Why Christians Attack Evolution

[Chas]

---

You said that the T.E.N.S is evidence that the Bible is nonsense. So lets look at what you have written to see if it supports this assertion.

Genesis is an antiquarian account of the origin of the universe, specifically of the world and of mankind.

You say then that this account directly opposes the T.E.N.S.

So let us see if you have a good argument or evidence to support this assertion.

You then go on to say that Genesis was an "invention" of mankind, manufacturing truth as it were. Ok Deidre, this in itself is just a bald assertion. This is yet another claim to knowledge and as such you must substantiate it with some type of argument or evidence. What good reason(s) do we have to think that the Genesis account is just something completely made up willy nilly as an effort to "manufacture truth"? You have your work cut out for you in supporting such a statement.

Moving on...

You then state that Darwin discovered actual truth. But what truth was that? Now I am familiar with his diary writings which contained his thoughts regarding what he found on his exploration of the Galapagos Islands while aboard the HMS Beagle, but nothing he wrote therein leads to the conclusion that the Bible is nonsense. He simply observed, as any person with decent eyesight could observe, that certain types of birds had varying beak sizes. So once again it seems to me that you have just made a bald assertion that needs to be supported or evidenced by some type of argument.

You then state emphatically that:

So, it would stand to reason that discovering ACTUAL facts about the origin of man beats out making up falsehoods about it.

But Darwin's findings in the Galápagos Islands during the second voyage of the Beagle have nothing to do with the origin of man, but rather the variations in the physiology of certain birds.

So once again it seems you have made an unjustified assertion here. You say that Darwin has discovered actual facts about the origin of man based on his observations of some birds on the Galapagos Islands.

So I will just wait for you to explain how that leads us to the conclusion that he discovered actual truth regarding the origin of man.

You also have to demonstrate why the Genesis account is a falsehood as you label it. I will wait for this also.

All I see Deidre is you making bald assertions without any type of argument or evidence.

---

This post of yours demonstrates that you do not understand what science is, what evidence is, what Darwin did, and what neo-Darwinism is.

And you do not understand what Darwin discovered on his nearly five-year voyage on the Beagle - it was much more than just the Galapagos and finches.

What he accomplished was a well-supported theory of evolution. It was a remarkable accomplishment.


****************

---

As a side note, while I wait for your response, it needs to be kept in mind that:

The term "evolution" can mean several things i.e the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form, or when used with the phrase "natural selection" it can refer specifically to the theory made popular by Darwin. Even the phrase natural selection can be used in different ways:

The term natural selection has slightly different definitions in different contexts. It is most often defined to operate on heritable traits, because these are the traits that directly participate in evolution. However, natural selection is "blind" in the sense that changes in phenotype (physical and behavioral characteristics) can give a reproductive advantage regardless of whether or not the trait is heritable (non heritable traits can be the result of environmental factors or the life experience of the organism).
Following Darwin's primary usage[1] the term is often used to refer to both the evolutionary consequence of blind selection and to its mechanisms.[3][4] It is sometimes helpful to explicitly distinguish between selection's mechanisms and its effects; when this distinction is important, scientists define "natural selection" specifically as "those mechanisms that contribute to the selection of individuals that reproduce", without regard to whether the basis of the selection is heritable. This is sometimes referred to as "phenotypic natural selection".[5]
Traits that cause greater reproductive success of an organism are said to be selected for, whereas those that reduce success are selected against. Selection for a trait may also result in the selection of other correlated traits that do not themselves directly influence reproductive advantage. This may occur as a result of pleiotropy or gene linkage. -Wikipedia

---

Your side note is noted and discarded. It is, at best, disingenuous.

In this thread, and on this forum in general, we all know what we mean by 'evolution. It is the modern synthesis, neo-Darwinism.

[discipulus]

The masters of evolution pulled a type of bait and switch on you.

The stuff of real science we do every day- we change a part in a machine, we test it, we take data, we review what we did (have you noticed the repeated word, "We").
Has been re-defined as evolution.

Doing this (using the same word as their theory is called, gives a blending /fogging to the information in the little box of the mind labeled "origins" ).
Brilliant strategy though.
Has worked marvelously.

By the way, on David Berlinski, yeah his phd is philosophy, but he is a post doc in math & molecular biology at Colombia.
Did you notice the word "Biology"?

I keep thinking of the black- robed priest doing his hocus- pocus ceremony, holding aloft the white wafer (looking identical to the sun-god of the Egyptians- but that is a topic for a different post) chanting some words over it, and presto- turning it into a god.
Creating a new word in the process: trans-.substantiation.

So today, we have white robed secular priests pronouncing eons of time (from his time release magic capsule) and presto- the frog/fish, whatever turns into the tall prince.
To the delight of the participants and awe struck audience, the neo-magician got rid of that nasty accountability factor everybody hated and created a new feel- good aura.
What is not to like?

Peer review? Sure- we'll take member of the audience and have them review any criticism of the whole thing.
How much fairer could one be?

I think this hits the nail right on the head.

What people often times forget is that the majority of scientists who support the T.E.N.S. are also methodological naturalists and metaphysical naturalists.

For the methodological naturalist the T.E.N.S is by far best naturalistic explanation for biological diversity, and thus they conclude it IS the explanation, not only for diversity, but for the origin of life itself. They are forced to interpret the data in light of their preconceived notions that the natural is all there is and are thus forced to make unwarranted extrapolations over into other disciples that Darwin himself would never have even thought of venturing into.

They then wrap it all up and stamp: "In the name of science" on it to give credence to their beliefs and to distinguish them from the various other religious tenets held by people.

Scientism is simply another form of religion. Instead of a deity being the object of worship, men worship nature and their own intellect.

[*Deidre*]

Science is not a form of religion!

WOW!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's amazing how many paragraphs you guys can write all based on utter nonsense.

It's almost like you've evolved to be fucking retarded. But please, do carry on, it's not only retarded, it's also fucking amusing.

How do you guys live? I mean, talking as a Brit rarely do I come into contact with people who are so deluded they honestly believe in idiotic stuff like creation and that evolution is simply a lie made up to perpetuate the careers of, well, someone.

Utterly fascinating. Please, do go on.

[*Deidre*]

We all know that the purpose of Christianity, one of its main tenets, is to be 'fishers of men,' as Jesus stated in the NT. We all know that the purpose isn't to teach people about all the fallacies associated with evolution. lol

You will not get people to surrender their atheistic positions, and turn to Christianity, based on presenting false facts about evolution. What you will do however, is succeed in cementing the notion that many secular people have of Christians, and that is...that they are ignorant when it comes to science.

Quit while you're ahead, in other words.

[discipulus]

This post of yours demonstrates that you do not understand what science is, what evidence is, what Darwin did, and what neo-Darwinism is.

This is a claim to knowledge. I will wait for you to substantiate it, since, as you would have me believe, you indeed are knowledgeable.

And you do not understand what Darwin discovered on his nearly five-year voyage on the Beagle - it was much more than just the Galapagos and finches.

What he accomplished was a well-supported theory of evolution. It was a remarkable accomplishment.

Well supported you say.... indeed you would say that....

Too bad Darwin himself was not as confident as many of you are regarding his theory.

Your side note is noted and discarded. It is, at best, disingenuous.

In this thread, and on this forum in general, we all know what we mean by 'evolution. It is the modern synthesis, neo-Darwinism.

Neo-Darwinism is dead. Surely you knew this, all wise Chas?

---

We all know that the purpose of Christianity, one of its main tenets, is to be 'fishers of men,' as Jesus stated in the NT. We all know that the purpose isn't to teach people about all the fallacies associated with evolution. lol

You will not get people to surrender their atheistic positions, and turn to Christianity, based on presenting false facts about evolution. What you will do however, is succeed in cementing the notion that many secular people have of Christians, and that is...that they are ignorant when it comes to science.

Quit while you're ahead, in other words.

Still waiting for you to address my response to your assertion.

---

Science is not a form of religion!

WOW!

Who said it was?

[*Deidre*]

Still waiting for you to address my response to your assertion.

I did. Your refusal to accept it becomes your problem, not mine. Such is life in religion.

What might you believe in regards to evolution, if the world were void of...religion?

---

Who said it was?

You did. In post #92. (calling adhering to scienctific truths to be 'scientism')

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Science is not a form of religion!

WOW!

Didn't you know Deidre? My fiancé is a microbiologist and we have a shrine to Darwin in our house and every month we sacrifice a different animal from the Galapagos to appease our science overlord.

ALL HAIL DARWIN

[*Deidre*]

Science is not a form of religion!

WOW!

Didn't you know Deidre? My fiancé is a microbiologist and we have a shrine to Darwin in our house and every month we sacrifice a different animal from the Galapagos to appease our science overlord.

ALL HAIL DARWIN

At least Darwin was a real person. Doh!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Didn't you know Deidre? My fiancé is a microbiologist and we have a shrine to Darwin in our house and every month we sacrifice a different animal from the Galapagos to appease our science overlord.

ALL HAIL DARWIN

At least Darwin was a real person. Doh!

THAT'S A CLAIM OF KNOWLEDGE! YOU CANT PROVE THAT!