Why do theists reject evolution?

Oops
119 should read
May I suggest that:
Conflating theists and abrahamists is most likely obfuscatory?
 
But if we are wrong, and somehow it turns out to be true, I will accept it. But I’m not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
No one is asking you to hold your breath. On the contrary, everyone is asking you to take a deep breath and clear your head.
 
Jeeves said:
No, it's pragmatic. It's the Abrahamists in charge of religion in the west, middle east and a lot of the south.
Click to expand...

While it seems most likely that all/most Abrahamists are theists
Not all theists are Abrahamists

conflating the 2 is just plain lazy,
and, if accuracy is a goal not really pragmatic.

If you mean to say Abrahamists, then say Abrahamists
would it be any more pragmatic to call them fredist?

..................................
oh, and
long ago and far away
I was thrown out of a church by a red faced redneck southern baptist preacher.
(he seemed to know a lot of the words, but, I doubt that he was a theist.)
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
If you mean to say Abrahamists, then say Abrahamists
Click to expand...
Okay.
Or, I'm quite happy with the designation
red faced redneck southern baptist preacher
Click to expand...
for the purpose of the evolution question.
However, if some of my fellow skeptics are too lazy to list all possible combinations of inclusion and exclusion from their questions - because, after all, lots of Jews, Christians and Muslims are progressive or half-hearted, or undecided, or don't give a damn one way or another - I'm equally happy to understand what they mean by 'theists'.
(he seemed to know a lot of the words, but, I doubt that he was a theist.)
Click to expand...
You can doubt their sincerity, much as I'm convinced that only one prelate in a hundred, of any denomination, has ever actually believed in the god he preached, but that's a separate matter.
For purposes of argument against evolution, we have to take their self-identification as the benchmark.
 
I get the impression that all theists are in agreement about the most unlikely scenario and that is a sentient, motivated, jealous God, who sees humans as his favorite creation.

It is the sentient motivated part which is the most unlikely universal scenario. If anything, evolution and natural selection are completely devoid of motive. They are implacable, amoral mathematical functions without any regard to favorite species. It's all part of a dynamic mathematical pattern, no more, no less.
 
Write4U said:
... evolution and natural selection are completely devoid of motive. ... a dynamic mathematical pattern, no more, no less.
Click to expand...

Evolution
has direction?
eg: are we evolving toward something, or away from something?
And, how much of evolution is choice?
How much is utility?
How much of our genes are saved but not used in the current environment?

I suspect that:
Mathematics, like language, can be no more than a hollow shadow of reality. They are just perspectives utilized by spectators.
 
sculptor said:
Evolution has direction?
eg: are we evolving toward something, or away from something?
Click to expand...
No, that's the very argument against a motivated God. Evolution has no motive. It is a mathematically ordered immutable function based on values, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 - 1 = 0

Natural selection has a dual function. The surviving (in-selected) individual organisms are able to procreate. The extinct (out-selected) individuals failed to procreate. It's all very natural.
Evolution is well defined in any dictionary.
And, how much of evolution is choice? How much is utility?
Click to expand...
Natural selection does not make motivated choices. It is a result of best adapted patterns, but 95+% of all species are now extinct. Why?
How much of our genes are saved but not used in the current environment?
Click to expand...
Does it matter? Actually, left over non-active genes are proof of evolution. None of them are detrimental to the organism or those organisms would have already been out-selected.
I suspect that: "Mathematics, like language, can be no more than a hollow shadow of reality. They are just perspectives utilized by spectators".
Click to expand...
The dynamics of the universe rests on the processing of information. Information uses a language. Universal information consists of physical and meta-physical relative values and orderly interactive functions. The orderly processing language of universal relative values is what we have recognized as the "mathematical function" and symbolized for human use.

Nothing happens in reality which is not a result of the interactions of information consisting of inherent values, via mathematically ordered processes.

Can you think of any condition which does not rely on inherent "relative values" and "mathematical functions"? How then does science work?
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
Evolution
has direction?
Click to expand...
Of course it does. A process can only happen forward in time, from what is to whatever is produced. It can never unhappen or rewind. It can only recombine what exists, never introduce an element that is not present. It goes only one way >>>
eg: are we evolving toward something, or away from something?
Click to expand...
Both, of course. Our species evolves from what our parents were to what our children will be.
And, how much of evolution is choice?
Click to expand...
That depends on the species and its momentary circumstances.
How much is utility?
Click to expand...
All of it, from some point of view, even though we're not privy to every possible POV.
How much of our genes are saved but not used in the current environment?
Click to expand...
We don't know.

I suspect that:
Mathematics, like language, can be no more than a hollow shadow of reality. They are just perspectives utilized by spectators.
Click to expand...
They're symbolic representations that humans use to communicate their observation of a shared reality.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
[...] Learned and sensible theists accept that the Bible follows various writing styles but there is no reasonable arguement advanced to suggest anology is not perhaps the preferred method used to deliver messages as to law morality and indeed a structure to understand how the Earth had a begining and that indeed even humans are made of the same elements that are found in the Earth itself.

The great flood story being an anology causes us to think how the scientific evidence of mass extinctions could be seen as a description of the fundamental law of nature... that of survival of the fittest and that all species can be traced back to a common ancestor. And our science now shows the anology to be helpful that indeed there were mass extinctions and that indeed all life can be traced back to living things in the past.

Yet many theists fail to regard the various anologies as helpful and revert to a superstitious approach to the wonderful stories [...] How can they read their Old Testament and be so selfish and ignorant?
Click to expand...

If allegory isn't their thing to begin with, then probably no surprise that Biblical literalists could also not be adept at metaphysical escape artistry. As an alternative to scripture being figurative or cryptic for Abrahamic theists who do accept evolution.

The very idea of the world they perceive not being historically connected to the one described in a (non-deciphered?) Genesis is either another unacceptable option to them or never occurs to them. (Certainly possibilities like this are not too "crazy" for creationists, given what their beliefs embrace to begin with.)

Thus, with limitations set upon either the Evil Demon's capacity to deceive or God being too nice a guy to cast multitudes of minds or Wachowskis pod residents into an internally consistent sensory illusion... There is nothing left to do but challenge science's investigations and inferences (evolution, abiogenesis, age of the universe, speed of light, etc) about the current environmental experiences which both population groups share as a common source to derive knowledge from.

Tessa B. __ (not a real quote!): "I was married to Philip K Dick, I knew PDK. Philip K Dick was a friend of mine. You people [creationists] are no Philip K Dick." [When it comes to creativity.]

- - -

Philip K. Dick (1978): The answer I have come up with may not be correct, but it is the only answer I have. It has to do with time. My theory is this: In some certain important sense, time is not real. Or perhaps it is real, but not as we experience it to be or imagine it to be. I had the acute, overwhelming certitude (and still have) that despite all the change we see, a specific permanent landscape underlies the world of change: and that this invisible underlying landscape is that of the Bible; it, specifically, is the period immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ; it is, in other words, the time period of the Book of Acts.

Parmenides would be proud of me. I have gazed at a constantly changing world and declared that underneath it lies the eternal, the unchanging, the absolutely real. but how has this come about? If the real time is circa AD S0, then why do we see AD 1978? And if we are really living in the Roman Empire, somewhere in Syria, why do we see the United States?

During the Middle Ages, a curious theory arose, which I will now present to you for what it is worth. It is the theory that the Evil One — Satan — is the “Ape of God.” That he creates spurious imitations of creation, of God’s authentic creation, and then interpolates them for that authentic creation. Does this odd theory help explain my experience? Are we to believe that we are occluded, that we are deceived, that it is not 1978 but AD 50... and Satan has spun a counterfeit reality to wither our faith in the return of Christ?

I can just picture myself being examined by a psychiatrist... --How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Here is a video that has the presentor distilling the aspects of dishonesty that he has found when discussing, amoung other things, evolution with theists and I don't know if it's just me but the folk he discusses remind me of someone here..on a few aspects at least.


Alex
Click to expand...
I just watched the first few minutes. Now I'll probably watch the whole thing. Great stuff, and spot on.
 
I can't help notice the many inconsistencies in the good book which is why I wonder why would you get your science there...it occurred to me this morning ...yes another inconsistency...ten commandments..do not kill right?

Then not long after slaughter all these folk and keep the virgins for yourselves...is it just me that finds it all a little odd?

J guess I am just too pedantic in that I expect,if one is to base so much on a good book to allow it to dictate your science, that the authority you claim as your reason to reject evolution could be reasonably required to be consistent...don't kill and a little later kill and keep the virgins????...I know that has little to do with creation but really can such inconsistency suggest a reliability that can be trusted?

James R said:
Great stuff, and spot on
Click to expand...

Well it certainly suggests a general dishonesty which opens them up to a call of hypocrisy...

The terrible thing is they think being dishonest is somehow ok when it seems that the god message is the opposite.
Alexander
 
Currently COVID-19 is considered to have evolved from a bat virus which gained ability to infect human

Now if it didn't evolve it must have been present in a bat released from Noah's Ark

Isn't history fascinating

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
Isn't history fascinating
Click to expand...

Yes. Particularly if you have a good book.

Do you know how long a human can survive inside a whale? I know check in the book.

A whale is mans best friend.

I have been watching The Athiest Expeience..a good one today..Christian, flat farther and anti vaxer.. she once was a nurse in the navy..I think you and here should meat.

Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top