Why Christians Attack Evolution

[Rampant.A.I.]

Genesis illustrates a story whereby a diety created the world, largely in its natural form. This directly opposes evolution........But nonetheless, Genesis was an "invention" of mankind, manufacturing truth as it were. Darwin discovered actual truth, he didn't have a need to manufacture it. So, it would stand to reason that discovering ACTUAL facts about the origin of man beats out making up falsehoods about it.

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.




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

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

False dichotomy with special pleading. There is no such dilemma as "if evolution is mistaken, then my personal creation mythology is true."


Come on, kid. Take an intro to logic class and pick up a book sometime.

[Chas]

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.

My posts demonstrate my knowledge. Would you like some other substantiation?

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.

I am clear-eyed about Darwin's theory and his doubts. It doesn't change the fact that his discovery was one of, if not the, most important in science.

What I am confident of is that our modern understanding of evolution incorporates much that Darwin did not know and is supported by massive amounts of evidence - much of which Darwin pointed us to or even predicted.

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?

"Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory."

So no, it's not dead.
I am not all-wise, I am just far more knowledgeable on this subject than you are.

[Bittersmart]

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

Who exactly are the "masters of evolution"? Is this some kind of conspiracy to 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.

What is "real" science and what isn't? I know what the definition of a scientific theory is...do you?

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.

So...you do think this is some big conspiracy to dupe people? Why do you believe the Theory of Evolution is a scam when it has stood up to the scientific standards as, say, the Theory of Gravity? What is different about how scientists arrived at these two conclusions? Can you tell me why one is bunk and the other is sound when they have both been held to the same scientific standards?

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.

I...I have no idea what you're getting at here. Are you saying the Theory of Evolution is...like a religion? Because, well, that's just not true. At all.

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?

I...still don't know what you're getting at. Evolution makes people feel good, so they believe the "lie"? I don't see why anyone would choose evolution over magic if it was all about "feeling good".

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?

Peer review is done by many different, knowledgable people and is one of the backbones of scientific discovery. Peer review isn't about patting each other on the back, and has many times shown flaws in scientific work. That's the beauty of it....flaws are discovered quickly so that the truth can come out. So far, no one has found ANY flaws in the basic Theory of Evolution. That's not a conspiracy. No one has found any flaws in the Theory of Heliocentrism, either. Truth will out.

If you want, you can give me some specific reasons why the Theory of Evolution is flawed. Otherwise, everything you just said is merely your opinion and is without merit.

[jesus_wept]

Still, the theory of evolution trumps the hypothesis of creationism. Would you agree?

I'm being generous calling creationism a hypothesis btw.

The theory of evolution, in order to trump creationism, must account for how life began in the first place.

It is particularly in this area that I find the theory lacking. So no, I cannot say it trumps anything.

You see the theory of evolution by natural selection is touted predominately by metaphysical naturalists that maintain everything that has ever happened in the universe, including its inception, can be explained via purely naturalistic means.

I find the theory lacking in its explanatory power with regards to how natural processes acting on matter can create life in the first place. In our experience, we do not see random chaotic natural processes creating life unaided and unguided out of inanimate natural elements.

I think you may have missed my point. Which is that while evolution might be "just a theory", creationism isnt even a theory. It's a failed hypothesis at best.

And how life began in the first place is largely irrelevant to the theory of evolution because, whether you believe life on earth was seeded by cosmic garbage or the hand of god, it doesn't change the theory of evolution one bit. Evolution does present quite a hurdle to the mankind was created in god's image types though.

[*Deidre*]

I keed, I keed.

[Bittersmart]

I keed, I keed.

[shep]

The inception of the crocoduck;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOn7DInBWK4

And let's not forget the banana, shaped perfectly to fit into our hands for eating;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY

[*Deidre*]

LMAO!! ^^ I <3 you guys.

[Bad Writer]

Here's another for ya!

[professor]

The theory is more than flawed, it is false.
As I stated- a scientific method goes like: we did this, we got that.
Demonstrating a real result. Tangibility.
If you have a theory- you need to show demonstrable results from your test.

We are testing bearings.
We make an actual change. We document the OBSERVED change. We decide if that change was beneficial to our desire.
That is how the entire world of engineering works and has worked since time began .

The theory of E has none of that. It has grand guesses.
It has supposed results from uncertain starting points.

Calling what we do in engineering "Evolution" is very convenient for the promoters of the theory.
Giving it a connection to the real world by association.

Is it a Conspiracy?
The very word means:" to breathe the same air". Con = "with" and Spirit= "Breath".
That word has been intentionally maligned to protect the guilty.

A football huddle would be a perfect example.
No one calls that a conspiracy, but by definition, it is.

Unlike certain high level groups, the people breathing the same scientific air do not have evil intent.
They are more like a high school clique.
Having position, having power, having financial security.

The last thing they will do is break rank.
Historically, only by extreme pressure has this type of group ever relented to let go of long standing dogma.

When someone with credentials calls them out- the historical pattern is followed.
The dissenter is maligned, his sanity or honesty is questioned.

It is more than a clique.
It is a cult.