Do atheists study any biology other than evolution?

What's true is that most arguments that you start with atheists center around accepting evolution.

So I could see how you might get that impression.

But it's false.

Then we'd have to teach them to have reservations. Science isn't accomplished through unconditional acceptance. Evolution isn't a religion.

But at least we could stop worrying about religious fanatics trying to prevent science education nationwide.

What they care about is religious tards trying to prevent their children from being taught science. The actual personal beliefs of the religious nuts themselves are of little interest. If the fundies could manage to keep their mess in their own yard, and not work to impose it on everyone else, there'd be no controversy.

Religious wackos, for whatever reason, aren't mounting national political campaigns to remove instruction in those subjects from schools.

Lots. The Catholic Church is not part of a organized political campaigns to screw up education in my country. They teach evolution in Catholic schools.

But the Catholics in general were never a big problem with evolution (they seem to have learned their lesson from the whole Galileo incident). Perhaps it's because they pride themselves on operating respectable research universities. Anyway, it's always been the fundamentalists that are the problem, and they've never exactly gotten along well with the Catholics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This was intended as a rhetorical question, yes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Did anyone's chains get yanked? Why?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would be a door, Sam. One that simply leads outside to the real world, not a world filled with the myths and superstitions that the Abrahamic religions would have us embrace.

Step out into it, Sam. Release yourself from the slavery of delusion.

 

I am an agnostic so my response is likely irrelevant. That won't stop me, however.

Much of my reading in biology is about evolution, but this is because my academic training is in geology and the palaeontological element of that is substantial.

My other areas of biological interest are abiogenesis and primate behaviour. The former has led me to considerable reading on prokaryotes, which in turn has led on to a deeper interest in biochemistry and genetics. The latter - primate behaviour - has led to peripheral areas such as anthropology and archaeology relating to human evolution.

It is a fairly eclectic mix. Quite a lot of what I have read on evolution I have read because I was trying to understand how fundamentalists could be so blithering stupid. It hasn't helped me to understand that one, but it has deepened my knowledge.

 

Seems the other way around to me.

I'm not a professional biologist. I'm kind of obsessed with neuroscience, the immune system...

I guess I'm a bit obsessive by nature.

 

I don't read biology journals, but have friends in the field and read about upcoming developments from various sources. There are plenty of biology topics to read about other than evolution- newly found mechanisms ripe for future exploitation in treatments and cures, developments in nanobiology, cybernetics and neuroscience, genetically modified crops and livestock, etc. etc. As far as studying theories other than evolution to address the question of how we got here, I don't study other biological theories because there are none to speak of, just like most people (exceptions in Pseudoscience noted) don't ask for alternatives to the theory of gravity.

 

Yet life as you currently live it would be meaningless and impossible without the inventions physics has provided.

 

Some other opinion:

LOL