Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (9006 total)
57 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Pollux, ringo (5 members, 52 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,301 Year: 13,049/23,288 Month: 774/1,527 Week: 75/138 Day: 24/24 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   How do you define the Theory of Evolution?
Posts: 4312
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 30 of 93 (812144)
06-15-2017 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by CRR
06-12-2017 6:57 PM

Re: Theory of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself arose naturally from an inorganic form.

Uh, no. Whatever would have made you think that? Except for typical creationist lies.

To begin with, do you even have any idea what a theory is? Since you are a benighted creationist, I doubt that very much.

Second, just what is the Theory of Evolution? A theory explains a phenomenon, so the theory of evolution explains evolution. Do you have any idea what that means?

The key elements of this are abiogenesis and ascent from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA); both of which I expect to be controversial.

Uh, no. Complete failure on both points.

Evolution is what life does. Sorry, but that's the plain facts. Once you have life, it quite naturally evolves. You cannot stop it regardless of your religious dogmata.

Whether life arose through entirely naturalistic processes or by some supernaturalistic fiat, once that happened it proceeded to evolve. And for that matter, even if life arose from non-life through entirely naturalistic processes, why would any actual creationist ever want to claim that to disprove God?

The key elements of this are abiogenesis ...

No, demonstratively false!

Even if all life had come into being through means other that abiogenesis, the results would still be the same. All those specially created kinds would have immediately started to evolve from that point forward.

Evolution happens despite abiogenesis or special creation. Therefore, evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. Your position is a lie.

... and ascent from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA);

Also not part of the theory. Evolution handles multiple lines of descent just as well as one single one. It does not depend on a single "last universal common ancestor". Single universal common ancestor or multiple ones. No difference. Evolution works either way.

So in typical creationist manner, you are lying to us about what evolution is. That makes your god the "God of Lies", which according to Christian doctrine would be Satan.

Well done.

Edited by dwise1, : Misspelling: life, not live

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CRR, posted 06-12-2017 6:57 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2017 6:56 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Posts: 4312
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 60 of 93 (813535)
06-28-2017 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2017 10:46 AM

Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
CRR writes:

As a working definition for discussion purposes I would be prepared to accept the one Jerry Coyne gives in his book "Why Evolution is True"

Can you quote the preceding sentence, please? I want to see if it says: "The following is the definition of the Theory of Evolution" or whether by some whilom chance it says something completely different.

Since CRR is on a defining-words tear, you should state your request more carefully.

That should read: "Can you cite the preceding sentence, please?"

Your wording would allow him to dodge by insisting that he had already quoted it, as indeed he had. Instead, what we need is some kind of proper bibliographical citation to tell us where to go to find the original. Just saying that it was in this particular book is of no help, because we would need to do a linear search, potentially through hundreds of pages, to find it. If we ever could find it. In my experience of tracking down creationists' quote-mining, I have sometimes encountered incidents in which the supposed quote did not even exist in the "quoted" article (such a misquoting of George Wald comes immediately to mind).

So, CRR, we need to know which page in "Why Evolution is True" that quote came from. Or at least which chapter, since page numbers can vary from one edition to the next.

Dr. Adequate, did you smell that? It smells like he had lifted that from a creationist source, not from Coyne's book, so he wouldn't have any clue where in that book it's supposed to be from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 10:46 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 2:46 PM dwise1 has responded

Posts: 4312
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 62 of 93 (813555)
06-28-2017 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Dr Adequate
06-28-2017 2:46 PM

Re: Jerry Coyne's Definition
Agreed. We need to know the context of that quote to be able to understand what he's really saying. That's what I was going for in asking for a proper citation, but being given the preceding text would also work.

If CRR had picked that quote up from a quote-mine as I suspect, he won't be able to fulfill your request.

It seems that every time I've heard Jerry Coyne mentioned it has been by a creationists who's quoting him as saying something against evolution. So I looked him up on Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne.

Coyne turns out to be a outspoken critic of creationists in all their disguises, such as "intelligent design". Looks like yet another case of creationists misquoting a scientist in order to make it appear that he's on their side, like what they kept trying to do with S.J. Gould.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-28-2017 3:02 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 86 by CRR, posted 07-04-2017 6:17 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Posts: 4312
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 77 of 93 (813792)
06-30-2017 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CRR
06-30-2017 3:57 AM

Re: Your Definitions
One thing that I don't understand about your definitions is that you keep leaving out the part where you are equating evolution with atheism.

You declare as atheist a site that examines creationist claims and tries to dispel creationist misunderstandings of evolution by explaining it to them. And Dredge agrees with you and adds that they are Satanic, plus he explicitly describes evolution as "atheist theology."

Yet both of you refuse to provide your reasoning for that. Why is that? Because you know that yours is a false equivalence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CRR, posted 06-30-2017 3:57 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-30-2017 2:57 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 85 by CRR, posted 07-02-2017 8:26 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Posts: 4312
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7

Message 81 of 93 (813814)
06-30-2017 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phat
06-30-2017 2:57 PM

Re: Equating the ToE with Atheism
By making humans no more special than pond scum, a revision of our relationship with a Creator is inevitably contemplated.

That would be considered the Sin of Pride. Last I heard, that was still one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Or is that just a Catholic thing?

I would recommend that one follow the link you provided and read the rest of the article. I don't quite feel that your quote represents the thesis of the article, so it would require the rest of the article for context.

Also, the last "paragraph" you quote is the introduction into another section of the article. The first part was from the section, "EVOLUTION & ATHEISM", and the last sentence was from the section, "EVOLUTION & RELIGION". Here is that second section's entire first paragraph:


Thus while accepting evolution may not cause atheism or even necessarily make atheism more likely, there is a good chance that it will at least force a revision of what one thinks about their theism. Anyone who consciously considers and accepts evolution should think about it long and hard enough to cause them to seriously question some of their traditional religious and theistic beliefs. Such beliefs may not be abandoned, but they may not continue untouched.

And what might some of those "traditional religious and theistic beliefs" be? How's 'bout the list of YEC beliefs in a 6,000 year old earth, immutability of species (which creationists constantly violate with the hyper-evolution required by their "basic created kinds"), Noah's Flood. Beliefs which contradict the reality of their god's alleged creation. If you hold beliefs that contradict your own god's Creation, then shouldn't that be a clue that there might be something wrong with those beliefs? So shouldn't you want to detect such defects in your theology and to correct them?

But a major theistic belief among creationists and IDists appears to be the God of the Gaps. For example, Lawyer Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of ID, stated that the primary reason he objects to evolution is because it leaves God with nothing to do. That's the attitude and kind of arguments that I keep seeing from the creationist side: if we find a natural explanation for something, then that means that God did not do it. If they were truly creationists, then they wouldn't be saying such nonsense. If they were actually creationists, then they would believe that God did create everything, including those natural, material processes that get things done.

Evolution, along with all the other scientific ideas, describe what happens in the real world. Creation says that God created the real world and everything that makes it run. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and creation. One does not disprove the other.

But if you misrepresent either or both of those, evolution and/or creation, then you create conflict where none actually exists. That is what creationists do. And do please note that it is a small subset of creationists, YECs, who have usurped that title for themselves. A very great number of believers in Divine Creation would be excluded by the YECs for calling themselves creationists, even though that is what they are. I have read a number of anti-YEC creationists complain loudly how their own title had been usurped from them.

And it is those YEC creationists who insist that evolution is atheistic, along with all other science that does not agree with their own narrow false theology. Plus there are those non-Christians who hear YEC creationists declare that accepting evolution requires you to be an atheist and they make the mistake of accepting what they are being told at face value.

So then, no, there's nothing at all atheistic about evolution. Nor about any other scientific idea. Of course science does not mention the supernatural nor can accept any supernaturalistic explanations, but that is because science simply cannot deal with the supernatural. It says nothing about whether the supernatural exists or not, because ... who can even tell?

So then, no, accepting evolution does not in any way require atheism. However, it may well require you to re-examine a number of facile ideas you may have about theism, but that is a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-30-2017 2:57 PM Phat has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020