Why Christians Attack Evolution

[Michael Schubert]

While many Christians may say they don't "attack" or dismiss evolution, the dilemma they all have (all denominations) is that they can't fully embrace evolution if they believe a god instilled us with a "soul."

Nowhere does evolution speak of the evolution of souls or that humans are "special"

Christians believe that God created humans as special and apart - so this is where they will have to choose between science and faith. A Christian in good faith can't fully embrace evolution without turning a blind eye to certain major tenets of their faith.

Exactly! Christians think that humans are special and totally separate from the animal kingdom, which is simply nonsense.

Have you ever read The Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey? I just started it, and it's great. Philosophical Satanism has nothing to do with the red guy with horns who tortures people. It's an acknowledgement that what Christians call sin is perfectly natural because humans are part of the animal kingdom with natural urges like every other species.

---

THE EARTH IS OLDER THAN SHIT

Most definitely. The earth was around well before organisms started defecating.

[downbeatplumb]

Some christians seem to think that if we didn't have the theory of evolution we would by default believe in god.

This does not take into account how mind blowingly stupid some people (such as myself) find the idea of a supernatural being going around doing a spot of godding.

Even without evolution the big bang etc etc I would still reject Theism as a bad idea.

[Michael Schubert]

Theory of evolution is pretty much a fact right now.
As for disproving the bible it is disproving genesis account that all animals were created in pairs and put on earth and adam and eve were created etc.

Anyone who denies evolution must tell me the method by which they think medicines are developed, if not Differential Reproduction.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh, Discipulus, you were making so much sense up to this point. You correctly warned us agains blanket statements and proclaimed how you don't attack evolution...then you say something ignorant about evolution. In colloquial English, a theory is an educated guess, a conjecture. What in science would be a hypotheisis. In science (except for theoretical physics, which should be re-named hypothetical physics) your ideas don't rise to the level of a theory until they've proven robust enough to stand up to intense efforts to disprove it.

The theory of evolution is as provisional as the germ theory of disease. It's made of facts, explains those facts, and we can make predictions based on it and actually observe it in action.

'It's just a theory' is a phrase that can never be properly applied to an actual scientific theory.

Like I said, the theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. Thus it is provisional and subject to ammendment. Many scientists may agree that it is the theory or hypothesis that best explains available data. But to say that this makes it a fact is to reason fallaciously.

Secondly, scientists are the ones who "explain the facts" "make predictions" and so on and so forth.

---

Before I answer, are you refuting evolution?

No. But I am waiting to hear you explain to me why the T.E.N.S is evidence that the Bible is nonsense.

IT'S A CONSPIRACY

[Bob Kelso]

You know why Christians attack your fairy tale.

*cut by me*
Anyone else see the humor in this statement? I was tempted to give him a kudos but I fear the irony would be lost on him.

Simply put, many Christians deny evolution because it is evidence that the Bible is nonsense.

Two things. The theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. It is provisional.

Second, the claim that the theory of evolution by natural selection is evidence the Bible is nonsense is a claim to knowledge. So I would be very interested in you telling me how you came to possess this knowledge.

Firstly, read up on what you're talking about before you resort to your bullshit so that it at least seems like you know what you're talking about.

Secondly, I would imagine that the very nature of evolution and how it works is fucking evident in and of itself of how it discredits the bible, the creation stories above all else. You know, other than the talking snakes and fantastical bullshit strewn about the length of it.

[Chas]

Theory of evolution is pretty much a fact right now.
As for disproving the bible it is disproving genesis account that all animals were created in pairs and put on earth and adam and eve were created etc.

If by fact, you mean a provisional theory.

Where does the Genesis account record that all animals were created in pairs? It does not state that at all.

This is yet another instance of an argument based on something that the Bible supposedly says but when pressed, the arguer has to back track and admit that he is wrong.

You are ignorant of science, you do not understand the scientific method, or what is meant by 'theory' and how that differs from 'hypothesis'.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory."

All knowledge is provisional. Science s the method, not the body of knowledge garnered by that method. Of course the knowledge changes - we keep adding to it and refining our theories.

People like you demand absolute knowledge. Sorry, pal, not in this universe.

[*Deidre*]

Oh, Discipulus, you were making so much sense up to this point. You correctly warned us agains blanket statements and proclaimed how you don't attack evolution...then you say something ignorant about evolution. In colloquial English, a theory is an educated guess, a conjecture. What in science would be a hypotheisis. In science (except for theoretical physics, which should be re-named hypothetical physics) your ideas don't rise to the level of a theory until they've proven robust enough to stand up to intense efforts to disprove it.

The theory of evolution is as provisional as the germ theory of disease. It's made of facts, explains those facts, and we can make predictions based on it and actually observe it in action.

'It's just a theory' is a phrase that can never be properly applied to an actual scientific theory.

Like I said, the theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. Thus it is provisional and subject to ammendment. Many scientists may agree that it is the theory or hypothesis that best explains available data. But to say that this makes it a fact is to reason fallaciously.

Secondly, scientists are the ones who "explain the facts" "make predictions" and so on and so forth.

---

Before I answer, are you refuting evolution?

No. But I am waiting to hear you explain to me why the T.E.N.S is evidence that the Bible is nonsense.

On my phone or I would have only included your reply to me.

Genesis illustrates a story whereby a diety created the world, largely in its natural form. This directly opposes evolution. Natural selection is a basic mechanism of evolution, I've noticed you bring that up as though it is a separate concept.
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 say you don't refute it. That's good.

[Chas]

Are...You...Serious????

You know why Christians attack your fairy tale.
Your wiley, deceptive mentors took real science (the stuff we do every day: We did THIS and we got THAT.)
Put the cloak (name) of real science on their theory, put a bra with some padding in it, gave it lipstick, more padding, stood it up and called it "Science".
Carl Sagan did the same thing- puts on a long white shop coat, instead of the black ones the other priests wear- and Wha- Laa he gets instant believableness.

David Berlinksi (pretty high level phd type) last I saw, is not a Christian.
An interview with him on youtube is delightful.
He wrote some books spoofing and exposing the the nonsense of the great and mighty Dawkins.
Of course, David doesn't get free publicity like the religionists pushing your stuff get, but guys like him are out there.

David Berlinski is a philosopher, not a biologist. And he works for the freakin' Discovery Institute (one of the most intellectually dishonest organizations ever to sully this planet) because he believes in intelligent design.

He is incapable of falsifying evolution. His arguments are all arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity, and misunderstanding of the evidence and mechanisms of evolution.

[discipulus]

If by fact, you mean a provisional theory.

Where does the Genesis account record that all animals were created in pairs? It does not state that at all.

This is yet another instance of an argument based on something that the Bible supposedly says but when pressed, the arguer has to back track and admit that he is wrong.

You are ignorant of science, you do not understand the scientific method, or what is meant by 'theory' and how that differs from 'hypothesis'.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive — that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
Typically, before a scientific theory can be created, a hypothesis must be developed which is a supposition or proposed explanation that is formed on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. If a substantial amount of evidence is gathered that consistently suggests the validity of a hypothesis, the hypothesis can be converted into a theory."

All knowledge is provisional. Science s the method, not the body of knowledge garnered by that method. Of course the knowledge changes - we keep adding to it and refining our theories.

People like you demand absolute knowledge. Sorry, pal, not in this universe.

People like myself demand absolute knowledge? That came out of left field.

If you had seen some of my other posts, you would not have made that assertion.

And yes I know what a hypothesis and a theory are. The theory of evolution by natural selection is just that, a theory. Nothing you said refutes what I have said. In fact you affirm it.

[Bad Writer]

Oh no, atheists! The "It's just a theory" argument.