But vast numbers of religious people accept evolution. And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.
Just as it is imperative for atheists to require a totally naturalistic explanation for things as they are. After all, what other explanation (with the exception of space aliens) can an atheist use to explain the existence of the universe as we know it? Do you disagree with this analysis?
It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.
Some do, some don’t and many are not sure. I would say that says a lot about the open-minded attitude of religious people. How about the reverse? Would you say “vast numbers of atheists accept creation?” If not, can’t we conclude that atheists are close minded on this subject? And that is exactly my point. Thank you for helping me make it.
”And a lot of the people who say their objections to evolution come from a "scientific" scepticism just don't pass the sniff test.”
That is a totally subjective and unproven assertion on your part, not doubt driven primarily by your belief system.
” It is the job of science to figure out what is going on. By now, naturalistic explanations should have earned the privilege of being the default assumption in cases in which we don't know the explanation. Assuming anything else amounts to punting.”
If “science” has a “job” it is to question everything. Unfortunately for the atheist faithful, the theory of evolution is …. evolving. For those who’s faith is atheism I have no doubt that they would wish that people would stop questioning their faith in the naturalistic explanation of everything. Unfortunately, not everyone is so easily cowed into the easy acceptance of the theory-du-jour by snide remarks. By the way, how can one determine – from a hominid skull whether the creature walked upright?
I'm not sure why you think that's important given the open contempt in the "scientific community" for religious explanations for origins. Don't believe me, see Eugenie Scott's "National Center for Science Education."
You'd do well to read the criticisms of that view on Trueorigin.org, specifically Deception by Omission
Have a nice day.
"It is the job of science to figure out what is going on."
Interesting...what IS goING on. Why do you suppose then that "scientists" continue to foist simple mechanisms on the unsuspecting public as acceptable explanations for diversity? That's not an explanation for what IS goING on, but rather an unsupported extrapolation of what WENT on. Just my $0.02.
Actually, there should be no assumption at all where we don't know the explanation. Nothing is lost by waiting while the answers are gleaned,and a naturalistic explanation is the likely outcome anyway.
Ironically, "naturalistic explanations" are, at their core, a punt, since the question, "What caused or causes nature?" is unanswered. And unanswerable... by science.
A naturalistic explanation for nature would be a tautology.
A meaningless statement...define vast. How many is "vast"? I could say a significant number of people believe in the Tooth Fairy too, but without any defining context, the statement is meaningless. Religious people believe in things that are not strictly a part of their religion, whatever it may be. Let's be honest here...we all are aware of quite a number of people who exhibit very little evidence of any kind of real reasoning power. To put it bluntly, there are a lot of stupid people out there. If you are citing those people in your "vast numbers" of people who believe in evolution, your argument loses a lot of its steam, because those people haven't really thought about it to any degree. They are just parroting what they've heard. Sheer numbers do not establish the correctness of anything, let alone evolution. In order for your statement to have any real weight, the "vast numbers" of people cited would have to be people who have actually studied all the evidence with an open mind, have examined both sides of the issue, and have drawn a conclusion based on their studies. To borrow your phrase, I'd venture to say that vast numbers of people who say they believe in evolution have never seriously considered either evolution or the alternative. They simply haven't thought about it at all, and are therefore unqualified to have an opinion either way.
And before you say it, I will..."opinions are like a__holes...everybody has one"...