Definitions (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 30, 2008, 09:51 (6080 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George Jelliss writes: "In the 'Quotation from Darwin' thread dhw asks for definitions of various terms." I did no such thing, and I hope George is not beginning to hear voices. My posting was a specific complaint about the manner in which Dawkins and Co distort terms like Darwinism, evolution and natural selection in their attempt to prove that their atheism is backed by science, and to distract from their faith in chance. Please read my posting again for details. - George's definitions, however, are a good illustration. For instance, he talks of "variations" but makes no mention of random mutations. "Random" in the context of a random mutation does not = "The happening of a chance event which is one of a set of possible events all of which could occur with equal probability", because there is no "set" and no need for any event at all to take place. "Probability" does not come into it, but of course the word itself reduces the emphasis on chance. Atheism is not non-belief in theism. Nor is it "unbelief", to use whitecraw's term, since he defines that as "an absence of both belief and disbelief towards a proposition", which = agnosticism (my own position), in the popular and not the original sense of the word. Atheism according to every definition I can lay my hands on is disbelief (see whitecraw) in the existence of a God or gods. George says (so-called) scientific atheism "is non-belief in theism because of the lack of scientific evidence for the claims of theists", but in that case you might just as well talk of scientific agnosticism. Non-belief or unbelief are neutral (I agree with whitecraw's definition). Atheism is not neutral. Once again, both the terminology and the definition are calculated to give the impression that science supports disbelief in God, and at the same time they distract from the fact that the alternative is to believe in chance (i.e. abiogenesis and the randomness of mutations). That is the subject of my posting under "Quotation from Darwin". George's unsolicited glossary - offered, I'm sure, with the very best of intentions - simply proves my point.