The religious problem with evolution

[T.J.]

1) Why not attack other scientific theories, like relativity or gravity or plate tectonics?

Do any of those theories debunk how the bible explains creation? Chuck already covered the ones who do touch on these things so I'm assuming the others who don't, specifically target Evolution for this reason. They see it as more of a threat.

2) Do theists think evolution is somehow weaker?

I'm sure they do with how many mistake 'theory' and 'hypothesis' something I was also guilty of once.

3) Is it more strongly related to the fact that loud-mouth fundamentalists have been doing it since Darwin, so they just keep going?

Wouldn't put it pass them >.>

4) How does it logically follow that if evolution is false, that religion must be true?

It doesn't. Not if you want to look at it logically, anyway.

5) How would one disprove evolution? (with science or religion?)

A fossil of Adam and Eve as old as the dinosaurs would be a good place to start. I wouldn't recommend anyone hold their breath on that.

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, crocoduck would prove how we think evolution to have actuallly progressed to be false, but it would argue evolution itself to be basically true and proceeded along a somewhat different path than we thoought.

A fossil of a chicken in the cambrian would also not be prima facia evidence of evolution being false, unless after diligent and thorough seraching we find not hint of any precambrian chicken ancestors.

It would if it was a fried chicken.

Aliens fundamentalists from martian equivalent of Chik Fil A did it poison the trilobites.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Yea well the amount of evidence on the side of evolution makes it virtually impossible for it to be false.

Evolution can happen by other means though. I mean it's a theoretical possibility. One that I don't subscribe to basically because natural selection covers almost everything that affects species survival.

[Doubting Thomas]

1) Why not attack other scientific theories, like relativity or gravity or plate tectonics?

Because gravity or plate tectonics don't contradict the Book of Genesis. However, they do attack the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis, and even conservative Christian nutjob Andy Schlafly has attacked the Theory of Relativity, saying (I swear I'm not making this up) that it is a liberal plot in order to get more women to have abortions:

http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relat...relativity

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

1) Why not attack other scientific theories, like relativity or gravity or plate tectonics?

Because gravity or plate tectonics don't contradict the Book of Genesis. However, they do attack the Big Bang theory and abiogenesis, and even conservative Christian nutjob Andy Schlafly has attacked the Theory of Relativity, saying (I swear I'm not making this up) that it is a liberal plot in order to get more women to have abortions:

http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relat...relativity

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.

Ha. That was brilliant.

Regarding why 'they' don't attack other scientific theories.

I would say it's all down to ambiguity. Everyone understand the laws of gravity, at least prima facie in a personal context. If they were seen to be attacking something so intrinsic to everyone's lives then they'd be seen to be (even more) foolish. After all, if asked to prove their hypothesis, nobody would accept (or ignore) the fact they wouldn't, because everyone knows what happens if you think gravity doesn't exist (or whatever crackpot dismissal they came up with); you die.

The ambiguity of things like abiogensis and evolution comes not from the theory itself, but the understanding people have of those theories. Everyone can take evolution prima facie much like gravity, but it's far more complex (arguably) and multi-faceted, at least when people begin to examine it. People have heard of Newton's apple, and they can clearly see the logic of an apple falling to represent gravity.

Thinking about the tree of life, ring species, speciation, and even further down the line to abiogensis and amino acids is simply too much for most people to think or even care about. Most people will latch onto what's easiest for them to understand. eg:

"We evolved from apes" - Ok, job done. I can see the similarity and logic kind of makes sense to me as someone who has no knowledge or interest in biology.

or

"We were created by god" - Parsimonious and defeats any and all attempts to actually look into the real historic science behind our existence. It's lazy, but then again, so are most people.

One contradicts the other. They can't both be true unless one attempts to have one's cake and eat it by saying a 'god' started the process. Which of course is what many people do do, but then again, this can be destroyed by a simple application of Occam's razor.

[*Deidre*]

Think evolution is ‘attacked’ more than other arguments in science, because if one believes the Bible to be ‘’proof’’ of Creationism (ie: Adam and Eve/Genesis, etc) then, that is the leg with which theists stand on. No other holy book or ‘’scripture’’ can offer an argument, other than Genesis against evolution. The early writers of the Bible, hadn’t the foggiest idea about science, so they made shit up—probably never thinking it would come back to bite them.

Fundamentalists are the only ones who believe that the Bible, has literal meaning to it, especially Genesis. While other Christian denoms (such as Catholicism) teach that the Bible is to be looked at as allegory.

Someone’s lying – oh wait, they all are.

[Doubting Thomas]

Right. Evolution says we evolved from other animals over millions of years, but that's not in keeping with the bible which claims that we were made specifically by God in his own image in order to worship and serve him. The Theory of Evolution takes away our "specialness" in the universe, so of course they're going to attack it more vigorously than any other scientific principle.

[Bad Writer]

Evolution can't be disproven because it's a theory based on observable facts. It has been tested and shown to be sound. Creationism, though also tested, is not based on observable facts, but is based on speculative conjecture. The only way to prove creationism would be to prove the existence of a creator. All attempts fail.

[Brian37]

I like to argue with the theist the following. Would you buy the "attack science" argument if someone with another poofdaddy claim used "attack science" to prove that their poofdaddy, and not yours, was the one true god.

Never got a good response from anyone and I have debated Christians, Jews and Muslims. But yea, evolution seems to be these moron's favorite target as if no other aspect of science exists.

[Doubting Thomas]

The Raelian UFO cult believes in Intelligent Design, but that aliens intelligently designed all life on Earth, not God. I don't know if they attack evolution or any other scientific theory, though.