Creationist questions evolution

[Write4U]

Mind you science has done little else for us other than giving us better food, better transport, technologies that the ancients would call miracles and a rather good understanding of most everything.

I agree that science is less concerned with origins than evolution, but as you say, we have a rather good understanding of a lot of things and IMO, the notion that something can emerge naturally within this universe is mainstream science and much more believable than the existence of a timeless supernatural, but motivated God and like Adam, without an evolutionary process.

 

[James R]

I do not understand how anyone can question evolution.

It comes from a place of ignorance.

In America, in particular, there is also a lot of deliberate misinformation put out about it by those with religious agendas. That has come about because of the ongoing attempts by religious fundamentalists to find ways around the separation of church and state, particularly when it comes to getting their religious beliefs taught in schools.

Putting aside the deliberate liars, it almost inevitably turns out that those who question evolution (i.e. its basics) just don't understand the basics of the theory. In some cases, they are simply ignorant. In other cases, they have been led to believe that the theory of evolution is an evil thing that threatens their religion, so they should make sure they never put themselves in a position of finding out anything real about it. Those people believe their immortal souls are put at risk by exposure to this dangerous idea.

I certainly can understand.
Those who question science in general probably have been told since they could listen that the bible is the word of God and is the absolute truth.

Added to that, there's also a growing distrust of perceived authorities in certain quarters. Scientists can be perceived as aloof protectors of arcane knowledge, who are overconfident in their pronouncements, especially on matters that impact the competing authority structures of religion.

In America, there is also quite a lot of deliberate misinformation about science put out for political reasons that are not necessarily religious. Take the topic of climate change, for example. Undermining the trustworthiness of science in one area tends to reinforce the idea that science in other areas is not to be trusted.

Both the anti-evolution and the climate change denial anti-science movements are well funded and determined. It is little wonder that Americans are outliers among first-world nations in terms of the proportion of the population who say they don't accept evolution.

In short, it comes down to lack of education, bad education and, in a minority of cases, bad faith.

 

[DaveC426913]

It comes from a place of ignorance.

Thanks for throwing yourself on this grenade. I started to write a response to this very question, but abandoned it when I realized I had nothing good to say but a bunch of riffs on willful ignorance - little to be gained beyond kicking em when they're down.

 

[davewhite04]

Jan Ardena:

You're a long way behind in this thread. Your latest response is to my post #58. Since then, I've posted a number of subsequent replies to you, some of which have directly answered some of the questions you have asked me in your latest response.

Are you joking? Have you seen the length of the crap he has to plough through?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you joking? Have you seen the length of the crap he has to plough through?

Jan has only himself to blame for that.
Asked a question, or asked to defend an assertion he will ignore it, and proceed to talk about things already falsified. He carry on for hundreds of posts.
This has occurred countless times, over multiple threads.
Any time he wants things to change, he can simply provide a direct topical answer to a direct topical question. He won't.
Jan is not interested in productive debate; he is interested in stalling debate. It is his motis operandi.

Contrarily, it is JamesR who patiently plows through these posts, trying to keep an actual dialogue going. Jan simply ignores most of it.

 

[davewhite04]

Jan is not interested in productive debate

Name me one productive debate in this forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

Name me one productive debate in this forum.

YMMV. It behooves one to ask why you are here.

 

[davewhite04]

YMMV. It behooves one to ask why you are here.

It's habitual.

 

[iceaura]

Name me one productive debate in this forum.

Define "productive".
There have many debates here in which I learned new things, found new viewpoints.
Here is something you may have learned from - I'm speculating, but try me:

The only discrepancy is whether we believe that there are objective moral principles, or morals or the result of evolution.

False dichotomy.
Evolution is, at present, the best established source of objective moral principles. Anyone who believes there are objective moral principles has evolutionary theory to thank, for providing a possible foundation for them.
Any moral principles derived from special creation by a deity invisible to the faithless, actually derived from it (rather than justified by it post hoc), would be subjective.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's habitual.

Well then why not make the best of it? If you're gonna be in, be in.

 

[DaveC426913]

Evolution is, at present, the best established source of objective moral principles. Anyone who believes there are objective moral principles has evolutionary theory to thank, for providing a foundation for them in the real world.
Any moral principles derived from special creation by a deity invisible to the faithless, actually derived from it (rather than justified by it post hoc), would be subjective.

Sure, but you'd have to accept the limit of "objective" as "living critters here on Earth".
That might be a fair assumption, but it likely doesn't meet everyone's definition of "objective".

 

[davewhite04]

False dichotomy.
Evolution is, at present, the best established source of objective moral principles. Anyone who believes there are objective moral principles has evolutionary theory to thank, for providing a possible foundation for them.
Any moral principles derived from special creation by a deity invisible to the faithless, actually derived from it (rather than justified by it post hoc), would be subjective.

This is productive. You stating your opinion to someone else as fact is your first mistake.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is productive. You stating your opinion to someone else as fact is your first mistake.

I don't see how you conclude that. Anything anyone says is, by definition, opinion, unless they make an overt reference to some established body of fact.

Your criticism could as arbitrarily be applied to any post on this entire forum that does not actually reference a body of facts.

Since we all know this*, it is assumed - and we need not preface every single post with "IMO...".

(*except, perhaps, you )

The only question put to me is: Do I see some common logic in iceaura's opinion?
I do, but with a qualifier.


Also, your post is tantamount to trolling, since it does not contribute to the thread topic, and instead, simply interrupts it.

 

[iceaura]

You stating your opinion to someone else as fact is your first mistake.

What, specifically, do you regard as nonfactual but presented as fact in my posts?

Sure, but you'd have to accept the limit of "objective" as "living critters here on Earth".

I'd go much further, and narrow the field of "objective moral values" to the subset of living critters whose morality can be objectively analyzed and researched and observed. At least at this time, theory allows little in the way of extrapolation into the unobservable. IMO.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd go much further, and narrow the field of "objective moral values" to the subset of living critters whose morality can be objectively analyzed and researched and observed. At least at this time, theory allows little in the way of extrapolation into the unobservable. IMO.

I just don't see it warranting the adjective "objective". Since we're looking at ourselves, it seems to be, by definition, subjective.
But I grant that you qualified it with "the best we've got".

 

[iceaura]

Since we're looking at ourselves, it seems to be, by definition, subjective.

We're looking at each other - objectivity seems as possible as with medicine, athletic competition, etc.
We are also looking at those animals who seem to incorporate morality, or the (objective) basis of it, into their lives.

 

[Write4U]

We're looking at each other - objectivity seems as possible as with medicine, athletic competition, etc.
We are also looking at those animals who seem to incorporate morality, or the (objective) basis of it, into their lives.

IMO, morality is based on the natural cautionary tale that almost all organisms have evolved defensive capabilities in an extraordinary variety, both at small and large scales. You don't just take what you want in nature. And you certainly don't want to try and take something from another predator. You'll get hurt in a hurry.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think evolution is the most amazing and wonderful explaination that has enabled most humans to throw off the bronze age superstitions requiring a mythical nonexistent creator.
Science has enabled us not to be afraid of the dark as we know the Earths rotation means the Sun we leave us for a short period and has not died and that we are required to pray to make it come back in the morning.
And history has shown us that astrology is behind all the human god stories rendering all these made up human gods clearly fake.
And evolution will see humans evolve to rid themselves of generations of superstitious behaviour and enable us to become better than any made up human god.
We must thank evolition for being so kind to us☺
Evolution is perhaps one of the best ideas a human could have.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Evolution is perhaps one of the best ideas a human could have.

The recognition by Darwin of the fundamental evolutionary process is one of man's greatest scientific triumphs.

One might say Darwin was a scientific prophet of Natural Evolution and Natural selection.
And he has been proven true........

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The recognition by Darwin of the fundamental evolutionary process is one of man's greatest scientific triumphs.

One might say Darwin was a scientific prophet of Natural Evolution and Natural selection.
And he has been proven true........

The more I think about it the more I realise just how much we have to thank him for.

He has lead us out of the darkness of superstition causing humans to believe that a creator designed all the animals birds and insects and showed that humans were not made by some mythical creator making clay or mud models and breathing life into a clay doll and creating the first man and also enabled humans to abandon the absolutely crazy idea that a woman was created by taking a rib bone from the first man...I mean how crazy is that...without understanding evolution we would not be able to understand that apes and humans shared a common ansestor or indeed that humans can be traced back to rat like creatures that inherited the Earth after the big lizards died out as a result of a cosmic impact.

Just think not only can we trace our ancestors to a pre ape creature but back to rats...and knowing that it does help to understand some humans just that much better☺
Notice how many miserable folk who try to control others thoughts and behaviour look rat like with little screwed up faces an twitchy noses and tiresome displays of nervousness.

But who would have thought that humans and apes are related until we were given the proof that only evolution was able to provide. THANK DARWIN.


It is wonderful pushing aside all the superstitious nonsence that a creator somehow was responsible...moreover it makes the notion of intelligent design stand out for what it is...which is no more than the final wimpers of some folk still stricken with superstition and brainwashed to such a degree they are driven to pretend they are doing science by presenting their unsupported intelligent designer idea.

They are so funny and they dont realise just how funny they sound ...intelligent design ...If I am feeling sad I just say intelligent design and I burst out laughing almost uncontrolllably.

Thank er thank... well thank Darwin perhaps the greatest man of all time.

There should be a twice human size statue of this genius in the town square in ever town and his head should be on all our coins and bank notes and a whole week of holidays set aside to allow celebrations in his honor.

I think I should do a painting showing Dawin with a flaming torch leading a group of visably scared and confused humans out of a cave with the light shinning down and out onto a modern world with trains and boats and planes and houses and office buildings and schools.

The man is an inspiration.
Alex