Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 6:26 am
After watching a response video to a youtube creationist recently, within which the "they're just reproducing within their kinds!" nonsense was debunked yet again, a question occurred to me: what is that argument actually for?
So, to all those theists here who would use the word kind, to all those willing to quibble over nonexistent micro/macro-evolutionary distinctions, can I just ask what you think you're defending? If you've gotten to the point where you're now admitting evolution happens, but only within certain poorly defined boundaries... what is this argument intending to prove? What is so important in your belief system that it requires the denial of such a piffling, tiny point? You've been forced to edge this far toward evolution by simple facts, why is this final step such inviolable ground that the line needs to be drawn there?
It just seems so arbitrary to me, that you're okay with "kinds" of animals, but the idea that god could just have been talking about the animal kind or something is just so crazy and weird. What's the deal?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 7:34 am
In a similar vein, christians disbelieve the obvious implications of DNA comparisons. ERV's and common genes are denied by them anytime it crosses their fairytale beliefs. However the overall similarities of life visible to even the layman is astounding support for kinship and origin, not of separation and separate origin. The mere fact that we can't tell visually the difference between bird, bat, cat, canine, bovine, or human blood from one another is a strong indicator of similarity and begs the question of why god only had one basic blueprint and had to make all of his creations using adaptations of it. It would seem that a true magic god could have made some amazing variety. Multiple methods of synthesizing energy from the sunlight is one. nuclear metabolism is another. Evolutions explains this copycat nature, god magic does not.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 67223
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 9:52 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2014 at 9:55 am by The Grand Nudger.)
So, most of us realize that arguing against modern synth in toto is useless, including the religious. The trouble is that you don't have to push it back very far until the notion of god as a creative force for all that we see becomes difficult to maintain. What happens to the authority of god, the divine will - when one realizes that said god had no hand in creating the "kinds" we see, including ourselves? It's not a piffling matter to those who wish to maintain the authority of their god. In this case, they're simply favoring the foundational framework of their beliefs over reality - because reality would seem, to them, to be lessened by an acceptance of reality as it is, rather than as they wish for it to be. Any line of "reasoning" that can be used to support that wish is going to get traction among some subset of the faithful. So there's that......but also, there's the fact that them boys aint too bright.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 1543
Threads: 40
Joined: April 4, 2014
Reputation:
46
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 10:38 am
(August 5, 2014 at 6:26 am)Esquilax Wrote: After watching a response video to a youtube creationist recently, within which the "they're just reproducing within their kinds!" nonsense was debunked yet again, a question occurred to me: what is that argument actually for?
In my experience, the whole notion of "kinds" is used in a form of flood apologetics to say why Noah didn't need so many animals on the ark: Baraminology.
I've sense heard "kinds" used the way you mentioned, to split evolution into micro and macro to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to appear foolish and stupid by rejecting science, and ironically, they don't want to give up their book of mythology.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 10:38 am
(August 5, 2014 at 9:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: So, most of us realize that arguing against modern synth in toto is useless, including the religious. The trouble is that you don't have to push it back very far until the notion of god as a creative force for all that we see becomes difficult to maintain.
I initially thought so too, but then there's plenty of christians who manage to accept evolution by simply pushing god back behind some other gap in our knowledge, like the big bang. So there's clearly something keeping the evolution deniers lingering here rather than doing that too- it might have something to do with not being terribly bright, I agree, but I'm kinda fascinated by the psychology behind this particular permutation.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 67223
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 10:58 am
(This post was last modified: August 5, 2014 at 10:59 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Well, in the case of our resident flat tires - it;s generally an argument from consequences. My father-in-law is fond of saying "they want you to think that we came from pond scum!" - which is informative, I suppose, with regards to his internal workings - but as a statement, it falls flat. I could tell him that there is no "they" or that no one proposes that human beings were "pond scum" within any reasonable frame of reference, but it doesn;t matter. It's the emphasis that he spits the statement out with that explains why the statement has traction. We miss alot of that here on the internet. I bet these conversations would be alot less fascinating in person (I for one, would probably strangle a motherfucker irl - for the shit I try to have patience with online-try and mostly fail, mind you).
Evolution, and further the abandonment of some special spot in a creative moment demeans them somehow, generally, is my experience. They probably had shitty science teachers.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 11:12 am
(August 5, 2014 at 7:34 am)Brakeman Wrote: The mere fact that we can't tell visually the difference between bird, bat, cat, canine, bovine, or human blood from one another is a strong indicator of similarity and begs the question of why god only had one basic blueprint and had to make all of his creations using adaptations of it. It would seem that a true magic god could have made some amazing variety. Multiple methods of synthesizing energy from the sunlight is one. nuclear metabolism is another. Evolutions explains this copycat nature, god magic does not. I think it's important to note that while a powerful and magical god can "explain" any discovery, evolution requires certain things to be evident in order to remain a viable theory. As the old saying goes, a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian layer, or something similarly jarring, could at least force a complete reassessment of the theory. But the theory has held up so far through decades of new discoveries and new knowledge and additional testing and research. That's significant.
We may not be able to disprove god, but god seems incapable of disproving evolution. I think the latter is the more telling of the two.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 20476
Threads: 447
Joined: June 16, 2014
Reputation:
111
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 7:58 pm
God's got exactly the same chance of disproving evolution as unicorns have, technically speaking.
Is it possible for anything to disprove evolution now?
Best he can now do is prove the god gene is responsible for evolution.
Again, zero proof so far.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Posts: 5706
Threads: 67
Joined: June 13, 2014
Reputation:
69
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 8:40 pm
(August 5, 2014 at 10:58 am)Rhythm Wrote: Well, in the case of our resident flat tires - it;s generally an argument from consequences. My father-in-law is fond of saying "they want you to think that we came from pond scum!" - which is informative, I suppose, with regards to his internal workings - but as a statement, it falls flat. <snip>
Evolution, and further the abandonment of some special spot in a creative moment demeans them somehow, generally, is my experience. They probably had shitty science teachers.
I think you hit on something important here. The reason Galileo got in trouble was not so much that his theory contradicted the Bible, but that it suggested humans weren't the center of the universe. Being only one animal among many instead of created "in the image of God" is the real problem Fundies have with evolution. It deflates their sense of self-importance.
Though why pond scum is worse than dust, I cannot say.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: A question about "kinds."
August 5, 2014 at 8:51 pm
Creatards are a kind.
|