Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 5:58 AM
34 online now:
celestialGyoud, Tangle (2 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,206 Year: 15,242/19,786 Month: 1,965/3,058 Week: 339/404 Day: 6/51 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   What is the appeal of evolution?
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5787
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 46 of 75 (351905)
09-24-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jazzns
09-22-2006 5:35 PM


Re: I'll Play
You have to remember that science journals are the Bible of the evolutionist. Whenever an idea is written there it is treated as fact by the evolutionist.

I think this commentary speaks loudly the current disposition of many people. To answer Percy's question, one has to first come to realize what they actually 'know' about evolution and what they were taught to know about evolution. Showing that millions of people have total belief in Darwin's version of evolution has no backbone, just as for the atheist that millions of people could believe in a Higher Power means nothing.

How much investigation does the average student give in ascertaining the veractiy of such claims? Not many. Who would challenge it? On what merits would they question it in the first place? In fact, I think it would be a safe assumption to presuppose that it wasn't until creationism reared its face on the scene that the laymen really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology.


"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jazzns, posted 09-22-2006 5:35 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by subbie, posted 09-24-2006 9:38 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Omnivorous, posted 09-24-2006 10:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 50 by mick, posted 09-25-2006 2:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 56 by ReverendDG, posted 09-25-2006 4:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2006 8:06 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 09-25-2006 10:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 61 by Jazzns, posted 09-25-2006 11:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 74 by U can call me Cookie, posted 09-26-2006 8:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 47 of 75 (351914)
09-24-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
Yes of course, that's it.

All dem evilutionists is stoopid and jes' b'lieve what dey tole.

Sure is a good thing we have all these creationists, so committed to the purity of science, to point out our error.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1197 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 48 of 75 (351918)
09-24-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
How much investigation does the average student give in ascertaining the veractiy of such claims? Not many.

Just a small technical point: a valid answer to "how much" cannot be "Not many."

Carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4101 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 75 (351942)
09-24-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chiroptera
09-24-2006 1:43 PM


Money for Whistle Blowing
This is another point I never understood. Surely there would have been an opportunist that would have decided it would be to her advantage to blow the whistle on the whole enterprise (think how lucrative that would be), and then other people who would see the advantage in jumping on the growing "let's bash evolution" band wagon.

Of course. This is exactly what high-moral-tenor organizations like ICR, AiG, and well-intentioned individuals such as Dr. Hovind, Mr. Baugh, et al, have done. See the reaction of the evolutionists? They denigrate these heroes' credentials, and do everything in their power to discredit them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2006 1:43 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 50 of 75 (351985)
09-25-2006 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

I think it would be a safe assumption to presuppose that it wasn't until creationism reared its face on the scene that the laymen really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology.

I may be wrong here, but didn't creationism exist prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory as a part of science? I was under the impression that for a few thousand years human beings had followed the doctrines of one church another, never questioning the veracity of the claims of religious "experts". It was only when evolutionary theory became an established part of science that laypersons really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology. It was only when laypeople rejected the authority of witchdoctors and actually started to question things for themselves that the "controversy" began.

Non-evolutionary theories about the diversification of life on Earth have been the dominant theories for the vast majority of human history. And, to be honest, they haven't achieved much of intellectual credit other than a few nicely-written fairy stories. Evolutionary biology is, by comparison, a young rebellious upstart in the field of enquiry. The fact is that laypeople are very keen to learn about the science of biology and keen to escape from the stultifying non-explanation that has been offered by theology throughout human history.

For creationists to pretend that they are the new kid on the block, fighting against an authoritarian structure of knowledge in the form of "Darwinism", is to read history upside down.

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 09-25-2006 2:24 AM mick has not yet responded
 Message 53 by ReverendDG, posted 09-25-2006 3:36 AM mick has responded
 Message 58 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2006 8:12 AM mick has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 51 of 75 (351991)
09-25-2006 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mick
09-25-2006 2:02 AM


Re: I'll Play
I may be wrong here, but didn't creationism exist prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory as a part of science?

It is 20th century, made in America.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 09-25-2006 2:02 AM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 09-25-2006 8:27 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 52 of 75 (351998)
09-25-2006 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
09-22-2006 8:06 PM


I thought it was obvious. If evolution is true, there's no God; if there's no God, we can eat babies.

god has to not exist for us to eat babies? what about fetuses?
i like to snack on a few while i do stem cell research

what about cruxifying children and drinking their blood is that allowed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-22-2006 8:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 53 of 75 (351999)
09-25-2006 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mick
09-25-2006 2:02 AM


Re: I'll Play
I may be wrong here, but didn't creationism exist prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory as a part of science? I was under the impression that for a few thousand years human beings had followed the doctrines of one church another, never questioning the veracity of the claims of religious "experts". It was only when evolutionary theory became an established part of science that laypersons really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology. It was only when laypeople rejected the authority of witchdoctors and actually started to question things for themselves that the "controversy" began.

nah this is revisionism creationists are trying to claim as history, many church fathers didn't believe any of the things creationists believe now. augustine thought to take the bible as 100% fact is denying the world around us and not using our own minds

most people before the 20th century may have thought somethings had happend like the gospels, but not genesis or the flood
what really makes evolution popular i guess is it gives you another answer to the questions being asked, and more answers to questions the religlions can't answer

For creationists to pretend that they are the new kid on the block, fighting against an authoritarian structure of knowledge in the form of "Darwinism", is to read history upside down.

well the idea of god creating the earth is pretty old, but its nothing remotly like what we have now on the board.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 09-25-2006 2:02 AM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by mick, posted 09-25-2006 4:31 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 54 of 75 (352000)
09-25-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
09-22-2006 4:04 PM


Percy, please tell me this is satire and not really what you think

this sounds right out of the fundie handbook of paranoid arguments and PRATTS

i invoke poe's law!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_Law
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 09-22-2006 4:04 PM Percy has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 3215 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 55 of 75 (352005)
09-25-2006 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by ReverendDG
09-25-2006 3:36 AM


Re: I'll Play
Thanks ReverendDG and NWR,

I don't think I agree with you but I won't discuss it here as I don't want to stray off-topic. I have however proposed a new topic to discuss historical antecedents to modern-day christian fundamentalism.

Cheers
Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ReverendDG, posted 09-25-2006 3:36 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2340 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 56 of 75 (352006)
09-25-2006 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
How much investigation does the average student give in ascertaining the veractiy of such claims? Not many. Who would challenge it? On what merits would they question it in the first place? In fact, I think it would be a safe assumption to presuppose that it wasn't until creationism reared its face on the scene that the laymen really took up arms in understanding their own beliefs about biology.

you are giving creationism too much credit, waaaay too much. the fact is to question the theory you have to understand it first, going by what creation considers evolution, i doubt anyone is going to learn a damn thing from creatonists
in high school you have to learn it first,there is so much to learn you only get part of it till college. the basics help you to understand it, if you want to. the rest comes from college mostly i think
most people don't care,unless the anti-evo people say they will get their rights taken away or die or something
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6768
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 57 of 75 (352036)
09-25-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
Nemesis, I don't think that you understood Pecy's point. If the theory of evolution is false, and if the data really do not support it, then how is it that the theory of evolution exists as a single theory that most scientists accept? How is it that whenever new evidence comes up, the entire scientific establishment accepts the same revisions to the theory?

Remember, there is no "Central Committee" that acts as the clearing house for official doctrine. The theory and its revisions are accepted as a result of consensus among the scientific community.

Also, the scientific community is a very broad one, composed of many, many different individuals in many very different fields of science, in many different countries with many different social and religious backgrounds. It is difficult to figure out how some kind of "group think" could be maintained in such a large, heterogenous group of people.


"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20044
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 58 of 75 (352037)
09-25-2006 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by mick
09-25-2006 2:02 AM


Re: I'll Play in the sandbox of time
I was under the impression that for a few thousand years human beings had followed the doctrines of one church another, never questioning the veracity of the claims of religious "experts". It was only when evolutionary theory became an established part of science...

My impression is that it was the science of geoplogy that really upset the religious applecart -- a bunch of (relatively amateur) geologists all got together and decided that the age of the earth was significantly older than any age derived from the bible -- and that this predated the publishing of Darwin's books (it was also information available to Darwin via friend Charles Lyell).

The current 'fundamentalist' movement was founded in the USof(N)A well after Darwin's book, in the 1920's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist-Modernist_Controversy

As I understand it a lot of the amateur geologists were priests etc, and they also came to the same conclusions about the age of the earth.

Why they should arbitrarily choose such an interpretation of great age in spite of their proper education in religion is another question - why couldn't they interpret it as an earlier age?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by mick, posted 09-25-2006 2:02 AM mick has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 399 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 59 of 75 (352043)
09-25-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nwr
09-25-2006 2:24 AM


Re: I'll Play
I may be wrong here, but didn't creationism exist prior to the establishment of evolutionary theory as a part of science?

quote:
It is 20th century, made in America.

It depends what you mean by "creationism."

"Creation Science" is 20th century, made in the USA, while "creationism" (with a small 'c') has been around for millenia.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 09-25-2006 2:24 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18801
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 60 of 75 (352070)
09-25-2006 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
09-24-2006 8:42 PM


Re: I'll Play
nemesis_juggernaut writes:

To answer Percy's question, one has to first come to realize what they actually 'know' about evolution and what they were taught to know about evolution.

Yes, this hits upon another aspect of the problem. Too many people just accept what they're taught without questioning it. We are indeed fortunate that laypeople increasingly reject what the evolutionists attempt to ladle into their brains.

But that isn't the topic of this thread. In order to successfully battle evolution we have to understand it, and that means finding a solid answer to the question, "Why evolution?" We already know that it stems from a rejection of God's given Word in the Bible, but there must be literally hundreds of other interpretations that contradict the Bible. Why do scientists choose evolution?

I can think of a couple explanations, and here they are, but none of them feel very satisfactory:

  1. If the Bible is left aside from consideration, then a correct interpretation of the evidence leads to evolution (though I don't think anyone really believes this). We only really know what happened from reading the Bible.

  2. The evidence doesn't lead to evolution, but scientists uniformly accept evolution anyway. This just makes no sense. It feels like it requires believing in immense secret conspiracies or brainwashing on a worldwide scale.

So I just don't see any answer to the question, "Why evolution?" Until we understand why scientists seem to focus so exclusively on this answer I don't think we'll ever be able to throw the bums out.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-24-2006 8:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019