Atheist scientists that deny evolution?

[alimck]

Are there any scientists who are atheists, but deny evolution?

We have theists who accept and have worked on biological evolution such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. However, there do not seem to be any scientists out there who do not believe in god, but also deny evolution.

I suppose my assertion is that those who deny evolution only do so with a religious agenda.

I know correlation is not cause, but is there any evidence to the contrary?

 

[Baranduin]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

In a strict usage of the term, though, there should be quite a few more more: Räelians defend intelligent design for humans and are still atheists, and I'm not sure about what's the vision of Scientology about human evolution (clams and that stuff). They're technically atheists as well, and some of them could be scientists - even biologists.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

In a strict usage of the term, though, there should be quite a few more more: Räelians defend intelligent design for humans and are still atheists, and I'm not sure about what's the vision of Scientology about human evolution (clams and that stuff). They're technically atheists as well, and some of them could be scientists - even biologists.

I have a hard time believing that Scientologists could get science degrees. :lol:

The other thought I had was that I would automatically mistrust someone claiming to be an "Atheist evolution denier" just on principle. Reminds me a little too much of "Fox 'News' Democrats." There's a big market for people who claim to be of a disposition to agree with one view, yet embrace the opposite. Democrats who love Fox "News," atheists who work for the Discovery Institute, that sort of thing.

A couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher's show featured an "Atheist" who is also a gigantic apologist for fundamentalist Christian lying. His comment on her was along the lines of "Is your next book going to be about how you magically discover your love for Jesus, after you are done writing your 'Atheist who loves Christians' books?" He's got her pegged as a future pretend "former Atheist"... and so do I.

S.E. Cupp? Is that the name? What a marketing disaster she is.

 

[RichardMNixon]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

Oh man, his wikipedia article is fantastic. He's a professional crackpot, he just complains about every piece of science he can find.

Speaking of professional crackpots, does Gene Ray have a god? I know he hates the puny one-day Christian god, but I was never able to tell if he has his own cube-god. Maybe add him to the list.

 

[Baranduin]

I have a hard time believing that Scientologists could get science degrees. :lol:

Well, they're already getting science fiction degrees.

The other thought I had was that I would automatically mistrust someone claiming to be an "Atheist evolution denier" just on principle. Reminds me a little too much of "Fox 'News' Democrats." There's a big market for people who claim to be of a disposition to agree with one view, yet embrace the opposite. Democrats who love Fox "News," atheists who work for the Discovery Institute, that sort of thing.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. Either way, he is an accommodationist, but still atheist. The history of why he denies evolution can be read here. It's very telling.

Oh man, his wikipedia article is fantastic. He's a professional crackpot, he just complains about every piece of science he can find.

I hadn't read the article till I've seen your answer (bad on my part, I only corroborated he was the same guy), but that quite matches the impression I got. Something doesn't have all the answers, so that something must be wrong.

Speaking of professional crackpots, does Gene Ray have a god? I know he hates the puny one-day Christian god, but I was never able to tell if he has his own cube-god. Maybe add him to the list.

uh, not sure

Christianity Is Poison Forced Upon Children
God is Ignorance
You maybe academically retarded.
Academia Retards By Fact Earth Has 1 Day When Dead Still, And 4 Days Within 1 Earth Rotation, losing 3 days retards humanity.
[...]
Educators are Liars.
If God is not measurable, He is Fictitious.
Without Cubic Creation, Life is Fictitious.

IGNORANCE
You have not been taught the Harmonic Cube Power that transcends all Gods.You are ignorant of Divine Spirit measure existing in Great Pyramid abstract of human personification. Perpetual power of Cubic Creation will exist beyond terminal antifamily religion.
[...]
Humans fear to know natures simultaneous 4 corner 4 day 4 race 4 generation harmonic TIMECUBE creation. for it debunks false gods. Test Your God. Time Cube Test cannot harm a God of Truth, but will destroy fakes. Fake gods refuse test.
[...]
Religion absolves adults of their obligation
to preserve natural resources required for children during their lifetimes. Adult god is anti-child.

(more here)

Now, this sounds like interesting:

I offer evil ass Harvard students $10,000.00
to disprove Nature's Cubic Creation Principle.

Any evil ass Harvard student around here?

 

[MRaverz]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

In a strict usage of the term, though, there should be quite a few more more: Räelians defend intelligent design for humans and are still atheists, and I'm not sure about what's the vision of Scientology about human evolution (clams and that stuff). They're technically atheists as well, and some of them could be scientists - even biologists.

Why is it that whenever I read 'supports ID/denies evolution', I also see 'neoconservative'?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Why is it that whenever I read 'supports ID/denies evolution', I also see 'neoconservative'?

"In for a penny, in for a pound" of completely discredited and nonsensical ideas?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

He's a mathematician, not a scientist...

 

[Squawk]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

He's a mathematician, not a scientist...

What he said.

 

[Pulsar]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

Agnostic atheist? He wrote a book called The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. From Amazon:

A secular Jew, Berlinski nonetheless delivers a biting defense of religious thought. An acclaimed author who has spent his career writing about mathematics and the sciences, he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even ballpark.

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on.

He's quite opinionated for an 'agnostic atheist'...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

He's quite opinionated for an 'agnostic atheist'...

Or... he's just a liar? Seems like the simpler explanation.

 

[MRaverz]

He's quite opinionated for an 'agnostic atheist'...

Or... he's just a liar? Seems like the simpler explanation.

Can't agnostic atheists be opinionated?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Can't agnostic atheists be opinionated?

Yes, but some opinions seem to fly in the face of their claimed position. As an example, a Democrat could be an outspoken gun owner and it wouldn't mean he's really a Republican. On the other hand, if he goes on about being pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-labor, anti-public education, wants lower taxes and less regulation? Maybe not really a Democrat.

Like I said earlier, there's lots of folks who claim the opposite of their real position, in order to give their opinions a veneer of credibility. Someone who is an "atheist" who seems to think atheism is the dumbest idea ever doesn't seem like he'd be much of an atheist.

 

[Pulsar]

Can't agnostic atheists be opinionated?

Opinionated wasn't the right word. Stupid is more appropriate
He's attacking atheists and mainstream science with standard creationist fallacies.

 

[Lallapalalable]

I think the lack of a large sum of atheists who deny evolution comes from the fact that most of those who deny evolution do so out of religious beliefs. If you have no preexisting belief that life was soley created as-is by a diety, what reason would you have to deny something so plainly obvious? But, like it was said before, groups like the realians do hold beliefs that are considered atheist while denying evolution (at least of earthly biology)

 

[mat_hunt]

David Berlinski is first and formost a philosopher, not a mathematician. It is true that he did write a book on analysis but if you look on amazon it almost got uniformly bad reviews, basically it was because it came from the perspective of a philosopher trying to do maths.

 

[Laurens]

There was this guy, David Berlinski; technically an agnostic atheist working for DI, and supporter of ID.

Oh man, his wikipedia article is fantastic. He's a professional crackpot, he just complains about every piece of science he can find.

Speaking of professional crackpots, does Gene Ray have a god? I know he hates the puny one-day Christian god, but I was never able to tell if he has his own cube-god. Maybe add him to the list.

I don't necessarily think they are all crackpots. If you think about it, you can make a reasonable living writing books that contest every single piece of science you could think of. There's always the creationist audience that lap up shit like that, and just general idiots. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people writing books like that just to make a buck, without really believing it themselves.

I dunno if there is any substance to that idea, and I'm not sure what I'd prefer; idiots who actually believe what they are writing about, or people cleverly conning money out of idiots...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Stephen B. Lyndon DDS claims "n undergraduate studies in college I majored in biological sciences. I attended dental school, and graduated in 1967." This is why he calls himself doctor. He also states frequently, that he is not religious and to not compare him to a creationist.
I guess he would not be a scientist per say, however he does deny evolution. He creates videos about it and has a blog, where he comes off as quite smug. Nevertheless, his understanding of evolution seems very limited.
E.g.

I wondered why those tiny arms on their magnificent T. Rex fossil didn't evolve a lick in millions of years. Wouldn't a T. Rex with bigger arms be a better grappler?

This statement just makes me laugh, because in two lines he shows a basic misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[lrkun]

Are there any scientists who are atheists, but deny evolution?

We have theists who accept and have worked on biological evolution such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Ronald Fisher and Theodosius Dobzhansky. However, there do not seem to be any scientists out there who do not believe in god, but also deny evolution.

I suppose my assertion is that those who deny evolution only do so with a religious agenda.

I know correlation is not cause, but is there any evidence to the contrary?

He must have his reasons for doing so. Science after all allows such a position. One can always do experiments in favor of either position. In the end the results will suggest the best answer. If he is a true scientist, he will change his mind when the results provide the contrary.