Why Christians Attack Evolution

[*Deidre*]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Do you dispute this? ^^ If so, why?

Secondly. Again. Genesis illustrates a story about how a god supposedly created the world, in its present form. Genesis doesn't discuss an evolutionary 'process,' whatsoever. That IS the argument. Genesis is a story, whether you believe it to be literal or not, about the origin of mankind that has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Evolution serves as proof that the Genesis story is either a total lie or a fable based on the wild imagination of man to make some sense out of how he came to be, and his surroundings. The fact that you see it as more than that, is based on faith, not logic. You are not logically a Christian.

You are a Christian out of blind faith. This is why you debate science, because your world view is no longer based in reality, but rather based in hopes, and wishful thinking. That's the problem with religion. It causes a person to fight for a reality that doesn't exist, instead of the reality that does.

I'm trying to be charitable about this, but it disappoints me so, when I see people argue against what is true, because they can't bear looking at their faith and religion, and seeing it perhaps for what it is.

---

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?

This is nothing but your opinion.