Creationist Error #1: One can not believe Evolution and still remain devout in their faith.

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

my point wasn't so much about consensus of the masses being truth- but that consensus of academic/scientific institutions can and often has been fundamentally false

So I think we agree on the principle here- it doesn't matter if 90% of a scientific institution or 90% of the masses agree- both can be entirely wrong- what matters is the evidence-

I am going to stop you right there.

If evidence truly mattered to you, you would not be contesting evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe he's referring to this quote "I don't despise religious people. I despise what they stand for." (atheist rally 2012).

Oh, here's one even better.

"I am often accused of expressing contempt and despising religious people. I don’t despise religious people, I despise what they stand for. I like, I like to quote the British journalist Johann Hari [?], who said, ‘I have no contempt for you,’ sorry, ‘I have so much respect for you, that I cannot respect your ridiculous ideas."

I actually kind'a like that view.

Thanks. One more reason to admire Dawkins.

 

[Tumah]

How does that connect to accepting the fact of evolution?

If there is doctrine that contradicts the theory of evolution, then one wouldn't be at liberty to accept it.

 

[Bunyip]

If there is doctrine that contradicts the theory of evolution, then one wouldn't be at liberty to accept it.

Is there such a doctrine in Orthodox Judaism?

 

[Tumah]

Is there such a doctrine in Orthodox Judaism?

It seems like it.

 

[Bunyip]

It seems like it.

Sorry to press you, I am just interested in the Orthodox approach - is it to do with evolution or the origins of man/life?

 

[Tumah]

Sorry to press you, I am just interested in the Orthodox approach - is it to do with evolution or the origins of man/life?

Small-scale evolution is documented in Talmudic sources.
But abiogenesis and macro-evolution seems to be at odds with doctrine regarding the creation of the world and its contents.

 

[Bunyip]

Small-scale evolution is documented in Talmudic sources.
But abiogenesis and macro-evolution seems to be at odds with doctrine regarding the creation of the world and its contents.

Thankyou. Much appreciated.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes he was referring to fossils.

OK, I understood correctly then and the quote is not out of context- if this was part of a larger point about Peruvian nose flutes, the unambiguous observation is unchanged.

I realize the observation touches a nerve, but it's truth is not even controversial- stating the obvious observation without going on to his 'suspected' excuses for the observation- is hardly quote mining!

If by 'it's as if they were just planted there' was referring to his neighbor's begonias, then yes I'd be quote mining out of context- but he was talking about fossils, the primary evidence, or lack thereof, for evolution

I head this a number of times, but I've never seen the quote referenced. Would you be so kind?

?! apparently you didn't read the quote you sent me! Let me guess- if actually reading the whole thing doesn't support your argument it's called 'quote mining'

(see quote #40, here: Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps" ).

I would not agree. I despise liars, I do not use that term lightly and without clear delineation and support. Does that disqualify me from pointing out your lies?
That's nice, but I fear I can not return the favor. Quote mining is a form of lying, especially after your error has been made clear to you. Your attempt to salvage a draw by pretending the evolution is "just a belief" and that "all beliefs are inherently equal" falls on it's face.

No not all beliefs are equal, those that acknowledge themselves are flexible subject to evidence, those that don't are not, they are ideologies, blind faith, superstition.
when you acknowledge belief and have arguments to back them up on their own merits, there is no need for ad-hominem attacks, those only weaken your position.

Again I think you are honest and intelligent, just wrong in your opinions, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I didn't read all the new posts, but Guy, you could not be more wrong if you tried to be wrong.

Science reaches its conclusions based on evidence; not faith. Evidence once lead to the conclusion that the universe was static and that atoms were blobs in something like a protoplasm. This was based on the knowledge and the power of observation we had at the time.

science yes, scientists?

that's another question and you'd have to argue your assertion with atheists like Hoyle at the time- they explicitly rejected and mocked Lemaitre's primeval atom for what THEY complained of as the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event 'religious pseudoscience' it was called, nothing to do with evidence at all.

Lemaitre in stark contrast went out of his way to separate his belief from his theory, because he could, how do you separate your personal beliefs when you don't even acknowledge you have any? That's the problem with blind faith.

Evolution is not fundamentally wrong. You, in your own way, are supporting that evolution is not fundamentally wrong because your arguments don't even address evolution. Your arguments are attacks on science in its entirety; as if science working as it is supposed to work (researching, investigating and experimenting to further understand our universe; in the process proving old conclusions wrong or refining old conclusions) is somehow supposed to disprove science.

I'm far more interested in discussing the substance, but invariably I get told that evolution must be true because so many scientists say so- so it can't even be questioned.

There is no point in scrutinizing a belief if that person does not acknowledge belief- because then its simply an 'unquestionable truth'- just like classical physics used to be....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well. Just read the first two paragraphs from Wiki about the character Guybrush from Monkey Island:
Guybrush Threepwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK so I drank a little too much grog back in the day, and did some things I regret, got a lot of bad press, but I was under a lot of pressure, you had to be there..

 

[metis]

Here's a brief summary of some Orthodox views on this:

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) has "maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis." Prominent Orthodox rabbis who have affirmed that the world is older, and that life has evolved over time include Israel Lipschitz, Sholom Mordechai Schwadron[citation needed] (the MaHaRSHaM) (1835–1911), Zvi Hirsch Chajes (1805–1855) andAbraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935). These rabbis proposed their own versions of theistic evolution, in which the world is older, and that life does evolve over time in accord with natural law, painting natural law as the process by which God drives the world.

There is, in parallel, a discussion on this subject by scientists in the Orthodox Jewish community. One of the most prominent is Gerald Schroeder, an MIT trained physicist. He has written a number of articles and popular books attempting to reconcile Jewish theology with modern scientific findings that the world is billions of years old and that life has evolved over time. His work has received approbations from a number of Orthodox rabbinic authorities. Other physicists writing on this topic include Alvin Radkowsky, Nathan Aviezer, Herman Branover,Cyril Domb, Aryeh Kaplan and Yehuda (Leo) Levi.

Various popular works, citing an array of classical, Orthodox views, attempt to reconcile traditional Jewish texts with modern scientific findings concerning evolution, the age of the earth and the age of the Universe; these include:

• Nathan Aviezer: In the Beginning, Biblical Creation and Science; Fossils and Faith: Understanding Torah and Science
• Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb, ed.: Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems
• Daniel E. Friedmann: The Genesis One Code: Demonstrates a clear alignment between the times of key events described in the Genesis with those derived from scientific observation. and The Broken Gift: Harmonizing the Biblical and scientific accounts of human origins
• Aryeh Kaplan: Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View
• Yehuda Levi: Torah and Science - Their Interplay in the World Scheme
• Jonathan Sacks: The Great Partnership: God, Science and the Search For Meaning
• Gerald Schroeder: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible; The Science of God
• Natan Slifkin: The Challenge of Creation -- Jewish views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not all Orthodox, and this is true of the other branches as well, would agree with Tumah's position. Many feel that abiogenesis and "macro-evolution" are quite acceptable as long as it is understood that God was ultimately behind it all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am going to stop you right there.

If evidence truly mattered to you, you would not be contesting evolution.

I think Dawkins summed up the lack of Cambrian evidence quite nicely, but despite being an unambiguous observation- it would be dishonest and 'quote mining' to say anything of their sudden appearance as if just planted there with no evolutionary history, so I shall avoid doing so at all costs

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I'm far more interested in discussing the substance, but invariably I get told that evolution must be true because so many scientists say so- so it can't even be questioned.

There is no point in scrutinizing a belief if that person does not acknowledge belief- because then its simply an 'unquestionable truth'- just like classical physics used to be....

Again, you are wrong.

Evolution must be true, not because so many scientists say so, but because there is so much evidence for it.

And of course evolution can be questioned; evolution SHOULD be questioned; and those who have questioned it have failed to disprove it. As many who have tried to disprove it and have failed to do so, should be a clue for you.

But I see what you are doing; by equating "faith" to "science", you, in your own mind, are placing "science" and "religion" on par with one another, believing that in doing so, you somehow "level the playing field".

Science and religion are not on par with each other, any more than belief and facts are on par with each other, any more than objectivity and subjectivity are on par with each other, any more than humans and cars are on par with each other.

You attack the scientific method and modality of scientific reasoning without even understanding it. Nothing is sacred in science; nothing is beyond being questioned. Scientific discoveries and conclusions are based on available evidence. When new evidence emerges that contradict prior conclusions, then the conclusions of science change with this new evidence.This is something that religion, in general, NEVER does.

So, no; classical physics and static universe models were never sacred or regarded as "unquestionable truth"; as there is no such thing as "unquestionable truth" in science.

But those questions must be based on something more than, "Well, I don't like how it makes me feel to think that we evolved from a common ancestor and its against my religious beliefs, so I'm just not going to agree; OK?"

LoL

The questions must be based on some kind of evidence.

Every challenge to evolution has failed.

Every single one of them.

And your challenge to evolution is empty and without substance. Your challenge is simply this: "Well, science has been wrong before!" Well, science has been right before, too.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Here is another quote from Darwin:

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, you are wrong.

Evolution must be true, not because so many scientists say so, but because there is so much evidence for it.

And of course evolution can be questioned; evolution SHOULD be questioned; and those who have questioned it have failed to disprove it. As many who have tried to disprove it and have failed to do so, should be a clue for you.

But I see what you are doing; by equating "faith" to "science", you, in your own mind, are placing "science" and "religion" on par with one another, believing that in doing so, you somehow "level the playing field".

Science and religion are not on par with each other, any more than belief and facts are on par with each other, any more than objectivity and subjectivity are on par with each other, any more than humans and cars are on par with each other.

You attack the scientific method and modality of scientific reasoning without even understanding it. Nothing is sacred in science; nothing is beyond being questioned. Scientific discoveries and conclusions are based on available evidence. When new evidence emerges that contradict prior conclusions, then the conclusions of science change with this new evidence.

So, no; classical physics and static universe models were never sacred or regarded as "unquestionable truth"; as there is no such thing as "unquestionable truth" in science.

But those questions must be based on something more than, "Well, I don't like how it makes me feel to think that we evolved from a common ancestor and its against my religious beliefs, so I'm just not going to agree; OK?"

LoL

Every challenge to evolution has failed.

Every single one of them.

I'm a great fan of the scientific method, as were Planck, Lemaitre- who also would point out to you that the ideals of science and the reality of academic institutions are often diametrically opposed to each other


“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Planck

Many extraordinary principles of science have been accepted by humanity where they are demonstrable, subatomic physics is put to repeatable experiment and predictable demonstrable results every day, this is the scientific method and this is why they are accepted as truth, not just by an academic elite.


Static universes and the omnipotent nature of classical physics were only ever accepted by a small mostly academic atheistic minority

Likewise evolution was proposed 150 years ago and still fails to convince more than a small mostly academic minority.

People are willing to accept evidence, but that evidence has to be something more than feeling uncomfortable with theistic implications, accounting for fossils that appear planted without evolutionary history as Dawkins puts it, would be more convincing than simply 'despising creationists' as he admits.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here is another quote from Darwin:

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history."

Its interesting that the same observation of no evolutionary history has remained consistent from Darwin's day till Dawkins' !

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Now you are showing the fallacy of "selection bias"; Dawkins clearly explains in his quote the reason he chose the words that he chose; yet you to continue to quote mine him. Thus, you have selected the information that supports your unsupportable position and ignored the rest.

Many extraordinary principles of science have been accepted by humanity where they are demonstrable, subatomic physics is put to repeatable experiment and predictable demonstrable results every day, this is the scientific method and this is why they are accepted as truth, not just by an academic elite.

Again, you insist on believing that "how many people" believe in a given thing is important. This line of thought has already been pointed out to you to be in error and you even mention this as a thinking error when you point out your own examples.

Why do you insist on using a known fallacy as a defense for your position? Why do you insist on using a fallacy that you KNOW is a fallacy in defense of your position?

Static universes and the omnipotent nature of classical physics were only ever accepted by a small mostly academic atheistic minority

Again, you are completely wrong!!

The Expanding Universe (Cosmology: Ideas)

In the early 20th century the common worldview held that the universe is static — more or less the same throughout eternity.

Likewise evolution was proposed 150 years ago and still fails to convince more than a small mostly academic minority.

Why do you continue to hold on to this provably false idea!?

Acceptance of evolution - RationalWiki

1. "[A]dults with some understanding of genetics are more likely to have a positive attitude toward evolution."[1]
2. 97.3% of Biological Sciences department heads accept there is no scientific controversy over evolution.[2]
3. Only 700 out of 480,000 earth and life scientists (0.14%) subscribe to literal biblical creationism.[3]
4. Acceptance of evolution tends to increase with level of education.[4][5]
5. It's not limited to the non-religious, see Theistic evolution. Over 12,000 U.S. Christian clergy accept evolution.[6]
6. The first known case of science-based evolution acceptance dates back to Charles Darwin's explication of natural selection in 1837.[7]

The claims you make are so easily refuted by a mere 3 minute Google search.

Not only is the "controversy" surrounding Evolution primarily a religious one; it is also appallingly (and embarrassingly) an American one!

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now you are showing the fallacy of "selection bias"; Dawkins clearly explains in his quote the reason he chose the words that he chose; yet you to continue to quote mine him. Thus, you have selected the information that supports your unsupportable position and ignored the rest.



Again, you insist on believing that "how many people" believe in a given thing is important. This line of thought has already been pointed out to you to be in error and you even mention this as a thinking error when you point out your own examples.

Why do you insist on using a known fallacy as a defense for your position? Why do you insist on using a fallacy that you KNOW is a fallacy in defense of your position?



Again, you are completely wrong!!

The Expanding Universe (Cosmology: Ideas)

In the early 20th century the common worldview held that the universe is static — more or less the same throughout eternity.



Why do you continue to hold on to this provably false idea!?

Acceptance of evolution - RationalWiki

1. "[A]dults with some understanding of genetics are more likely to have a positive attitude toward evolution."[1]
2. 97.3% of Biological Sciences department heads accept there is no scientific controversy over evolution.[2]
3. Only 700 out of 480,000 earth and life scientists (0.14%) subscribe to literal biblical creationism.[3]
4. Acceptance of evolution tends to increase with level of education.[4][5]
5. It's not limited to the non-religious, see Theistic evolution. Over 12,000 U.S. Christian clergy accept evolution.[6]
6. The first known case of science-based evolution acceptance dates back to Charles Darwin's explication of natural selection in 1837.[7]

The claims you make are so easily refuted by a mere 3 minute Google search.

Not only is the "controversy" surrounding Evolution primarily a religious one; it is also appallingly (and embarrassingly) an American one!

U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution

most recent gallup poll puts belief in fundamentalist evolution (without any involvement from God) at 19% in the US- it's far lower in many other places- 8% in Brazil-
we covered this and links are provided earlier if you are interested

I'm sure you can get higher numbers if you are selective- 99.9% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts- and they're the experts!

most people believed the universe was created in a specific event as the Bible and science- not static/eternal/uncreated as academics and atheists preferred, this is hardly controversial! It's right there on the first page if you don't believe me.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Okay. Keep your lame beliefs. Keep telling yourself that the uneducated, undereducated masses have any credibility in determining evolution. For anyone else reading this, I would say that this is really stupid -- I mean stupid -- to believe that uneducated, undereducated,unknowledgeable people's opinions count for anything regarding a subject of which they know little, or nothing about. I mean, really. This is tantamount to asking your 3 year old where babies come from, and accepting what that 3 year old says as truth.