I would like to see a debate arise about wether 10+10=20. That won't happen, know why? Because nobody needs to be told it. Everyone already knows it. You wouldn't see a mathematician going haywire on a forum, because someone said 10+10=30. He would dismiss them. Know why? Because there's no threat to his belief that 10+10=20, because that's set in stone.
If, on the other hand, there was a large politically powerful cult devoted to getting "10 + 10 = 30" taught in schools, and proclaiming that everyone who said otherwise was a fool and a liar, then I think you would see mathematicians "going haywire".
Is it necessary to promote evolution? Why is it so critical people believe it? What happens to us if we don't believe it? Would evolution go extinct without promotion? If I die without ever believing evolution, how much worse off am I than if you die believing it? Would 10+10=30 if mathematics weren't promoted in school?
Yes, but children would be ignorant of the fact.
Why should we conceal facts from children? Just to oblige you and your friends?
I think by comparing evolution to math you've made every point that I could wish to make on the subject.
Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice.
Yes, it's just part of the knee-jerk way in which creationists falsely accuse scientists of their own faults. Evolution "is a religion", Evolution rest on "faith" Evolutionists "spread the word", Evolutionists are "messianic" ... next, tell us that we're all Trinitarians, why don't you?
Incidentally, why is it that the worst thing you people can think of to say about evolutionists is that they're like Christians, and the nastiest thing you can think of to say about evolution is that it's like Christianity? Don't get me wrong, it still cracks me up every time. I just want an insight into your thought processes.
What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe...
As evidenced by the fact that ... ooh, biologists teach biology. Just like physicists teach physics, and mathematicians teach mathematics. It's like a religion, y'see.
Only completely different.
This is why no mathematician ever comes round to your door with a handful of tatty little pamplets asking if he can share the good news about algebra.
and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.
This is plainly untrue. Of course the people debating you wish you to understand the theory of evolution. It is not their fault if you do not.
Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....
Yes, learning biology can save you from ignorance of biology. Just as knowledge of physics can save you from ignorance of physics, and knowledge of mathematics can save you from mathematics. So many messianic religions ... and all taught in schools. Tut tut, whatever happened to the First Amendment, eh?
The one thing which makes biology special is that it has come under attack by a cult, and so requires defending from their lies.
FACT: the peppered moth is a minor but historically interesting example of small scale evolution.
FACT: recapitulation is not part of the theory of evolution.
FACT: the theory of evolution does not predict that the fossil record should be a movie of evolution.
FACT: your inability to define "random mutation" does not make that term undefined.
If youy feel able to dispute any of these facts, please try, and then I shall supply you with arguments. If, as a substitute for supplying facts and arguments, you call me "pathetic" and run away again ... then we shall all know what to think.
Imo, the fallacy of such thinking by prominent evos is stupendous
It would be fallacious if they said "Evolution, therefore no God". But AFIAK, they say, "Evolution, therefore goodbye to one of your favorite reasons for beliving in God." Of course, this depends if this is one of your favorite reasons.
and has an undue influence on the thinking and presentation and teaching of evolutionary theory.
False. There's nothing about the non-existence of God in any biology textbook I've seen.
As for your other misrepresentations, I shall be happy to discuss them at some other time: I see you were unable to debate any of the facts I presented, so I feel we're off to an excellent start.
It seems to me that your idea requires further application. People remember hymns, after all. Whereas they forget science.
There is a niche to be filled here.
"In all things wherein heat doth flow"
In all things wherein heat doth flow The change in entropy Is greater than the integral Of Î´Q by T.
Chorus: All praise to Rudolf Clausius Who made the world confess That in isolated systems You'll observe increase in S.
No engine made of mortal hands Can work the mighty feat That turneth heat to useful work Without some waste of heat.
Chorus: All praise to Rudolf Clausius The founder of our creed If you think dS is negative You're very wrong indeed.
Without work done, no heat will flow From cooler things to hot. (You may think this is possible But Rudolf says it's not.)
Chorus: All praise to Rudolf Clausius Our savior and our hero Who proved that Î”S must be No less at least than 0.
Now, seriously, could I ask again the question I asked on page 3 of this thread?
I get told that "evolution is a religion" and that "to believe in evolution requires faith", and, on this thread, that those pesky "evolutionists" "spread the word", that evolution is "messianic", and the implication of your post seems to be that if we're going to teach children evolution we might as well teach them to sing hymns to Darwin.
There is something about this which puzzles me.
Again and again, when you're trying to say that evolution is stupid, you compare it to Christianity. It's like you're saying, over and over, "Hah! Evolution! It's as dumb as Christianity!"
Now if I want to compare something to something ridiculous, I pick on flying pigs. I would never seek to ridicule any propostion that I considered silly by comparing it to the Christian faith.
Creationists do this all the time.
In effect, you say of evolution, "How stupid, it's a religion, how stupid, it requires faith, how stupid, the believers "spread the word", how stupid, it's "messianic", how stupid, they might as well be singing hymns, how stupid"; and yet having told everyone how utterly stupid that would be, you would of course wish that they should join a religion which requires faith and spreads the word and is messianic and sings hymns.
Which you have just explained to them is the hallmark of absurdity.
I confess, I am puzzled to think what you are trying to achieve by holding up Christianity as the benchmark for ridicule.
What the heck are you playing at?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : 'Cos in listing all these weird paradoxes I forgot the actual title of the actual thread ... which makes five.
So the matter still remains that we have 10,000 clergy with Master's of Divinity and Doctor's of Theology who know nothing about science (officially of course, not
No, of course not, the clincher is, as it always has been, the scientific evidence.
The Clergy Letter Project merely demonstrates that theologians find science compatible with Christianity, and (together with vast numbers of scientists who are theists) give the lie to the Standard Creationist Rubbish about how "evolution is an atheist theory, blah, blah."
Well, I think flying pigs are pretty ridiculous. But I also think that a ape / monkey or what have you as a "primate" giving birth one day to a human being is also ridiculous. If someone shows me it occur one day that will seriously alter my sense of it being foolish.
The theory of evolution states that this is impossible. Any such observation would destroy the theory of evolution.
Besides in evolutionary theory the flying pig is not that bad. Well, you almost have that in the giraffe who stretch and stretched and stretched its neck until it evolved into the long necked creature that we see today.
You seem to be thinking of Lamarckism, which is also contrary to the theory of evolution.
What the theory of evolution actually says is that natural selection favored early giraffids which had longer necks. No giraffe "stretched its neck".
Then perhaps the neck (without the giraffe head) will evolve in the future into some kind of snake like furry creature. I'm not sure how evolution will handle the big rump and four legs in back. Maybe that will evolve into the nest with four stands that the furry serpantine giraffe neck hatched from.
Again, your idea of what the theory of evolution is is grotesquely ignorant to the point where it becomes laughable.
I don't think that change in species is ridiculous. I think the limitless change proposed by some evolutionists is ridiculous.
But the changes are not "limitless" They are strictly limited by the need for each change to result in a viable organism.
I have tried to state that when it behaves as science theory it is not stupid. When it behaves like something you have to believe because we just know that we know that we know ...
But in fact, the theory of evolution rests on evidence; which is why all the "examples" you have given are in fact of things which the theory of evolution says did not happen and claims which are not made.
But as I said. When evolutionists behave as scientists who actually don't know for sure some of these things it deserves respect. When they behave as highpriest of ultimate truth about things that they actually do not know because they weren't there to observe it, then they're behaving like a religious faith.
How does this differ from historians teaching you about the Roman Empire? Or linguists reading the ancient Egyptian script? Or geologists saying "these marks were made by a glacier"? Or a forensic pathologist saying "this man was shot from behind at point blank range"? Or an epidemiologist saying "You have malaria, you must have been bitten by a mosquito"? Or an archaelogist saying "This artifact is Celtic".
Of course science can tell us about the past, it's one of the most interesting things about it.
Yet creationists only apply their magical alternative scientific method to evolution, 'cos they don't object to the Roman Empire. In other fields of study, they know damn well that there are ways to know about the past without being an eyewitness. When it comes to evolution, they deny it.
I think some truth can be arrived at through scientific study and some truth cannot.
And I think that the people ideally placed to know the difference would be scientists, not armchair philosophers applying ad hoc arguments to a subject of which, excuse me, they are evidently ignorant.
"A monkey giving birth to a human being." For crying out loud, man, if you don't know what the theory of evolution is, how can you hope to criticize it? You have not criticized the theory of evolution. You have criticized what you think it is.
Next up, why don't you tell us that the theory of gravity is "what goes up must come down" and then point out that this is contradicted by our ability to launch geosynchronous satelites. Or that the second law of thermodynamics says that "everything becomes more disorderly", and then smugly point out your ability to tidy your apartment.
Of course if you get the theory wrong, you can then prove the wrong theory not to be true. This is because only the right theory is right. This simple fact seems to be the basis of 50% or more of creationist rhetoric.
I repeat my earlier challenge --- can anyone show me a single creationist website which accurately states what the theory of evolution is before trying to refute it?