The religious problem with evolution

[TheBeardedDude]

It is inevitable that any challenge to a fundamentalist's views on religion, somehow move into a conversation about evolution (an attempt at an attack by the theist specifically). I always find this quite curious that this seems to be a constant. I have numerous questions about this.

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

2) Do theists think evolution is somehow weaker?

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

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

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

[max-greece]

They'll chase physics too when they have to. Basically anything that refers to time-spans longer than 6,000 years.

I went through all of this with Gracie and the distance to Andromeda. They just go into denial.

[Zazzy]

Many religionists don't like the idea of being related to "lesser" animals, since we are supposed to be special and above all other living things in a hierarchy. It's debasing to them- although it's odd that being sculpted out of dirt would be an ennobling idea.

I find great joy in my family connection to all living things, and I understand that my species is not a pinnacle of biological perfection, but I guess I can grok why that might be an issue for people who want to believe in their own specialness and dominance.

[Anomalocaris]

It is inevitable that any challenge to a fundamentalist's views on religion, somehow move into a conversation about evolution (an attempt at an attack by the theist specifically). I always find this quite curious that this seems to be a constant. I have numerous questions about this.

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

Who said they don't? Plenty of christians cling to the earth-centered universe for biblical reasons - which implicitly denied newtonians mechanics, much less relativity. Better yet, there are even biblically principled flat earthers, on whose dinner plate of an earth any plate tectonics would truely be hard pressed.

2) Do theists think evolution is somehow weaker??

No, evolution strikes even closer than others to the very core of the overreaching, posturing, bullshit nature of their religion.

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

See 2. Also facts must be asserted to be fiction for fiction pretending to be facts to have any shot at any success.

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

Religion is never about proving itself true, for it is not and therefore can't be. If it really tried religion would have died by now. Religion has always been and probably always will be 100%l about expedient rhetorics to sucker the simpletons and emotional infants.

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

There are many ways. Some example:

Show by weight of evidence that plausible evolutionary descendant is likely to be found in earlier strata than plausible evolutionary ancestor.

Show by weight of molecular evidence morphologically similar species tend to biochemically or genetic as or more different as morphologically dissimilar species.

Etc, etc.

Evolution is extremely easy to disprove if were substantially or simply untrue. The fact that such an seemingly easy task can not be done even with such sustained and focused effort by the best minds strongly argues that even if evolution were not essentially all true, it must be untrue in such a subtle and complex way that it also precludes such alternatives as christian simpletons could possibly encompass with their added minds.

[max-greece]

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

A fossil of a Chicken in the Cambrian would do it.

As would the Crocoduck come to that.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

How do you disprove evolution?

With science, what I would consider legit would be something like, showing that natural selection doesn't occur. So either find a population of animals on earth that IS exposed to selection pressures but show no change whatsoever in the genetic makeup (ratios within population) or survival rates, or do it small scale using bacteria, apply selection pressures, and show that the bacteria continue to survive with no change at all. This would be close to disproving natural selection, the mechanism of evolution. But then evolution can still occur by another mechanism.

To disprove evolution is to show that no change in genetic makeup has occurred in any populations. Basically go after all the evolution studies one by one and discrediting all of them with legit reasons. I don't see another way. It's like saying, how do you disprove that Bob is the murderer? Well, you have to disprove all of the incriminating evidence. You're not really disproving a theory at this point, you're trying to "correct" history.

However, if natural selection is disproven, that would pose a serious challenge that I would entertain. Otherwise I have no idea what the creationists are doing in their "labs".

[Anomalocaris]

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

A fossil of a Chicken in the Cambrian would do it.

As would the Crocoduck come to that.

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.

[max-greece]

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

A fossil of a Chicken in the Cambrian would do it.

As would the Crocoduck come to that.

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.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Well there are some organisms that appeared to not have changed significantly forever, they're known as the living fossils. So yea. If you find a modern creature where it shouldn't be, you would have disproven the current idea of the species' history, but not evolution itself.

But if evolution isn't true, modern species should be equally distributed in all strata, because they have been around all this time and haven't changed. So if I wanted to prove creationism I think that'd be the data I would want. (of course that is also not how things really are, as we've already looked and know what's there)

[Anomalocaris]

However, if natural selection is disproven, that would pose a serious challenge that I would entertain. Otherwise I have no idea what the creationists are doing in their "labs".

Natural selection is impossible to disprove because the process is carried out in its entirety anywhere you choose to look. To disprove evolution, one has to show natural selection has no ability to effect the characteristics of the populations in an ecosystem on the scale of geological time shown by other methods to characterize the longevity of the stage we call the earth.