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

When one is unable to support ones beliefs, there are two options. A person can sit down and honestly reevaluate those beliefs in light of evidence, or run away.When beliefs are weak and cannot withstand scrutiny, when they cannot be supported, the easy solution is to simply stick ones fingers in ones ears and say "Na-Na-Na".Beliefs that cannot stand up to challenge, cannot be tempered, are weak and ineffectual.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Don't Leave! I believe in the Fall as a theological possibility. I do not believe in it because I have to, however.I believe in God because I met Him one day and have been chatting with Him ever since.The Bible and God are connected. (I believe)Human nature is always questioning. The best way to present a case here at EvC is to present assertions based on the Bible but not to inform everyone of blanket conclusions BECAUSE of the Bible.If you need a few days off, do go take them and have a fun time.Don't leave EvC however. I for one enjoy having you around.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes. But what is "negative" in certain environments is "positive" or even "neutral" if the environmental conditions change.You seem to want a mutation to always be considered one or the other, and that is just not at all how it works.Life is much more complicated than you want it to be, I'm sorry.

quote:

---

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 genes that code for thorns are the same genes that code for leaves, they are just modified. The same is true for flowers; they are modified leaves.The genes tell us a lot, faith.You REALLY need to define what you mean when you use the terms "mutation" and "normal genetic variation" because to me, they are one in the same.The only possible way to get any genetic variation is through mutation....unless you have some evidence to show me that some other process is at work.

quote:

---

The situation of one disease condition being selected because it protects against another is VERY RARE.

---

Sure.But remember, as I have told you several times already that most people with the sickle cell mutation DO NOT GET THE DISEASE.They have immunity from malaria and no SCD if they get one copy of the mutation. The problems only arise if people get two copies, and from a reproductive standpoint, they do just fine because they come down with the syndrome long past the time they would have reproduced anyway.From a population standpoint, this is a very beneficial mutation.

quote:

---

Who wants either condition?

---

It doesn't matter what the individual wants.What matters is the survival of the population.And since MOST PEOPLE WITH THE SC MUTATION DO NOT GET THE DISEASE but do get the immunity to malaria, most people in the population do just fine.

quote:

---

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.

---

But if you have reproduced and passed on your genes, you have done your job for the population from an evolutionary standpoint.

quote:

---

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.

---

Then why have lifespans and quality of life been increasing steadily over time in most parts of the world?Your prediction seems to be falsified already.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-13-2005 08:24 AM

Nothing offends you more, Faith, than being required to support your factual claims with facts.Jar's reply was not hateful and he is not stonewalling.You are the one refusing to do a simple thing like provide evidence in a science forum.

Oh, I certainly agree that I don't have a very hard case. In the OP I already stated that it was more like a vague feeling I got from some of the posts by creos. Perhaps I tried to throw too much together...For starters I don't think "fear" was the right word-choice because it implies conscious awareness, while I see it more in a subconscious way.When randomness and lack of absolute purpose and moral, or anything along those lines, is mentioned, it's not as if they go into 'panic mode'. No, instead they will simply put it aside, deny it and not really give it any thought while arguing (also to themselves) that it simply CANNOT be that way. Because the Bible indicates a teleological dimension. So instead of panic there is only comfort because of confidence in the Bible. And it is the comfort that it is all about!So maybe it would have been better to say that the "fear" I assigned to them would only materialize in the absence of the Bible. Since the Bible DOES exist, they can simply dismiss any signs that reality IS inherently unpredictable, ambiguous, steerless and indifferent by refering to that source of absolute knowledge. The Bible is these people's safe haven. It gives them a way out, so they don't have to worry about a world and reality that are as unfavourable as that. I'm sure it has political consequences as well.

Science forum? Do you find the OP scientific? Looks like speculative psychological comments to me.

It's a science forum.

Yeah, but the OP is not scientific nor was claimed to be by the poster. So the term "science forum" is being used very loosely here.

I think there is another issue involved here, and that is the personal conviction that one option is not valid no matter what the evidence says. This is grounded in the {world view} of the person at such an {early\fundamental(NOTfundie, general usage)} level of consciousness that it is no longer open for debate, but just IS.This leaves the person with two possiblities: to discard their whole world view or to necessarily reject the contradicting information. It is not a choice, it is a confrontation.This happens on both sides of the debate, but is more visible to the majority in the minority. You also see it in the liberal vs conservative discussion.We all see through a thick haze darkly, and the question comes down to who really has the better {view\vision\ validity utility}To me, the measure of the validity utility of the world views is the level of information that has to be denied to maintain it: the higher the level of denial needed the lower the validity utility. In a perfect world view there would be no need to deny any evidence from any quarter as there would be a home for it.{edited per comments from Ben, changed subtitle}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*14*2005 02:34 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Very good post. Thank you very much.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, the term "science forum" should NEER be used "loosely." If a thread is put in an inappropriate forum, it's up to the thread creator to bring it up.Maybe putting this thread in this forum was a good decision, maybe it was a bad decision. It's usually why we ask people to clarify for us which forum they want it in before we promote it.I don't know the reasons why the thread wound up here, but it is in a science forum, for better or for worse. So we'll deal with it that way.Hope that clarifies the "official" position on how these things go. It's up to the thread creator to direct the admins. Otherwise, it's up to an admin's "best guess" on where the discussion will lead. A notoriously difficult task.Abe: Changed to Admin mode. Grr...This message has been edited by AdminBen, Thursday, 2005/10/13 08:22 PM

---

The question that occurs to me is whether "science forum" means the topic is about science or whether the topic is a scientific question.The OP was not a scientific question. Science depends on physical evidence, and there is no such evidence as to why Creationists reject evolution. However, the topic was ABOUT science in the sense that it was about evolution.But there seems to be some kind of rules about "science forums" that don't apply to others. Provide evidence. But do we mean scientific evidence (physical evidence)? Surely not, if we are talking about the psychological reasons that Creationists reject evolution. What are you going to do--take a survey?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-13-2005 11:35 PM

Well, two comments.First of all, we got here because of an off-topic discussion about "The Fall." The call for evidence was in reference to that.As for why this topic was put in a science forum in the first place? I'm not sure, it was requested. But the implication is that we're asking questions that are data-driven. It's a question that's addressable through scientific means. Social science, cognitive anthropology, even neuroscience may play roles in getting answers. Like I said, the implication is that speculations are all nice and dandy, but let's try and make some testable hypotheses so that we can go beyond mere speculation. Honestly, as someone who has been involved in psychology.... sounds like a great idea to me. It's definitely a great place to start. Why make up speculation based on nothing? At least start from some real data, and try and figure out what those answers "really mean."To summarize, the implication is that the questions should ultimately be addressed in a testable way. Arguments that use actual data to support them are given precedence over "mere speculations." And if a claim is made (for example, about psychological trends in general populations or even specific populations), there should be evidence backing up such claims. That is the implication of having this topic here.

---

I don't understand how a survey is scientific data. The participants may be lying.

While I agree in large part with your assessment regarding personal conviction and the possibilities that leaves one with, there is a problem. Given your stated position, answering this question is a practical impossibility at the human level. While this sounds nice what is "level of information"? How is that measured and determined? Indeed what is constituted as evidence and so information can and will be discarded by people and so we can never really "know" what level of information is actually out there or being discarded by anyone... most especially ourselves.In some cases your opponent does not even see it as rejecting information, just as you don't see it when you do it. It is simply done behind the scenes and the "level" of information adjusted accordingly.In the end I'm afraid this view when tied to comments such as this... Will end up simply supporting majority decision on a subject as being the proper evaluation for the validity of world views. Though I suppose that doesn't change anything much from how it is currently handled.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-14-2005 04:35 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)