|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
yep, can't even get a bump trying to get back on topic. Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that. Among those actually doing science the only controversy is over the details, as they try to learn more about how it all works. The few real scientists who dispute evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones. And finally, those who dispute evolution for religious reasons try their best to make it appear that they accept scientific methods and findings, while twisting both in an effort to convince themselves that their religious beliefs are supported by science. That should get the thread back on topic--for a moment or two.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that. Among those actually doing science the only controversy is over the details, as they try to learn more about how it all works. The few real scientists who dispute evolution do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones. And finally, those who dispute evolution for religious reasons try their best to make it appear that they accept scientific methods and findings, while twisting both in an effort to convince themselves that their religious beliefs are supported by science. That should get the thread back on topic--for a moment or two. If we limit this to scientists with doctorates and published papers in a field of biology, way less than 1% voice claim that the theory of evolution is completely wrong, and that ID/creationism is a better explanation. If we used the criteria above, my guesstimate would be 0.005% of scientists fit those criteria. I only know of 2: Behe and Kurt Wise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
If we limit this to scientists with doctorates and published papers in a field of biology, way less than 1% voice claim that the theory of evolution is completely wrong, and that ID/creationism is a better explanation. If we used the criteria above, my guesstimate would be 0.005% of scientists fit those criteria. I only know of 2: Behe and Kurt Wise. Except my understanding is that Michael Behe accepts the bulk of old Earth evolution, including man and the (other) great apes having a common ancestor. I got this from Kennith Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". I consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist. Kurt Wise is sort of on record as conceding that the evidence supports old Earth evolution, but that he is a young Earth creationist because of what the Bible says. But this is not the sort of information you find at creationist site. My relevant topics (10 years+ old):
Kenneth R. Miller - Finding Darwin's God Kurt Wise - A YAC and an old earth evolutionist? Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Change subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Except my understanding is that Michael Behe accepts the bulk of old Earth evolution, including man and the (other) great apes having a common ancestor. I got this from Kennith Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". I consider Behe to be a theistic evolutionist. Kurt Wise is sort of on record as conceding that the evidence supports old Earth evolution, but that he is a young Earth creationist because of what the Bible says. But this is not the sort of information you find at creationist site. I think I will have to agree with you on both. Behe seems to believe in a type of theism where God's hand is invisible and would look exactly like natural evolution. Wise doesn't dispute that evolution is supported by evidence and is the most consistent scientific explanation. What about Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger? They had to invent a journal through the Discovery Institute just to get published, but at least they gave their pipette thumbs a work out in the process. Better than I can say for most anti-science types.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
References (further links there):
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas AxeEncyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger Aparently Axe has done some minor publishing in minor but real journals. I don't know about Gauger. Ah, heck - I'll quote the whole aboves (may be some unclickable links, go to the source page if you care):
quote: quote: Offhand, both seem to be in the "Michael Behe school". Another old topic of mine, not directly related to this message, but relating to the topic:
Adventist Church - Geoscience Research Institute Not a debate topic, but I put a bunch of (probably no longer valid) links there. Anyway, the Geoscience Research Institute is young Earth creationist, but they do seem to be rather in touch with worldly reality. There is (or at least used to be) a lot of better than average YEC thought there. Try Geoscience Research Institute | Home as a starting point for further exploration. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
Summary: Evolution is "controversial" only to those who won't accept it for religious reasons, and who do their best to generate "controversy" because of that. The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. That didn't keep me from continuing to believe in it, I had no religious objections to it, but it was frustrating, and once I did become a Christian and read some books on creationism I could see why it's so frustrating: the evidence for it IS only assertions and assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. That didn't keep me from continuing to believe in it, I had no religious objections to it, but it was frustrating, and once I did become a Christian and read some books on creationism I could see why it's so frustrating: the evidence for it IS only assertions and assumptions. Can you give us examples of these assertions and assumptions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. I'm sorry, but your body of posts here has shown that your opinions in matters scientific are not worth anything. You continually read (or skim) scientific articles and come to conclusions which are opposite of what those articles actually say. I don't have any confidence that your skills were any different in the past. Your abilities to misunderstand, misinterpret, and misread are truly astounding.
That didn't keep me from continuing to believe in it, I had no religious objections to it, but it was frustrating, and once I did become a Christian and read some books on creationism I could see why it's so frustrating: the evidence for it IS only assertions and assumptions. Perhaps the early frustration came from your own inabilities? And perhaps the agreement with creationists is a mix of those inabilities and their unwillingness to accept the evidence based on religious grounds? In any case, as I have noted several times, your opinions and pronouncements on science really are not trustworthy. You just seem to have no talent for it, and perhaps should take this into consideration when you tell working scientists, and in fact whole scientific professions, that they don't know anything.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
they're just the usual Old Earth assumptions
And what evidence do you have for a young earth?? Or do you just assume its young, cause it fits your biblical world view. I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. ABE: I emphasize: These arguments have been made on observations of facts, not theory, not assumptions etc. /ABE
Dendrochronology the study of tree rings can push the date of the earth back to a little over 11000 years. European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) has an ice core that goes back 740 000 years, 3270 meters of layered ice (light ice dark ice, ie winter summer). I grant that both of these phenomena appear to support an Old Earth, at least an older Earth than the Biblical Young Earth. There are phenomena on both sides of the question it seems to me.
But you don't care because you assume the bible is the word of god, And if you count how long the people lived and add it up it was 6000 years ago when Adam was talked in to eating an apple by a talking (also walking at the time) snake. And you have the nerve to claim we are making unbased assumptions. I SHOWED that some are making unbased assumptions. And I KNOW the Bible is the word of God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. You did. Oh how we laughed. And the inability of creationists, yourself included to think of any argument that isn't idiotic does tend to explain the absence of scientific controversy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The fact of the matter in my case is that years before I became a Christian, when I still considered myself an atheist, I read the usual popular accounts of evolution and at times tried to track down the evidence for it. It always seemed to disappear into assertions and assumptions. So you suffered from abysmal research skills even when you were an atheist? It's not something that Christianity has done to you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
I've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. You have made your case based on fantasy, not observation. It is entirely made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
've made case after case based on various observations of such things as the strata, Witch clearly supports an old earth.
the fossils and the decrease in genetic diversity that is the necessary result of microevolution. Yea the fossils show a clear evolutionary pattern, and the whole microevolution thing yea i understand a little change over a little time can never become a lot of change over a lot of time sure.
I grant that both of these phenomena appear to support an Old Earth, at least an older Earth than the Biblical Young Earth. There are phenomena on both sides of the question it seems to me. Um sure what phenomena supports a young earth?? Is there anything one can look objectivity and say hmm looks like the earth is only 6000 years old.
I SHOWED that some are making unbased assumptions. Yea i saw you demonstrate how to make unbased assumptions, now can you start making evidence based ones.
And I KNOW the Bible is the word of God. See this is where you get blinded, even a scientist testing gravity dosent know that gravity works the way it does, sure he might expect it to, but in order to find "truth" you have to have an open mind open to all possibilities, one of the possibilities being that the bible is just a bronze age fantasy book.Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You just seem to have no talent for it, and perhaps should take this into consideration when you tell working scientists, and in fact whole scientific professions, that they don't know anything. Lot's of people have no particular talent for or inclination to do science. There's no shame in it. But most adults in that population are well aware of their limitations. Even most YECs don't go so far as to delude themselves into thinking they have great scientific minds, regardless of how sure they are that scientists are wrong. Most of them just cite the Bible and are done with it. God is all powerful, yet a few of those with FSMs (fine scientific minds) are loathe to say that he used much of his might after the first few days of creation. No real logic for that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I grant that both of these phenomena appear to support an Old Earth, at least an older Earth than the Biblical Young Earth. There are phenomena on both sides of the question it seems to me. Now consider that there are many things younger than the earth that can be found ... and all they show is that the earth is at least as old as these things but could be older. Curiously I have trouble conceiving of how one could find things (other than meteors perhaps) that could be older than the earth, certainly not living things, evolved things, fossils of once living things. We were discussing nested hierarchies and how they form clades. To my mind clades are the most translatable concept from evolutionary biology to creationist "kinds" -- as they are groups descended from common ancestor populations. So the question becomes on where you stop forming "kind" clades and why. This is basically the point we were at on Message 441:
...to which has been added observations of completely different kinds/species based on some collection of similarities that seem to make them fit right in. Their own microevolution into breeds and races then continues the format, and then again you have to piece them together with some other kind that is subjectively determined to have enough similar characteristics to be ancestor or descendant. ... Such as the objective observation that lizards, turtles, crocodiles and birds are all tetrapods that have the same bone patterns (morphology) in their skeletons ... That they all have limbs with one bone near the torso, with similar shoulder and hip structures, then two bones below the elbow\knee joint (which is also a similar feature) and then many bones below the wrist\ankle joint (which again is a similar feature) ... That they all have similar vertebrae running from head to tail, and ribs and skull bones ... Or we can talk about mammals.
... and then again you have to piece them together with some other kind that is subjectively determined to have enough similar characteristics to be ancestor or descendant. ... Such as teeth: why do all (placental) mammals have the same basic pattern of teeth, why do cats have canines (like dogs) and not different specialized teeth for cats? Especially when marsupial (mammals) have a different basic pattern of teeth? Not knowing where to draw the line to divide living organisms into clades is - imho - one of the major problems with creationism: if it were true then there should be clear and distinct ends of separate clades that would show what the created kinds are. Edited by RAZD, : splingby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024