Yabby,
I thought it necessary to clear up a misconception from your last post. ("Most creationists are in complete denial of species evolving at all".) 

Scientists make observations and take measurements. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon. As a process it was measured and recorded by creationists even before the time of Darwin. We have all seen and noted variation and diversification amongst living things, and their ability to adapt to environments.

We see variation amongst people, finches, salmon, etc. When creationists say they don't see evolution occurring, what they're saying is that we don't see (observe or measure) evidence of people evolving from non-people, finches evolving from non finches, salmon evolving from non-salmon, etc. Each reproduces after their kind, as is spoken about in the first pages of Genesis.

A lot of the confusion arises from a loose definition of the word 'evolution', with people using different meanings of that word interchangeably in different contexts.

You won't find in any literature a creationist denying natural selection, for it is an observed process, observable by anyone. However, we are right to question evolution (in the sense of people evolving from non-people or all species evolving from single cell organisms) as that has not been observed by anyone.

Please try to be consistent, Dan…

Regarding creationists: "However, we are right to question evolution (in the sense of people evolving from non-people or all species evolving from single cell organisms) as that has not been observed by anyone."

Do you mean in exactly the same ways that we are right to question everything claimed by creationists that happened before 'Adam'?

Or, if your contention is that God observed creation – I would a opine that God observed people evolving from non-people and all species evolving from single cell organisms.

Hi Dan,

" .... we are right to question evolution .... as that has not been observed by anyone."

So that your criterion, that we should not believe something if nobody observed it ? A bit infantile, but let's run with it.

Has any person seen god, or any of the multitude of gods invented around the world ? Was there a human observer there in the Garden of Eden, and when Noah stepped ashore at Mt Ararat, or when Abraham was about to slit his son's throat to prove he loved god ? Or when Moses received the Ten Commandments ? Or so many other myths ?

Why should we believe these myths any more than we believe the myth of Zeus turning into a bull or swan, or whatever ?

Charming stories, invented by people with extremely limited technology of knowledge, but struggling to understand their world. Some very beautiful stories too: for some reason, I'm always struck by the story of Judah and Tamar. But still they are just stories, not really worth trying to pick to pieces, any more than one might try to find fault with the story of Hansel and Gretel.

Cheers,

Joe

Dan,

Your take of challenging rational thought regarding evolutionary theory by employing a counter rationality is intriguing. And yet, you would have us believe that Noah was able to gather together and transport two of every land/fresh water species during the flood...on an Ark...in the rain.....

Why do you employ a rational defence on some aspects, and yet float off into irrational fancifulness on others?

I’m seduced again.
Luciferese:
<Yes, a point I raised with our erstwhile thread companion, Squeers, that there is no continuum between the positions>
This is ridiculous, of course it’s a continuum; reason came out of theology and the enlightenment—that’s why there’s contention; their fighting for ascendency. Newton, for one, was a devout Christian and since then the rational hubris has been a progressive narrative about reason asserting its autonomy and dispelling the darkness of superstition.
The New Atheists fail to see that empiricism—reason based on “data points”—does not penetrate the surface of things, thus it took centuries for Newton’s mechanistic universe to attain the quantum subtlety theorised by Niels Bohr—though Hegel critiqued Newton’s mechanics and anticipated Niels Bohr’s work by a century using what he called dialectics. Pure empiricism (a misnomer) fails to get to the heart of the matter at hand—as science now knows but rarely considers the implications of. As Marx (who used Hegel’s dialectics) says, “all science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence”. It’s impossible to learn anything merely from empiricism, that is without the via-media of (irrational) a priori reason.
Much more importantly to what I’ve been saying, faith in empiricism is tantamount to a denial of the social-historical-political-ideological-subjective contaminants that “select” the technological direction, method, and at the very least condition the findings.

tbc

cont..

Ditchkins’ dispute with theists is based on a “common sense” technocracy that’s evolved out of religion, yet both remain extant. This is what gives them “both” the running—what each side says is intuitively right! Hence the conviction, exasperation and swaggering from both sides.
But theistic orthodoxy, liberal-rationalist “common sense” is a socio-political order naively seeking to be institutionalised as the “natural order”—a “construction of reality” nonetheless, ostensibly based on a “neutral” set of ideas that are taken as givens.
This is not to deny the achievements of modern science, but because it takes its evidence (and cue) from the prevailing order of things, it’s prone to accept as realities things that are merely evidence of underlying biases and ideological pressures, thus empiricism will always confirm the status quo.
Philosophers of science know this! And this is why so many of Ditchkins’ colleagues condemn their crusade. Dawkins looks like an arrogant fool to thinking people on both sides “because” he’s so credulously passionate. Yet rather than objective, he and his crew are clearly motivated, probably unconsciously, by deep-seated ideological devotions.
If they want to address the cronyism and irrationality of our society, for instance, why don’t they come out against capitalism? They object to tax breaks, influence and funding for the church but they’re silent on the raft of disparities, cronyism, conditioning of our kids, unfair advantage and distribution that proceed from the wealth-disparities capitalism is predicated on. Are these gross disparities rational? Is capitalist exploitation (mainly off-shore these days, but also unsustainable environmental practices) rational?
Yes they are! These are an unquestioned ideological underpinnings of our “common sense”!
I’m an atheist, yet because I dare to question New Atheist dogma, and demand reflexivity, consideration and political disclosure, I’m treated as an outsider—not that I want to be an insider; I have intellectual standards!
Nevertheless, going by this article: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/13/3476271.htm
The New Atheists can’t afford to alienate anyone.