Shouldn't the question really be "is creationism a universal acide against nontheism"? Over 1/3 of respondents who definitely believe in evolution also "know" God exists. Of the respondents who definitely disbelieve in evolution, only 1.5 percent are atheists or agnostics.
Shouldn't the question really be "is creationism a universal acide against nontheism"?
sure, but dennett's exposition of the 'universal acid' idea seems to imply that it eats away belief. a) nontheism isn't really a belief, but a lack of b) creationism is not a destroyer by a creator of belief
With Dennett the first question should always be "Is intellectual hyperventillation a universal acid against audience indifference?"
Since the two conditions here (theism/atheism; creationism/evolutionism) develop over time, we ought to establish priority before moving on to the question of causation.
Personally, I was an aetheist LONG before I understood evolution because of the inherent contraditions of religion. And I'd reckon it's still the case that most aetheists don't actually understand evolution. They just believe that science MUST have come up with some expalnation for the origins of life, and evolutuion is it.
Evolution isn't the universal acid because the concept is so very far from being universal--hardly anyone understands it.
are the colors making any distinction?
Shouldn't the question really be "is creationism a universal acide against nontheism"? Over 1/3 of respondents who definitely believe in evolution also "know" God exists. Of the respondents who definitely disbelieve in evolution, only 1.5 percent are atheists or agnostics.
read the fine print here for colors.
Shouldn't the question really be "is creationism a universal acide against nontheism"?
sure, but dennett's exposition of the 'universal acid' idea seems to imply that it eats away belief. a) nontheism isn't really a belief, but a lack of b) creationism is not a destroyer by a creator of belief
With Dennett the first question should always be "Is intellectual hyperventillation a universal acid against audience indifference?"
Since the two conditions here (theism/atheism; creationism/evolutionism) develop over time, we ought to establish priority before moving on to the question of causation.
Personally, I was an aetheist LONG before I understood evolution because of the inherent contraditions of religion. And I'd reckon it's still the case that most aetheists don't actually understand evolution. They just believe that science MUST have come up with some expalnation for the origins of life, and evolutuion is it.
Evolution isn't the universal acid because the concept is so very far from being universal--hardly anyone understands it.