vilifying “scientific materialism” for many decades now. But there’s a reason why creationism isn’t accepted by the scientific community: there just isn’t any credible evidence to support it. I would thus urge you to avoid the creationist propaganda sites (Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, etc.) and read up on the actual science.
And if you doubt what I’m saying is true, just try for yourself to apply the scientific method to creationism. The most important step is to find testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim FALSE (not true). EVERY explanation must provide these in order to be scientific, and every scientific test should be an attempt to prove one’s own claim false. That’s how science works. I’ve yet to have any creationist provide even ONE such falsifiable claim (at least that hasn’t already been falsified), which is why I have an open $1,000 bet that no one can can meet the scientific requirement for creationism.
But perhaps you will be the first. 🙂
LikeLike
July 5, 2022 at 7:57 pm
Derek ,
To be honest, I dont really care to get into a long protracted debate on the subjects so my response will probably skips some things.
As for the universities subject : You are entitled to your opinion. I didn’t make the claim that all of unbelief is the result of scientific materialism. I believe it has a lot do with it. Scientific materialism is dominant worldview there, whether you think it has any impact or not
“Actually, having debated theists for decades, I’d have to say there is NO scientific evidence for the existence of any “Transcendent Being.” Every single claim I’ve studied has turned out to be either a logical fallacy or a simple error of fact. I can show you what I mean, if you’d like–just let me know what you consider the BEST evidence is and I’ll clarify. In fact, I’m willing to make a $1,000 bet that that best evidence isn’t even scientific.”
I may take that bet if you are willing to actually discuss the issue rather than post articles that either dodge the issue or misrepresent studies and findings.
As for the Behe response , its interesting that you ignored my point and instead quoted from the Dover trial things that had nothing to do with my point. In fact, those quotes really are a dishonest misrepresentation of Behe’s point
You have kind of underscored my point that I made in regards to the response to Behe’s work. Rather than confront the issue, its red herring time. You can spare me the articles supposedly “debunking” irreducible complexity, I’ve seen them. If it isnt red herrings, its straw men arguments. Ken Millers argument against the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been thoroughly debunked .
“At several points during the trial, all the witnesses for the defense admitted that there are mountains of scientific support for evolution, and that there is no objective, independent evidence against evolution. Judge John E. Jones III (a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush, BTW) declared that “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory … ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data, or publications.” ”
I find this extremely disingenuous. If you actually believe this, you are either extremely misinformed and wayyyy behind the times. The technical literature is filled with hundreds if not thousands of papers by evolutionists posing serious problems with Neo-Darwinism.
If you are going to continuously equate Intelligent Design proponents and people who have scientific problems with Neo-Darwinism with Creationists, then you are either very uneducated on the topic or just dishonest. It reeks very much of the whole 2 party debate where someone disagrees with a Democrat and so they must be a conservative or Republican( or vice versa) and then you proceed to launch into the whole progressive/liberal/Democrat talking points and attacks.
““Neo-Darwinism has no creative power. It has absolutely no plausible mechanism for generating new complex systems or proteins.”
Absolutely none? Really? The scientific evidence does not support that claim:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/ https://is.muni.cz/el/1431/jaro2008/Bi8350/um/5474473/Poole_98_The_path_from_RNA_world.pdf
https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-find-evidence-of-a-protein-that-existed-when-life-began/
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
https://scitechdaily.com/profound-discovery-on-origins-of-life-on-earth-evolution-of-metal-binding-proteins/
https://scitechdaily.com/solving-the-chicken-and-the-egg-problem-a-step-closer-to-the-reconstruction-of-the-origin-of-life/
Actually, I have dozens of links to links describing the scientific discoveries that support the abiogenesis hypothesis, which I’m happy to provide if requested.
I’ve provided you with several links in support of the abiogenesis hypothesis. If abiogenesis were impossible, we certainly wouldn’t expect to see the automatic formation of amino acids, nucleotides, RNA, proteins and lipid cell membranes, all of which have been observed to occur under prebiotic conditions. So saying scientists have no idea about the origin of life is clearly inaccurate. In fact, I challenge you to find even ONE scientist actually working in the field of abiogenesis who has come to the conclusion that it is impossible for a living cell to evolve from inorganic chemicals.”
I grouped your abiogenesis responses here to make things easier.
The articles you posted are a perfect example of not understanding the issue and underlying premises of the issue.
The articles are nothing more than press releases that overstate and misrepresent the data and science.
Your claim that automatic formation of amino acids, nucleotides, RNA, proteins and lipid cell membranes have been observed to occur under prebiotic conditions is absolutely absurd. Absurd. None of these origin of life experiments happens in a prebiotic environment. These are all performed in clean laboratories under conditions that have no semblance to prebiotic earth. The investigator interference is MONUMENTAL and absolutely nothing happens without them . From purification to adding reagents, to heating at specific times, to degassing , to cooling at specific times, etc. The reactions are all controlled and timed with incredible precision by the investigator/scientist.
If you have the time and are so inclined, check out Dr Tour’s critique :https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg?t=13 . If you want to skip his introduction where he gives his credentials, skip to the 8 minute mark.
On top of the above, all of the articles you posted presuppose life to begin with. They presuppose life and/or biological information. Nobody has been able to explain how you are able to get life from non-living chemicals .
“Furthermore, when it comes to the “creative power” of evolution, we have numerous examples of exactly that happening. For instance, a ray-finned zebrafish with just a single mutation can cause the growth of functional bones, joints and muscles, which is how the first step in the evolution of lobe fins was predicted to occur, which itself was the first step in the evolution of walking limbs (https://phys.org/news/2021-02-fin-limb-mutations-zebrafish-fins.html). Mutations are the SOURCE of new information, and selective forces are what cause useful mutations to propagate throughout a population.”
Again…false. Again, another case of a misrepresenting a study and unjustified extrapolation . The paper never claims any sort of functionality.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/revealing-darrel-falks-overstatements-about-limb-bones-in-fish-fins/
“The Cambrian Explosion is something I’m quite familiar with. It took place over a 13-25 MILLION year period, which is hardly an overnight occurrence. Furthermore, we DO have many fossils that predate the CE, it’s just that almost all life was soft-bodied before then. Once hard parts (bones, teeth, etc.) evolved toward the beginning of the CE, preservation of fossils became FAR easier…which is why we see an “explosion” of fossils over that multi-million year period.”
13-25 millions years is a blip on the radar in the history of earth and in geological timescales .
You are correct that we do have fossils that predate the CE. What we dont have are any clear ancestral or intermediate forms leading to the main groups of Cambrian animals. Interesting that the Precambrian strata was able to preserve microscopic sponge embryos but was completely unable to preserve any of the near ancestors of those adult animals .
“Actually, that’s not a problem at all. Our LOCAL incarnation of the universe definitely had a beginning, but its source is unknown. But quantum physics provides a plausible answer in the form of a quantum fluctuation and inflation. In fact, based on what we know about both so far (and both are observable), it appears that a multiverse with up to perhaps an infinite number of universes exists (https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/18748/20190316/the-multiverse-theoretically-inevitable.htm). Where did the quantum realm come from, you may ask? Nobody knows. It’s a mystery…but one doesn’t get to solve a mystery by positing an even GREATER mystery: a “transcendent being.” It’s fine to postulate that one exists, but there is no credible evidence to support the claim.”
The multiverse is hardly established scientific fact. There are host of serious problems with it, that even many atheist physicists acknowledge. One of the main reasons for its postulations is to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. Interestingly enough, it only serves to push that problem back a step. Scientists have to postulate a universe generating machine with prior unexplained fine tuning .
This is the extent one who is committed to materialist worldview has to go to avoid the fine-tuning problem and definite beginning of time, space, and matter. You have to postulate an absurdity like the multiverse ( where we have no way to scientifically test it at all) where there are literally an infinite number of dereks and Joshs interacting on this page each doing/typing an infinite number of things ( everything that is possible, including an infinite number of other people watching this exchange and who may not comment in our universe but comment in another. and someone who is going to comment but instead a plane crashes into their house and kills them in another universe. And yet in another universe the plane misses their house by a few feet and they survive but dont comment…ad infinitum ) and yet at the same time talk about “no credible evidence of a Transcendent Being”.
LikeLike
July 5, 2022 at 8:32 pm
“I certainly don’t blame you for being unaware of, well, all of this information. Few people are willing to dig into the actual scientific evidence to learn fact from fiction. Furthermore, creationists have had an ongoing propaganda campaign vilifying “scientific materialism” for many decades now. But there’s a reason why creationism isn’t accepted by the scientific community: there just isn’t any credible evidence to support it. I would thus urge you to avoid the creationist propaganda sites (Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, etc.) and read up on the actual science.
And if you doubt what I’m saying is true, just try for yourself to apply the scientific method to creationism. The most important step is to find testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim FALSE (not true). EVERY explanation must provide these in order to be scientific, and every scientific test should be an attempt to prove one’s own claim false. That’s how science works. I’ve yet to have any creationist provide even ONE such falsifiable claim (at least that hasn’t already been falsified), which is why I have an open $1,000 bet that no one can can meet the scientific requirement for creationism.”
You assume quite a bit about me without knowing literally anything about me. I dont frequent any of those sites.
It seems you are the one unaware of quite a bit of scientific information. From absurd abiogenesis claims, to fins to limbs that has no scientific basis. I dont blame you, as you are just programmed to accept whatever propaganda comes from the news releases without actually looking into the actual underlying studies or tech literature . Rather than critical thinking, you are quick to discount anyone with well founded objections as a “creationist”.
You keep making the false dichotomy fallacy. One must either be a creationist that believes God created the world in 6 literal days about 6k years ago, or you must accept NeoDarwinism and whatever their mouthpieces in pop culture or in press releases claim. Its a very dishonest way to converse with people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 5, 2022 at 8:41 pm
Derek,
Unfortunately , I had spent a bit of time responding to your earlier post and when I posted the comment it didnt go through.
I’ll just say this. Your comments on abiogenesis couldnt be more wrong. Its not surprising since you linked press release articles that mispresent what actually being done in abiogenesis research. If you are open minded , I would encourage you to listen to a highly qualified and credentialed chemist explain where we are in abiogenesis research : https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg?t=473
Your fins to limbs article actually got the underlying study wrong and made claims the study didnt make. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/revealing-darrel-falks-overstatements-about-limb-bones-in-fish-fins/
LikeLike
July 6, 2022 at 4:07 am
“You assume quite a bit about me without knowing literally anything about me. I dont frequent any of those sites.”
Perhaps you don’t, but you do use many of the arguments presented by those sites, and thus it’s reasonable to conclude they are the sources of your information. If not, that’s good…but it doesn’t change my recommendation for you (or anyone) to avoid those sites.
“It seems you are the one unaware of quite a bit of scientific information. From absurd abiogenesis claims, to fins to limbs that has no scientific basis.”
Really? Can you name even ONE claim made by ANY abiogenesis researcher that is “absurd”? And the fins-to-limbs claim not only has scientific basis, but it’s one of the most slam-dunk pieces of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. How so? Well, transitional fossils MUST exist in order for evolution to be true (that’s one of the falsifiable predictions made by the theory). The first transitional fossil (Archaeopteryx, possessing the toothed jaws, bony tail and clawed fingers characteristic of theropod dinosaurs, as well as the wings, flight feathers and wishbone characteristic of birds) was recognized two years after On the Origin of Species was published. Since then, THOUSANDS of transitional fossils have been found.
One of the more recent discoveries is Tiktaalik roseae. Based on the discoveries of 385-million-year-old lobe-finned fish fossils (like Eusthenopteron) and the 365-million-year-old tetrapods (four-legged amphibian ancestors, like Acanthostega), paleontologists predicted that there HAD to have existed a transitional species somewhere between 365 million years ago and 385 million years ago. They knew that the species would possess features possessed by lobe-finned fish (such as scales, fins, gills, etc.), as well as features possessed by tetrapods (such as a mobile neck, wrist joints, weight-supporting ribs, eyes on the top of the head, etc.). And based on the locations of the lobe-finned fish and tetrapod fossils, the researchers knew this transitional species would have lived in an area that is now part of northern Canada.
So the researchers travelled to Canada’s Ellesmere Island and searched the geological strata dated within that 365 mya to 385 mya range. There they found the remains of the 375-million-year-old Tiktaalik roseae. As predicted, Tiktaalik possessed scales, fins and gills of fish, the mobile neck, wrist joints, weight-supporting ribs, and eyes on the top of the head of tetrapods. It also possessed the limb bones, joints and ear regions that were somewhere between fish and tetrapod.
The discovery of tracks providing evidence that a tetrapod existed almost 400 million years ago means Tiktaalik is NOT likely the FIRST transitional vertebrate species between fish and tetrapods (although it may be the first to lead to our own lineage). This is hardly surprising, since there are often multiple speciation events associated with new environments and newly evolved features, and many such branches end up going extinct. But the point is that scientists were able to use evolutionary theory to predict the existence of a previously unknown species in a particular geographical region and in a particular section of the geological record…and then they went out and FOUND it. Such a discovery could only occur if evolutionary theory is true. And creationism not only has nothing even remotely comparable, but it doesn’t even make any testable predictions that could potentially prove it false.
(More: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik, http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210204144032.htm, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18346-oldest-footprints-of-a-four-legged-vertebrate-discovered/, https://scitechdaily.com/speedy-evolution-sustained-fast-rates-of-evolution-explain-how-tetrapods-evolved-from-fish/)
“I dont blame you, as you are just programmed to accept whatever propaganda comes from the news releases without actually looking into the actual underlying studies or tech literature .”
NOW who is making unfounded assumptions about someone? 😉 As I mentioned before, my degree is in evolution science and I did graduate work in science philosophy. I DO read the scientific literature, but I find it is often too technical for the person with whom I’m discussing the topic (after all, those who are well-versed in science are far less likely to be creationists). Thus, I use easier to understand science news articles (ideally with references to the original papers).
“Rather than critical thinking, you are quick to discount anyone with well founded objections as a “creationist”.”
Well, as I asked, can you provide me with ANY credible evidence that supports creationism? Can you even make ONE testable prediction that could falsify creationism? $1,000 awaits you if you can fulfill the conditions of the bet. In more than a decade since I started making that bet, I’ve yet to have any creationist provide that prediction.
Additionally, WHAT “well founded objections”? Every time I ask a creationist–or whatever you would prefer to be called–about such objections, almost inevitably it turns out to be an argument from ignorance fallacy. To be clear, that doesn’t mean a person is making an ignorant argument, it’s the claim that because we may currently lack part of an explanation for something (or even lack ANY explanation), therefore that justifies belief in a different unsupported claim.
“You keep making the false dichotomy fallacy. One must either be a creationist that believes God created the world in 6 literal days about 6k years ago, or you must accept NeoDarwinism and whatever their mouthpieces in pop culture or in press releases claim. Its a very dishonest way to converse with people.”
Who said anything about young earth creationism? You mentioned believing Behe’s arguments were strong, and he’s an old earth creationist, so I made the assumption you are also an OEC. If not, my apologies. But as you can see by the evidence I provided you, Behe’s arguments are NOT strong. They too rely on an argument from ignorance. And clearly you didn’t need to look any further than Behe’s own words to see that his claims weren’t made based on research, and he admitted he had to redefine the meaning of the term scientific (to include astrology, no less!) in order to claim his ideas were scientific.
You seem to be accusing me of using pop culture instead of science to argue for evolutionary theory (you’re STILL using the term “neodarwinism, even though I pointed out it’s been supplanted by the “new synthesis” by incorporating genetics?). Nothing could be further from the truth. My formal education is the source of most of my claims, as well as my work studying evolution in the field, and to that I add the latest discoveries in the topic.
But you must realize there is something wrong with your position when well over 99% of all scientists working in fields relevant to evolution agree that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the origin of species, and that creationism fails to be supported by the evidence, right? I suspect cognitive dissonance forces you to claim they’re only saying that because otherwise they’ll lose their jobs, or something equally absurd…but since you haven’t yet made that claim I won’t make any such actual accusation. But…you must have at least thought about it, right? How else could all the world’s experts on the topic who spend their lives studying the evidence be so wrong–but you’re so right, right? If nothing else, that fact should make you think twice about claiming evolutionary theory can’t possibly be true.
LikeLike
July 6, 2022 at 4:58 am
And responding to your second comment:
“Unfortunately , I had spent a bit of time responding to your earlier post and when I posted the comment it didnt go through.”
Hmm, it’s amazing how often I get that claim when arguing with creationists….
“I’ll just say this. Your comments on abiogenesis couldnt be more wrong. Its not surprising since you linked press release articles that mispresent what actually being done in abiogenesis research. If you are open minded , I would encourage you to listen to a highly qualified and credentialed chemist explain where we are in abiogenesis research : https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg?t=473”
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understand how science works. The evidence only SUPPORTS the notion of abiogenesis. Keep in mind, it remains a HYPOTHESIS, which means it makes testable predictions that could potentially prove it false, but unlike evolutionary theory the evidence is not yet sufficiently supported by multiple disciplines and a wide variety of evidence.
In my previous post, I said, “Every time I ask a creationist–or whatever you would prefer to be called–about such objections, almost inevitably it turns out to be an argument from ignorance fallacy.” Well, this is a case in point. In the video you linked for me, James Tour does EXACTLY that. His argument can be boiled down to “I can’t imagine how nature could do this on its own through natural forces, so therefore abiogenesis is impossible.” Right there is where his claim fails.
But it gets worse. He claims that abiogenesis research must START with a cell (instead of simpler, self-replicating chemistry), and he claims that “organisms want to lead toward life and keep life going” and that “nobody has ever seen molecules assemble toward life.” All of that is demonstrably false.
Abiogenesis makes the testable prediction that there must be a pathway for simple chemistry to automatically develop into the basic building blocks of life. Not only did the original Miller-Urey experiment demonstrate that amino acids and other organic compounds could form completely naturally under prebiotic conditions, but later experiments using a variety of different prebiotic conditions ALSO achieved similar results.
Furthermore, the repeated heating, cooling and irradiation of these molecules, as would be expected on a prebiotic Earth, can also cause the spontaneous formation of ribonucleotides. And ribonucleotides exposed to certain clays can spontaneously assemble into strands of RNA. Not only is RNA capable of self-reproduction, which is a fundamental requirement for life, but it has been found to mutate and change through natural selection all on its own. It’s also very close in structure to DNA, which is the genetic blueprint of almost all life. And recently, a catalyst that likely existed on the prebiotic Earth has been shown to automatically create segments of DNA, and we’ve also discovered that proteins can form under natural conditions.
Not only that, but simple fatty acids that also form naturally in prebiotic conditions automatically assemble into structures resembling cell membranes. And under the right conditions, DNA inserted into those cell membrane-like structures can successfully replicate.
Now, I am NOT saying we have successfully discovered an entire pathway to the formation of life from non-life–which is the main reason abiogenesis remains a hypothesis and not a theory–but the fact that abiogenesis PREDICTED this would be possible, as well as the monumental success in finding natural processes that can lead to the formation of amino acids, ribonucleotides, RNA, DNA, proteins and cell wall structures is evidence in SUPPORT of the hypothesis. So to claim abiogenesis is impossible because we haven’t figured it all out YET is as unjustified as the ancient Greeks claiming only Zeus could create lightning.
This is why an argument from ignorance is a fallacy. It has no place in science.
“Your fins to limbs article actually got the underlying study wrong and made claims the study didnt make. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/revealing-darrel-falks-overstatements-about-limb-bones-in-fish-fins/”
And this is what I meant when I said your arguments come from discredited creationist sources. “Evolution News & Science Today” is a young earth creationist site run by the Discovery Institute, which is the primary player in the “intelligent design” movement. The name alone is designed to make it seem like a credible journal on evolutionary science. It isn’t. Check ANY of their articles and you’ll see what I mean. This is why they are not considered a credible journal by the scientific community. You criticized me for using science news that reports on actual science, then you provide a link to an intentionally deceptive site that deliberately deceives its audience into thinking ID is scientific. But their entire site is devoted to attacking evolutionary theory instead, because they cannot even provide ONE testable prediction that could potentially prove ID false. Their sites DEPENDS on the argument from ignorance fallacy.
So I recommend you get your information from SCIENTIFIC sources, not religious propaganda sites. Since you rejected the science news article I provided for you, here are the original scientific reports from Harvard and Cell journal article explaining how a single mutation allows for the underlying formation of NEW INFORMATION in the form of bones, muscles and joints, providing a structure on which natural selection can act: https://oeb.harvard.edu/news/can-fin-become-limb and https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00003-9?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421000039%3Fshowall%3Dtrue. As you can see, the latter article is NOT easily digestible for the layperson, which is why I didn’t post it for you originally.
LikeLike
July 6, 2022 at 11:43 am
“fins to limbs” ………. lmao, that’s delusional if you deny a designer. but if you acknowledge a designer it makes perfect sense. i wish i had the “faith” to believe this could all be by chance —- but mathematically that’s impossible.
LikeLike
July 10, 2022 at 3:08 am
Party affiliation may be this immovable all-powerful causative force that can make people do things like shift their entire worldview in the minds of echo chamber-dwelling hyperpartisan Republicans, but in the real world, it is no such thing. Ideology is what drives party affiliation, not the other way around. Furthermore, in a partisan binary system such as in the U.S., party affiliation is often simply a default choice that occurs due to an outright rejection of the other party as opposed to a positive embrace and complete acceptance of the positions of one’s affiliated party.
At any rate, the Democratic Party is obviously the more diverse, “big tent” party of the two major parties in the U.S. so it’s no surprise that more atheists are affiliated with it over the Christian nationalist GOP.
For everyday Americans for whom party affiliation is not their theory of everything, I’d imagine that the trends involving women and the unmarried are more likely to pique their interests.
LikeLike
July 12, 2022 at 6:18 am
Josh, I received notification of your post but it seems to have disappeared. I would respond to your claims, but it would be unfair of me to do so without your original post. However, if you want to take me up on the $1,000 bet I offered, as you indicated you might I’d be happy to accept it. And no, I wouldn’t just send you off to others’ articles elsewhere. After all, I’ve provided you with my own work so far, so why would I suddenly change? The reason I’m confident in my bet is because, as I noted before, I’m well educated in science philosophy. In fact, if you’re so certain about the evidence for your position, not only am I willing to make the $1,000 bet that your best evidence for a “transcendent being” isn’t scientific, but to make ANOTHER $1,000 bet that none of the testable predictions made by evolutionary theory have EVER proven the theory false.
LikeLike
July 12, 2022 at 6:26 am
That’s weird…I received MULTIPLE notifications of your old post, Josh, so I’ve already responded to that. Never mind, then. Very strange.
But I’m still happy to take both bets, if you’re willing.
LikeLike
July 12, 2022 at 7:04 am
“but you did indirectly mention abortion/similar moral concerns. you wrote —- “and enact policies that impose their religious dogma on us.” if you cant see (based on the context of recent events) ….. that is a reference to abortion — you are even more delusional than i thought.”
So I point out your clear and obvious mistake, and you’re really going to just double down on it instead of simply acknowledging the mistake? I said nothing about abortion (I even pointed out that I was referring to separation of church and state issues, not abortion), nobody else said anything about abortion, but for some reason you can’t admit to your mistakes.
““fins to limbs” ………. lmao, that’s delusional if you deny a designer. but if you acknowledge a designer it makes perfect sense. i wish i had the “faith” to believe this could all be by chance —- but mathematically that’s impossible.”
Hmm, you clearly don’t know anything about the wealth of evidence we have that supports fish-to-tetrapod evolution (evidence that would ONLY exist if land vertebrates evolved from fish, and for which creationism has no credible explanation). You don’t provide ANY evidence that a designer even exists. And your claim that evolution is all about chance shows you clearly don’t understand even the basics about how evolution works, since you’re ignoring the primary component of evolution–selective forces–that can easily change a virtual impossibility into a virtual certainty.
Finally, none of this is based on “faith.” Faith is belief despite a lack of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence. I can easily provide numerous testable predictions that could have proved evolutionary theory false, but instead have turned out to be supported by an abundance of scientific evidence. Can you provide even ONE testable prediction that could potentially prove creationism false? Based on your demonstrated lack of understanding of the scientific method, I’m willing to bet you have nothing.
I’m really hoping you can bring SOMETHING of substance to the discussion. So far, Paul, instead of presenting reasoned arguments or evidence, you mainly seem to be interested in accusing others of being delusional–as if you think that somehow an ad hominem fallacy constitutes a valid argument. Just be aware you don’t come off as clever or knowledgeable in any way, just petty and childish. So please…can we dispense with the pointless posturing? Either provide SOMETHING useful, or I don’t see any point in trying to have a discussion with you.
LikeLike