Dan stated: "Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow."

I made no such contention. I merely stated that there is no evidence for creationism. Dawkins has a great deal of passion and bias. His passion and bias is based on the fact that there is no evidence for creationism, and creationists maintain their position regardless of the lack of evidence.

Prejudice is an irrational bias which people cannot justify. Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence.

Dan,

<<This contention is countered very easily by pointing out the many scientists out there (a small though significant minority) who also view the evidence as compelling, but pointing in the other direction.>>

Your points about a “significant minority” of scientists, and evidence “pointing in the other direction”, are simply more Creationist fallacies. I couldn't possibly respond to this one adequately in two posts, so I'm going to have to provide some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2B4AideIU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4MlURl0nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zW7-MZiXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gii8-rel4Ug

So no, it's certainly not “countered easily” at all. Not even in the slightest. There were many more links I could have posted, but if I post too many, then you may not check any of them out. Although, each YouTube link leads to many more, so knock yourself out.

This statement of yours, not only shows that you don't know what all the evidence for evolution is, but that what evidence you do know about, you use the Creationist tactic of 'shifting the goalposts' to disregard it. Just like Kent Hovind and his $250 000 reward for finding evidence for evolution. It doesn't matter how much evidence he's presented with, he simply shift the goalposts and says that it's not evidence.

But please do give examples of the evidence pointing in the other direction. It's difficult to falsify claims that are made without any examples.

<<However, I strongly suspect that you guys are grown up enough and been around OLO discussions enough to already know this as well as I.>>

Well, I've been reading OLO articles and posts now for about 3 years, and I am yet to see a Creationist put forth an argument that isn't either easily countered, or demonstrated to simply be a misconception or a fallacy. So I'm not sure what you mean there.

The sad thing though, is that the same culprits come back time and time again, with the same old arguments, only for someone else to correct them again. Kind of like what's happening here. This goes back to my point about the failure to acknowledge basic logic.

Continued...

...Continued

But yes, I've been around for a while now and I've been on both sides of the debate. This is why why I'm so astonished that you're maintaining your position. Had I been in your position 15 years ago (as a Creationist), I'd be eating humble pie right now. The only explanation I can come up with for your blatant and deliberate shunning of logic, is loyalty.

<<...I also argued that all people have various motivations.>>

And I've already responded to this, making your point almost meaningless.

The problem here, Dan, is that you're inventing the motivations of scientists who don't ignore all the evidence. You seem to think there is this battle going on, to prove that God doesn't exist, or that Atheist scientists are trying to dis-prove God (yes, I'll get to your misconception about Dawkins tomorrow – who mind you, is only one person). Most of them aren't. Most scientists simply ignore Creationists and get on with their work. It's as though you think that scientists are finding evidence and then construing a way to interpret that evidence so that it supports evolution – far from it, and many of the links in my posts (if you bothered to check them out) demonstrate this.

Anyway, where would this leave the Christian Evolutionary Scientists? If God is so great, why is he not great enough to use evolution as a mechanism for creating life?

<<Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow.>>

I think David has answered this sufficiently – for now.

But I'll have to continue with the rest of your post tomorrow, as there was too much nonsense in your last post to address in 700 words – most of which I've already confuted many times over, but no matter, we'll press on...

Dan,

<<I can tell you about one in particular who has strong religious leanings. His name is Dawkins.>>

Hmmm... You haven't read The God Delusion, have you? Obviously not, because you don't seem to have a clue about why Dawkins is so outspoken. You've jumped to the conclusion that Dawkins does what he does simply because of a 'religious' style of Atheism – this couldn't be more wrong.

The reason Dawkins is so outspoken is because he is passionate about ridding religion of the undeserved respect that it has in many societies. Just some of the many examples are:

- The fact that an Atheist can't be elected president of the United States for absolutely no good reason – forcing Atheist candidates to pretend they're Christian.

- The fact that religion, throughout much the world, is unjustifiably held to be virtuous. So much so, that it can be dangerous in the sense that it gives extremists more of a justification and cover for what they do, and makes it easier to (inadvertently) breed extremists by teaching children from a very young age, that religious faith is a virtue that society shouldn't be questioning – when it should.

- The fact that religious organisations are tax free. While the charitable work of churches should continue to be tax free, it makes no sense from them to be entirely tax free. Especially now that we know that there may very well be no God at all. More importantly though, we have certain religious organisations using their wealthy tax-free status to excessively influence politics – a potentially dangerous concept.

I think these three reasons for Dawkins' outspokenness alone, are enough to consider what he is doing to be admirable – whether or not there really is a God.

Until you have at least read some of his works, you are completely unqualified to make judgments about him, or assertions about why he does what he does.

And besides Dawkins is just one man. As I said before, most Scientists simply ignore Creationists and get on with their work.

Continued...

...Continued

<<His belief is atheism...>>

The problem with the way you say this is that you imply that Atheism is a set belief system, like religion. It's not. Atheism is simply the lack of a religious belief. Atheists are individual thinkers not bound by a set doctrine like you imply they are with evolution.

But I already addressed this much earlier in the thread.

<<he has stated publicly that his understanding of evolution allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. (I’ll find the whole quote if you want.)>>

No need to. It's the first quote listed here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

So what was your point?

All Dawkins was saying, is that although it might have been logical to believe that there was no God before Darwin, it wouldn't have been as intellectually satisfying since we didn't know how we all came about. We have a pretty good idea now, so it is therefore more intellectually fulfilling to know that we don't have to invent a God to explain that which we don't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you were trying to imply that evidence has deliberately been interpreted to fit evolution so that Atheists can feel more fulfilled and satisfied, in a similar way that Theists feel, and that Dawkins is therefore just as much a fundamentalist as Creationists.

But if this is what you're trying to point out, then it's a pretty weak point, because I've illustrated many different reasons why Creationists are the fundamentalists, and you haven't been able to counter any of them with anything more than the assertion that Evolutionists will never abandon their philosophy.

I'm glad you mined this quote though, because it's good example of why quote mining is such a weak, frivolous and slippery tactic.

So now, after all the rebuttals you've made, all of my arguments are still standing as strong as ever.

Sorry, Dan. Try again...

David,
I don’t see why you should think that that statement was directed towards you. I thought it was clear to whom it was directed.

In regard to what you said about evidence, I think we’ve stated our positions. But I’ll state it again, once more for clarity’s sake.

You say there is no evidence for creationism. I say that it depends on your framework through which you view the evidence. There is no ‘creationist’ evidence or ‘evolutionist’ evidence. There is just evidence. We try to make a case for a model which best fits all the evidence.

Evolution is currently the reigning paradigm through which the evidence is most commonly viewed. But this paradigm is not unchallenged. Neither will be the one that replaces it.

You are happy to admit that Dawkins has his own personal bias (he openly states his atheistic preference), but you say it can be justified. You said, “Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence.”

In this, it seems you are claiming that there is conclusive (or at least convincing) evidence for the atheist position. Is this so?