Creationist Error #5: Evolution = Religion

[Monk Of Reason]

Right, that's what most believe if they believe in evolution then yes?,- that it's a natural process. Most people don't believe in the 'natural' process- we think it requires a supernatural direction to work.

Its because most people are theists. They can't have a world view that doesn't include god and evolution is undeniable. So they often make a middle ground where obviously evolution is true but it was god doing the work the whole time.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

the belief that humans evolved purely by chance with no guidance from God- Darwinism in effect- 19% in US

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends

Tiz sad that 81% of Americans don't understand evolution. I can't say I am surprised though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Its because most people are theists. They can't have a world view that doesn't include god and evolution is undeniable. So they often make a middle ground where obviously evolution is true but it was god doing the work the whole time.

Well it's personal semantics again- =I'd agree with:

'For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution'. The Blind Watchmaker (1996)

If evolution can be defined as a steady incremental purely natural process of random mutation and natural selection with no design

and also the method by which intelligent designs are manifested, resulting in sudden appearances and explosions of species in the fossil record.

Then the word means about as much as 'climate change' it's whatever we want it to mean.

The actual beliefs remain distinct though, fluke v design

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well it's personal semantics again- =I'd agree with:

'For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was no evolution at all. It made a nonsense of the central point of evolution'. The Blind Watchmaker (1996)

If evolution can be defined as a steady incremental purely natural process of random mutation and natural selection with no design

and also the method by which intelligent designs are manifested, resulting in sudden appearances and explosions of species in the fossil record.

Then the word means about as much as 'climate change' it's whatever we want it to mean.

The actual beliefs remain distinct though, fluke v design

The issue again is actually
Evidence vs No evidence.
Most people have come to the conclusion that their beliefs cannot be upheld with evidence. They cannot deny the evidence of evolution so they make a last ditch attempt to conserve their faith by saying that the evidence isn't contradictory to their beliefs which have no evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The issue again is actually
Evidence vs No evidence.
Most people have come to the conclusion that their beliefs cannot be upheld with evidence. They cannot deny the evidence of evolution so they make a last ditch attempt to conserve their faith by saying that the evidence isn't contradictory to their beliefs which have no evidence.

there are few terms more subjective than evidence

 

[Monk Of Reason]

there are few terms more subjective than evidence

Not scientifically. There is no subjectivity at all.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

there are few terms more subjective than evidence

You believe that because you don't respect evidence. Since you don't respect evidence, there is no evidence anyone can offer that you will respect.

 

[Yerda]

The main aspect- that species evolved through millions of small incremental lucky random changes- this has not been observed- it is assumed.

OK. Do you accept that populations change over time as a result of genetic mechanisms?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK. Do you accept that populations change over time as a result of genetic mechanisms?

Yes, I accept what we can actually observe, the scientific part, e.g. gene pools are altered as populations mix

 

[Yerda]

Yes, I accept what we can actually observe, the scientific part, e.g. gene pools are altered as populations mix

OK. I'm trying to get a handle on your perspective. Do you accept the idea that the difference in our physiology is caused by the differences in our genes?

 

[McBell]

there are few terms more subjective than evidence

Only because creationists like to hide behind their preferred definition whilst ignoring the rest.

Granted, non-creationists really do need to start specifying which kind of evidence.

 

[McBell]

Yes, I accept what we can actually observe, the scientific part, e.g. gene pools are altered as populations mix

Interesting.
You only accept from science what can be observed?
Why do you not apply the same to your beliefs?

 

[leibowde84]

well classical physics was first red flagged for what it failed to account for, rather than anything quantum physics objectively provided as an alternative.

But
ToE made a clear prediction that natural history would show smooth steady incremental improvements
ID predicted sudden jumps, explosions of life 'as if planted there with no evolutionary history' you might say?

Other than objective observation, we can also test the process, repeat the experiment, the algorithm of random change and selection, and it does not cause continual improvements and emergent properties that are not explicitly selected for , let alone cause computers to spontaneously develop sentience and ponder their own existence, ever.

it ultimately gets back to power of explanation

In a casino where a guy plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we only have evidence of a random card generator, which we know is capable of producing that result with the same probability as any other sequence of the same number of cards. We have no evidence of cheating, in fact the situation actively seeks to prevent it.

Yet we'd both determine that in this case 'fluke is too far out to buy into, so 'ID' must have something to do with it'

Because the tiny odds of fluke are easily overcome by the tiniest possibility of cheating. That's the power of explanation purpose has over nature, it does not need to rely on staggeringly remote chance to play strings of winning hands.

Again you are merely providing faults with the toe, and speculation as to why you think id makes sense. Do you have any separate evidence for id?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again you are merely providing faults with the toe, and speculation as to why you think id makes sense. Do you have any separate evidence for id?

As above, one theory predicted smooth gradual change, the other sudden appearances, explosions 'as if planted with no evolutionary history'. Also that neither the process nor it's origins could be replicated, and would not be found to have created sentient life on other planets, credit where it's due, we have no proof either way, but predictive ability is certainly evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Me too!

'it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there with no evolutionary history' (Dawkins)
'Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent...'(Gould)

The broken record continues to spin.

Don't bother quote mining to me. Especially something I've now been over twice with you before and showed you how badly you had mangled the quote.

Do you think I've forgotten that already? Or have you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The broken record continues to spin.

Don't bother quote mining to me. Especially something I've now been over twice with you before and showed you how badly you had mangled the quote.

Do you think I've forgotten that already? Or have you?

incase you missed/forgot the larger quote/context- here it is,

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK. I'm trying to get a handle on your perspective. Do you accept the idea that the difference in our physiology is caused by the differences in our genes?

I have a fairly mainstream perspective, I accept a large degree of natural history, the fossil record as is without the creative gap filling-
But I'm skeptical that random mutations can create a human from a molecule. As mentioned that applies to >80% of the population in the US.

 

[SkepticThinker]

incase you missed/forgot the larger quote/context- here it is,

"In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins

So you've forgotten that we've already discussed this quote mine several times now? Not my problem, and it doesn't mean you get to just keep rehashing it anew every few days.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I have a fairly mainstream perspective, I accept a large degree of natural history, the fossil record as is without the creative gap filling-
But I'm skeptical that random mutations can create a human from a molecule. As mentioned that applies to >80% of the population in the US.

I can actually empathize with this Guy, as I understand that ToE is a lot to take in -- to imagine the diversity, complexity, tenacity of life beginning with a single-celled organism and contemplating the fact that all life is somehow related ... it is a lot to take in, especially when one has been previously indoctrinated. I have a certain amount of empathy for you in this regard.

But your quote mining, your insistence that science is somehow as arbitrary and vague as religion or philosophy ... I have no patience for that kind of utter ignorance.

But do everyone here a favor and stop quoting from books that I'm positive you've never read. I'm confident you have not read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins; and if I'm wrong, then your quote mining, assigning an idea to Dawkins which he never postulated, would make you an outright liar.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I can actually empathize with this Guy, as I understand that ToE is a lot to take in -- to imagine the diversity, complexity, tenacity of life beginning with a single-celled organism and contemplating the fact that all life is somehow related ... it is a lot to take in, especially when one has been previously indoctrinated. I have a certain amount of empathy for you in this regard.

But your quote mining, your insistence that science is somehow as arbitrary and vague as religion or philosophy ... I have no patience for that kind of utter ignorance.

But do everyone here a favor and stop quoting from books that I'm positive you've never read. I'm confident you have not read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins; and if I'm wrong, then your quote mining, assigning an idea to Dawkins which he never postulated, would make you an outright liar.

sticks and stones ... I don't think you are a liar or ignorant or indoctrinated or pitiful, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person to me, capable of critical thought.

None of this alters the observational evidence in question, or lack thereof as Dawkins conceeds to.

I can understand and empathize that this and many other observations that have come to light since Darwin- touch a nerve with some people. Evolution is a highly beloved theory, so was classical physics. The ultraviolet 'catastrophe' was so named for the discomfort of seeing a theory hitherto considered 'immutable' go through it's death throes.

I have no problem with evolution being true if evidence supported it, I was raised believing in it, I'm interested in the truth either way.