Evolution: a red herring?

If the the claims of creationism were true, specifically that someone or something created man, then what can we make of the theory of evolution? I'd like to hear from those who are quite sure that evolution has not occured.Is it possible that it was all a hoax that was perpetrated from the beginning?Who would do such a thing? And, why?In Darwin's time, did some entity know that human technology, with its ability to create some exotic new species and a host of unforeseen consequences, would be relatively right around the corner?Is it a masterful attempt at perpetuating slavery?Sure, evo's will bark at this. But they always seem to forget that the TOEv is only a theory.What could it BE!?...Admin, anywhere you want to put this.

This thread is directed toward the creationist POV. As we know, many of them believe that the diversity of life on earth is an expression of deliberate activity. To some of them, this may include evolution as a devised process, as well. That doesn't mean that they accept the proposed mechanism for speciation, either. They don't necessarily claim that creationism should replace the science of evolution. They simply believe that the TOEvo has been taken too far, and that it attempts to suggest more than it is capable of explaining.It's nothing personal. And, I would agree that the TOEvo is given much more attention than it deserves. There is much more science to teach in biology class than evolution. And, contrary to popular scientific opinion, even much of molecular biology and genetics, which is normally posed to rely heavily on evolution, doesn't need to be presented within the context of that process anyway. Much of it stands alone, as it is.With that in mind, it actually seems peculiar how much discussion is given to such a minor aspect of modern science. So, then the question becomes why? why this peculiar condition? Sure, it's debated by creationiststs. But, science in general is safe and sound. It isn't going anywhere. It's always going to be right there.There's no need to take offense to anyone who puts evolution in a particular perspective, and decides to assume control of their own manner of addressing human knowledge and development. No one is obliged to observe current science, especially when they recognize that many major advances in science would not have ever occured until and unless existing theories had been completely ignored.Now, when people see how ferociously the publicized scientific community tries to clench onto such a trivial idea, it starts looking like there's more to that story. I don't blame the average science-doer. I don't even need to know why evolution is so important to them. It certainly doesn't make them any better than anyone else.If I'm not mistaken, this website is intended to serve as an impartial forum for productive conversation.

Jon defends with: I wouldn't go that far. I can't speak for them. But, I can tell you that's just what a theory is, a guess, an elaborated hypothesis. There may be various levels of supporting data. Yet, fundamentally, there's no distinction. I'm sure that many creos applaud the degree of effort that is applied to the theory, and can appreciate it's scientific legitimacy. I doubt that anyone thinks the theory is a stab. Many people simply have difficulty in stipulating that it's the only scientific direction that one can take with the evidence available.Keep in mind, this has been going on for quite a while, long before genetic mutation was ever suggested as a mechanism. Also, remember that the supposed evidence for the origin of species has been readily available to humans, WHEREVER there are animals and plants, since the dawn of time. It is a bit odd that the notion did not present itself until the 19th century. In fact, it's very odd. Yes, there are some lovely creatures in the Galapagos. But it's not much different than anywhere else really, in terms of organic diversity. No, I'm suggesting that the idea of evolution may have been intended as a means of eventually justifying the feeble, state-sponsored notion that one race is in any way superior to another. Eugenics would be another name for it. I blame god for slavery. You'd be surprised. Edited by limbosis, : I blame god for slavery.

At some point the leader(s) of any nation, continent, planet surface, planet, etc. must begin to consider the population dilemma.To be honest, I've never played out the possible scenarios for this earth. I've never been so bold as to assume I had the right to decide upon a population control policy for anyone else. Someone must, though, at some point.There are many, many ways to control a given population. Some are obvious. Some are not so obvious. Some would appear to be fair, on the surface. Some are altogether insidious. And, I imagine some would be so unthinkable, that they would be kept from our awareness at any cost...every cost.Do you think it is a coincidence the idea of eugenics came about shortly after the inception of the TOEvo? Is there any relation to the American Civil War? This is what's known as circumstantial evidence. And, people have been hanged for much less.Can you think of any way to effectively control population? Do you have any method in mind that may be applied to the eventual priority. Think. There are some stark analogs between certain biblical traditions and what could easily be considered the most significant struggle that mankind has ever faced, racism. Could the ones behind the bible be the same ones behind the TOEvo? Is it possible?After all, the concept of science is more or less nominal. What is science? Science is a collection of publications that has been steered by a select few publishers, and directed toward specific conclusions. We see it everywhere. It is ubiquitous. Does this sound familiar? Does it sound like some other aspect of human "culture"? Do we really know where some of it originates? Truthfully? Or, do we just go by what we read in the books that get handed to us?Some of the folks on these forums seem to be confusing theories with scientific laws (like gravity, motion, etc.) I don't blame them, though. If you open up almost any biology book, you will see evolution referred as a theory exactly once. Then, for the rest of the book, evolution is written about as if it were some natural law.Do you see what I'm getting at?

I agree, most of us except those who take the bible as infallable. That's a lot of people. But, if you asked any of them to speak up and support the tradition of slavery because it's in the bible, they would all be to cowardly to come forward. The evidence indicates a relationship between species. That's all. This isn't a thread for debating the TOEvo, but it would more aptly be called the theory of relativity (since that name is occupied by another useless theory).

I believe that TOEvo was posed as descriptive, and done so with an ulterior motive. You might agree that there are many examples of ruthless behavior in society, as sanctioned by national governments. Not that this necessarily correlates to nature, but it couldn't said that this isn't the basis for industrialized society, a kind of dog-eat-dog mentality, if you will.It's important for me to say that I don't assume anyone on this forum is racist or classist in any way. Whether some actually are is another story. And, even though the hope is that the vast majority of people on earth are not racist, it wouldn't preclude the idea that the powers-that-be strictly abide by an entirely racist indoctrination. There is certainly plenty of evidence for it. (If you insist, I can shed as much light on it as you need.)So, I would also agree that scientific data, alone, could not be held responsible for any belief system. The issue becomes clearer when you realize that science itself appears to have been under a stewardship of affectation, all along. If you want to see some real science, look for the ideas that DON'T get widely publicized. (There are some pretty simple ways of doing that.) Then, make up your OWN mind, as opposed to allowing someone else to do it for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Wouldn't you say?I'm suggesting some as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims against science, I know. I'm more or less prefacing my position, for now. If care to continue this line of reasoning, I will be happy to lay it out for you carefully.

I know, it's getting pretty late in London. I would start with the patent office website for just about any country. I'm sure many of them have a decent search engines. You can use your imagination from there, keeping in mind that some of the better ones would actually be sequestered for "military" purposes. But, there's still plenty out there, particularly in physics.As for the rest of your most recent post, I think you're getting very close. And, this is much too significant to be handled recklessly. So just bear with me, if you would. I've got other responses to make, as well, if I expect this thread to be taken seriously. I'm already starting to skip whole words in my typing, as it is.BTW, what is ABE? also, how did you get that particular digital effect on your avatar, if you don't mind me asking? Cheers!

Aether?Spontaneous Generation??

You don't really believe that, do you? It is ONE way to explain it. It is not the ONLY way to explain it, obviously. Look, I don't like the idea of creation, for my own reasons, any more than you do. And, even if though there is no evidence of it that is readily available to us, it remains a possibility. Scientifically speaking, evolution can only go so far as being one possible explanation. That's all you know. You may as well get comfortable with it.

Yes and no.Be that as it may, can you make a prediction based on TOEvo that you can back by empirical evidence, which is said to parallel the theory beyond a single change in "species"? Even if you could, it would still be remarkably flimsy.I can say that the theory itself is geared to avoid any legitimate scrutiny. Greek: I'm not sure how that even resembles the 19th century approach.
Medieval: Not much info. What little there is seems to lend support for creation.
Kant: Bright guy, but evidently quite an apologist, so much so that I wonder if his agenda was ever noble.
Linnaeus: Creationist all the way.
E. Darwin: Apparently somewhat of an apologist, as well.
Lamarck: Spoke to the idea that eventually became known as eugenics.
Malthus: Pure evil. Scientific Racism at its lowest. F#@K Malthus!See, these examples are actually where I'm going with this thread. Be fair and allow me to develop this. Trust me, you will not be disappointed.

Fair enough, Percy. My position in this thread has been this:I believe that the TOEvo was originally supplied within the context of scientific racism. This was done possibly to attract intelligent yet indecisive people toward the apparently edified principles of science, and ultimately into the comfort of justifying eugenic polocies.As you can imagine, this is a very delicate issue. That's why I avoided referring to the depth of these claims, with the original post. My goal is to arrive at some of these gravely serious considerations, by offering a topic that is, on the surface, sufficiently entailed by these deeper matters.I also hope to invite discussion from both sides of the forum, because oddly enough, the conclusions I've drawn may actually implicate the religious community as well. In fairness to them, the original post was established in a way that gave them the opportunity to distance themselves from such a stark secular condition.Right now, I would present the topic of this thread as "If the TOEvo was originally affectated with an underlying, scientifically racist agenda, is there anything that creationists would care to add in either disdain or support for this claim?"Wherever this leads under the given assumptions is fine by me. I would simply clarify that this is not a debate over the intrinsic merits of the TOEvo. However, I would reasonably expect some remarks made in defense of specific criticisms applied to certain aspects of science in general.

Is that so?Then, I suppose it's just another coincidence that Galton and Darwin were actually COUSINS, for christ sake!