Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution?

I don't know about your overall point in your description of the psychology of creationists, since it seems to be that a "fear of ambiguity and uncertainty" could as well propel a love of science as anything else. However, in your reference to essentialism I agree totally that this is the main stumbling block in understanding TOE.Now, as regards politics: One might have a point in linking up a dislike for homosexuality with essentialistic thought. Of course, I'm uttering a stereotype here. There might be many creationists who have no problem with homosexuality. But let's assume for the moment that the stereotypical generalization is fairly accurate: homosexuality might be seen as an ambiguous sexual activity that falls in line with an ambiguity about "kinds." Essentialism would also look askance on homosexuality.

Death is the primary evidence for the Fall, jar. All disease, deformity, disaster, suffering, misery, murder and mayhem are evidence for the Fall. Human confusion is evidence for the Fall. The fact that human beings can't agree on who God is or even if there is a God is evidence for the Fall.

We're in a science forum Faith.Please provide the evidence that "Death is a result of the Fall" and not the normal result of being born.Please provide the evidence that "All disease, deformity, disaster, suffering, misery, murder and mayhem are a result of the Fall" and not simply the result of well known Natural causes.Please provide the evidence that "Human confusion is the result of the Fall".Please provide the evidence that "The fact that human beings can't agree on who God is or even if there is a God is the result of the Fall."You're in the science forums now Faith and so far you haven't even shown that you have any idea of what evidence is.Please provide evidence that there was even a Fall.Do you know what evidence is? It's something that can be independently verified. So far, as usual, all you've done is supply yet more unsupported assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yup, jar, I gave you the evidence. The Bible gives us the description and implications of the Fall, and you can certainly independently verify the existence of death, disease, murder, mayhem and etc. QED.

No Faith, you did not provide evidence, only assertions.You're handy with making things up, we all know you have a great imagination. But where is the evidence that desease is not the result of very well known and understood natural processes?Where is the evidence that Katrina was the result of the alleged Fall?Where is the evidence that there even was a Fall?I know you like to try to draw things off topic to avoid the theme of this thread, that those, such as yourself are simply incapable of dealing with reality, so lets try to move back towards the topic.How could one of your wild imaginative assertions like "death is the result of this alleged Fall", be independently verified?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Disease IS the result of well known and natural processes. All of it derived from the Fall. Study it all you like you will never know any more than HOW it works, never WHY or how it got started.The Bible IS evidence of the Fall. Revelation is kind of outside scientific evidence don't you think? But there are other sources of knowledge than science. It could be constructive if EvC would acknowledge that.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-11-2005 11:22 PM

How does one tell a "man-originated" religion apart from a "god-originated" one? How do you know your particular religion is not "man-originated"? Absolutely nothing else? Does that mean that you have heard every other possible explanation? You must be very wise and knowledgeable then. Or does your remark indeed betray an abhorrence for ambiguity, uncertainty and vagueness? 'Absolute' is very... well, absolute, Faith. Are you sure you want to use such strong terms?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

OK, let me get this straight.Alice says the christian God is the true god.
Bob says there is no god.
Alice and Bob disagree on whether there is a god.
Therefore, the Fall is a fact.That's logic?? Boy, I like it! Let me try it again:I say I am right.
You say I am wrong.
Therefore, I am right.Wow, this is great! You've convinced me, Faith, thanks.Oh, one more thing, Faith: you're wrong. I can prove it.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

Those are apparently quite rare occurrences but yes, very interesting that even in the process of deteriorating there are occasionally positive side effects.

---

Positive in some environments, but negative in others.

quote:

---

One can hardly call SCD an advantage, however, except in this negative sense that it happens to protect against malaria.

---

Actually, people who have inherited the SCD mutation can get either a single or double version, depending upon the genetics of their parents.People with only one copy of the mutation enjoy all of the benefits of immunity from malaria but do not develop SCD. People with two copies develop the disease.What you must remember, is that from an evolutionalry standpoint, the only thing that matters to the genes is reproductive success from a population-wide perspective.Evolution produces "good-enough" design from a population-wide, gene-centerd perspective.

quote:

---

As I understand it, all? or most? of these mutations confer their benefit by simply eliminating something the attacking disease or toxin needs in order to infect or kill the person or organism.

---

No.Sometimes features are added, not just taken away.For example, thorns on a plant are a defensive addition.

quote:

---

None of this challenges the idea of the Fall in any way that I can see.

---

Well, we don't see "constant deterioration" or "devolution" or anything like that.We see only change. Sometimes this change can be seen as negative, sometimes positive, sometimes as having no effect.It all depends upon the environment, remember?Is it "better" for a population to have sickle cell disease which confers immunity to malaria and live enough years to reproduce, or is it better for the entire population to be completely wiped out by malaria in a few generations?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-12-2005 09:50 AM

Sure, environment "chooses" whatever can survive in it. But if the choice is between two potentially lethal conditions, this just points up the senselessness of the idea of reproductive "success." Both conditions are deteriorations due to the Fall and both threaten the survival and wellbeing of the population. It is very hard to choose a "better" under such circumstances.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-12-2005 09:58 AM

quote:

---

But if the choice is between two potentially lethal conditions, this just points up the senselessness of the idea of reproductive "success."

---

Haven't you been reading?Malaria kills lots of children.The sickle cell mutation confers immunity to malaria.Not everyone in a population in which the sickle cell mutation is present has the disease (single copy). Those who do develop the disease (double copy) get it later in life, thus allowing them to reproduce beforehand and pass on the mutation.The reason these populations in malarial regions continue to survive is because of this mutation.The sickle cell mutation is a beneficial adaptation that can sometimes have a harmful side affect.

quote:

---

Both conditions are deteriorations due to the Fall and both threaten the survival and wellbeing of the population. It is very hard to choose a "better" under such circumstances.

---

OK, so are you saying that a population that dies out completely is better off than one that continues to survive?Seriously?And there is this from the last post. Do you understand now that it is not always a "loss":

quote:

---

As I understand it, all? or most? of these mutations confer their benefit by simply eliminating something the attacking disease or toxin needs in order to infect or kill the person or organism.

---

No.Sometimes features are added, not just taken away.For example, thorns on a plant are a defensive addition.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-12-2005 10:13 AM

The subject is the PARTICULAR mutations that have negative effects on the organism itself although they have the positive effect of conferring protection against some other negative effects. We are not discussing the entire theory of evolution of positive defensive traits such as thorns (and how would you know whether thorns were added by mutation or simply a normal genetic variation in a species anyway?)The situation of one disease condition being selected because it protects against another is VERY RARE. If all evolution ever did was choose one disease over another you could certainly not claim that it could ultimately lead to healthy new species.Who wants either condition? We can be grateful if the protecting disease isn't seriously debilitating, as apparently SCD isn't always, but there are some situations where death indeed might be the preference to a life of exquisite pain or other debility. A Christian always chooses life but that kind of life is hard to wish on anybody. And unfortunately, a prediction from the Fall is that genetic diseases are only going to get worse as time goes on.

but then as usual, simply goes on repeating the same nonsense. LOL Good. Well known AND Natural. But then you blow all the progress you've made by asserting ... More mere assertion Faith. Where is the evidence that can be independently confirmed. No Faith, it is not evidence of the Fall. Some people interpret the Bible to assert that there was a Fall, but that is not true of even all Christians. There is no evidence of a Fall in the Bible, only assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you, jar, for your usual hateful stonewall. On that note I'm just going to leave EvC altogether, which has been coming for some time.So bye. Have a good life.

Sorry to hear that.