How atheists often misunderstand and misuse the theory of evolution

[Night FM]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Just like you and evolution. How hypocritical is it of you to criticize those who understand what you don't?

My understanding is perfectly fine and often better.

[npts2020]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

My understanding is perfectly fine and often better.

Well you don't seem to show it. Imagine there are 2 people. The first one will modify their beliefs as new and better evidence comes to light, the second is willfully ignorant and will not change their beliefs regardless of any evidence presented. Which one is indoctrinated?

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

My understanding is perfectly fine and often better.

Better than what? In biology, which you consider irrelevant to biological taxonomy, you appear appallingly ignorant. Of paleontology, you seem entirely ignorant. As regards evolutionary theory, you appear misguided. Your knowledge of science appears to be spotty wikipedia readings. Your perception of atheism is skewed in ways I can't even fathom. 

*sigh!* another one of those 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Well you don't seem to show it. Imagine there are 2 people. The first one will modify their beliefs as new and better evidence comes to light, the second is willfully ignorant and will not change their beliefs regardless of any evidence presented. Which one is indoctrinated?

They both are, which one is most acceptable?

That depends on the culture/state/village, one grew up in... 

[Phi for All]

10 hours ago, Night FM said:

My understanding is perfectly fine and often better.

And this is demonstrably false. In fact, you've been corrected repeatedly on your poor understanding of the science you're ridiculing.

[npts2020]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

They both are

Great, then explain to me how trying to discern reality by following the evidence is indoctrination (as the term is commonly used).

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Great, then explain to me how trying to discern reality by following the evidence is indoctrination

Only if you learn facts and the methods of scientific investigation at school. If you discover the scientific method all by yourself, I guess you're not indoctrinated by the village, but the down-side is, you have to start with the knowledge-base of 6000 BCE.  

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Night FM said:

My understanding is perfectly fine and often better.

Dunning-Kruger is alive and well

[exchemist]

On 9/27/2024 at 11:08 AM, Night FM said:

It would be hard to, because these are mostly anecdotal examples from social media.

If we use history as an example, it has been argued that Hitler used evolution to argue in favor of Nazi ideology:

https://www.csustan.edu/history/was-hitler-influenced-darwinism

 

Ah, Godwin's Law again. 

Are you really suggesting Hitler was a typical atheist? And where did Hitler express any of these views you ascribe to atheists in your opening post? 

[Peterkin]

On 9/27/2024 at 4:08 AM, Night FM said:

If we use history as an example, it has been argued that Hitler used evolution to argue in favor of Nazi ideology:

Back off, everybody! Sloooowly... He used The Big Bad Name.

And now you must all stop eating ham, because it was oer of Hitler's favourite foods. 

Edited September 28 by Phi for All
removed duplicates

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Great, then explain to me how trying to discern reality by following the evidence is indoctrination (as the term is commonly used).

We are all indoctrinated, it's an inevitability if we survive our birth, please don't assume that your particular indoctrination is superior just bc; have a think about why your immune to the notion of god, just bc you don't believe in an ism...

[sethoflagos]

On 9/27/2024 at 7:33 AM, Night FM said:

1. Most atheists only believe in the theory of evolution (whichever version of the theory they're coming from) because they were taught and indoctrinated to believe it, such as in schools.

Do you really think that biology teachers are beating the jesuits at their own game? 

Quote

In the parable of the Mote and the Beam, Jesus warned against projection: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

 

[Peterkin]

19 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Edited 16 hours ago by Phi for All

Thank you!!!

27 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Do you really think that biology teachers are beating the jesuits at their own game? 

I would so like to believe that!

[Night FM]

On 9/28/2024 at 8:53 AM, Phi for All said:

And this is demonstrably false. In fact, you've been corrected repeatedly on your poor understanding of the science you're ridiculing.

But I haven't said anything about the science, merely things other people say about it that misunderstand it.

As an example which can be sourced, Lawrence Kraus says that he likes to think that the world is "chaotic", but as mentioned in the OP, this has nothing to do with Chaos theory, and if anything is closer to the ancient Greek myth of "Chaos" being the originator of the universe rather than anything "scientific". So when you even have scientists themselves bastardizing it, let alone people on social media, it lends one to be skeptical.

Edited September 30 by Night FM

[iNow]

I like to think my kids bedrooms are chaotic, and that has nothing to do with chaos theory either. You’re a ridiculous human. 

[Peterkin]

37 minutes ago, Night FM said:

But I haven't said anything about the science, merely things other people say about it that misunderstand it.

I sincerely hope your mundane thought is less chaotic than your virtual thought.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, Night FM said:

But I haven't said anything about the science, merely things other people say about it that misunderstand it.

The problem with passing the buck like this is that you didn’t give any citations for where the material came from.  I’m not willing to take your word that you are merely repeating others’ misunderstanding. You haven’t earned the benefit of doubt.

44 minutes ago, Night FM said:

As an example which can be sourced, Lawrence Kraus says that he likes to think that the world is "chaotic", but as mentioned in the OP, this has nothing to do with Chaos theory, and if anything is closer to the ancient Greek myth of "Chaos" being the originator of the universe rather than anything "scientific". So when you even have scientists themselves bastardizing it, let alone people on social media, it lends one to be skeptical.

Chaos theory is a relatively recent development, and appropriated the chaos name from the existing lexicon. So “chaotic” in lay use can’t really have anything to do with chais theory, since the word came about before the scientific principle existed.

It’s hard to tell if this is trolling, since I can’t tell if the obtuseness is deliberate or not. 

[npts2020]

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We are all indoctrinated, it's an inevitability if we survive our birth, please don't assume that your particular indoctrination is superior just bc; have a think about why your immune to the notion of god, just bc you don't believe in an ism...

If true, then why will one change their beliefs when presented with better evidence while the other will not?

[Night FM]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Chaos theory is a relatively recent development, and appropriated the chaos name from the existing lexicon. So “chaotic” in lay use can’t really have anything to do with chais theory, since the word came about before the scientific principle existed.

Right, so in other words you have people using nonscientific terms like "chaos" to describe the origin of the universe. Proving my point.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

If true, then why will one change their beliefs when presented with better evidence while the other will not?

I'm not sure why someone will change their belief that rape is wrong when presented with better evidence. (But maybe it's better that they don't).

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Right, so in other words you have people using nonscientific terms like "chaos" to describe the origin of the universe. Proving my point.

 

By "people" I presume you mean creationists, right? Because that is not how the origin of the universe is thought of in science. 

[Night FM]

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

By "people" I presume you mean creationists, right? Because that is not how the origin of the universe is thought of in science. 

No, I specifically mentioned Lawrence Krauss as one example.

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, Night FM said:

No, I specifically mentioned Lawrence Krauss as one example.

That's interesting. Where does Krauss claim the universe originated from chaos? 

[studiot]

Perhaps this

Quote

essentially empty space

 

For Krauss, “nothing” means essentially empty space — a vacuum — governed by the basic laws of quantum mechanics. So he explains how the universe can arise from that kind of nothing — a pinprick of vacuum governed by quantum physics — but he doesn't explain why the laws of quantum physics appeared in the first place.19 Mar 2018

See commentary

https://www.quora.com/Does-Lawrence-Krauss-s-book-A-Universe-From-Nothing-justify-its-title-Is-what-he-calls-nothing-really-such-What-is-wrong-with-defining-nothing-as-synonymous-with-nonexistence-to-ask-Why-is-there-existence-itself

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

If true, then why will one change their beliefs when presented with better evidence while the other will not?

Which ones are you talking about?

Religion's may lag behind sometimes and resist fundamental changes in their belief, but they also contain great thinkers that challenge the dogma and lead to better explanation's. 

Ditto scienceism.

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

Right, so in other words you have people using nonscientific terms like "chaos" to describe the origin of the universe. Proving my point.

How does it prove your point?

Evolution is the very definition of chaos, and your premise is that atheist misunderstand evolution. IOW no need for a god to guild thing's... 😉 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Night FM said:

Right, so in other words you have people using nonscientific terms like "chaos" to describe the origin of the universe. Proving my point.

What’s the problem with using that terminology? Most language is nonscientific, especially outside of journal articles.

Who is using the language? Your thread is about atheists, not scientists. Is it a reasonable expectation for non-scientists to use science jargon?