Evolution 'controversy'.

[PennyKay]

What is it that stops creationists having trust in science, and not jut looking at science critically (which is a good thing) but look at their religion critically too.

The intelligent design debate (mainly in America) has fueled much discussion over science and religion. Many creationists such as Concerned Women for America president, Wendy Wright, insists on teaching the 'controversy' on evolution, but don't want to teach the 'controversy' on their religion, in schools.

I would love to know why this is fair? What makes creationists so adamant to argue evolution when there is so much evidence for it and no evidence for creation?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I would think that you could divine that creationists wish to justify their theology with scientific authority. Unfortunately for them, science as a whole has thoroughly proven the theories of evolution that the creationists reject a priori so they can hold to their interpretation of Genesis.

Creationists aren't just interested in lying about science to fit their view, they are threatened by the possibility of changing everything that they know about God.

It's part of their cosmological theology: if this one thing is wrong about God, then their entire understanding of God and the cosmos falls apart. That's a significant threat.

 

[Wotan]

I would think that you could divine that creationists wish to justify their theology with scientific authority. Unfortunately for them, science as a whole has thoroughly proven the theories of evolution that the creationists reject a priori so they can hold to their interpretation of Genesis.

Creationists aren't just interested in lying about science to fit their view, they are threatened by the possibility of changing everything that they know about God.

It's part of their cosmological theology: if this one thing is wrong about God, then their entire understanding of God and the cosmos falls apart. That's a significant threat.

Indeed that IS the problem. And it is inescapable for the big 3. If god doesn't say what he means and mean what he says what about god can be trusted?

Once you adopt the 'This is the Truth, the ONLY Truth and the Whole Truth revealed w/o error' position any little thing is fatal.

 

[Venatoris]

Indeed that IS the problem. And it is inescapable for the big 3. If god doesn't say what he means and mean what he says what about god can be trusted?

Once you adopt the 'This is the Truth, the ONLY Truth and the Whole Truth revealed w/o error' position any little thing is fatal.

IMO this is exactly why creationists can't play in the big leagues. When you believe that one flaw will topple your whole tower, you assume the same rule applies to those who disagree with you.

If that is your starting point, you have no reason to study evolutionary theory in depth and look at all the evidence. As soon as you perceive a flaw in the material(whether it really exists or not) in your mind you have destroyed the whole tower. If this is all it takes for you to feel secure in your beliefs you have no reason to actually build a scientific base for your own theory and back it up with evidence.

I hear flippant remarks about taxonomy and "Genesis kinds" but I have yet to see anyone actually reclassify and group together all the different species in a better way to support their beliefs. These Intelligent design "scientists" have been around far too long to not have formulated any comprehensive/cohesive data, so where is it?

 

[evolved yet?]

I hear flippant remarks about taxonomy and "Genesis kinds" but I have yet to see anyone actually reclassify and group together all the different species in a better way to support their beliefs. These Intelligent design "scientists" have been around far too long to not have formulated any comprehensive/cohesive data, so where is it?

Many Intelligent designers don't believe in kinds, Michael Behe actually believes in universal common descent, but also that it was theisticly guided. I'm not here to debate it, just wanted to clarify.

 

[newhope101]

IMO this is exactly why creationists can't play in the big leagues. When you believe that one flaw will topple your whole tower, you assume the same rule applies to those who disagree with you.

If that is your starting point, you have no reason to study evolutionary theory in depth and look at all the evidence. As soon as you perceive a flaw in the material(whether it really exists or not) in your mind you have destroyed the whole tower. If this is all it takes for you to feel secure in your beliefs you have no reason to actually build a scientific base for your own theory and back it up with evidence.

I hear flippant remarks about taxonomy and "Genesis kinds" but I have yet to see anyone actually reclassify and group together all the different species in a better way to support their beliefs. These Intelligent design "scientists" have been around far too long to not have formulated any comprehensive/cohesive data, so where is it?

Researchers that support TOE themselves find discrepancies and argue amongst themselves. There is much more than ' a flaw', to be concerned about.

Equally some creationists wonder why, with all the discrepencies and contradictions, some choose to keep the faith in ToE!

Perhaps, we were not created nor did we evolve. Maybe we are really cyber people participating in a virtual game with aliens at the controls, and we aren't really here at all.

 

[PolyHedral]

I would like to point out that I haven't seen any contradictions in evolution, but several instances where we say "We can't decide whether X or Y was what happened." That is entirely valid, and is actually a mark of good science.

 

[Noaidi]

I would like to point out that I haven't seen any contradictions in evolution, but several instances where we say "We can't decide whether X or Y was what happened." That is entirely valid, and is actually a mark of good science.

Good point. There is no 'controversy' as far as ToE is concerned. The notion of a controversy is promoted by creationists / ID proponents in order to give the (false) impression that biologists are in fierce debate over evolution. This so-called division gives them an entry point through which they can promote their brand of 'science'. Teachers are sometimes asked to 'teach the controversy' in the class (ie give equal time to established evolutionary theory and christian-based creationism).
Sure, there are debates regarding specifics, but that applies to all fields of inquiry.

 

[Venatoris]

Researchers that support TOE themselves find discrepancies and argue amongst themselves.

That's how science works. It keeps everybody honest.

Equally some creationists wonder why, with all the discrepencies and contradictions, some choose to keep the faith in ToE!

Ever noticed that creationists never seem to find any discrepancies in their own work? I haven't heard of a single case of argument and revision of theory within the creation/ID community. Have you?

Perhaps, we were not created nor did we evolve. Maybe we are really cyber people participating in a virtual game with aliens at the controls, and we aren't really here at all.

"REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM!" :magic:

 

[LuisDantas]

Researchers that support TOE themselves find discrepancies and argue amongst themselves. There is much more than ' a flaw', to be concerned about.

Wrong. There are disagreements about various points, of course. And they are far too minor to characterize anything resembling a "controversy" about the ToE itself. Particularly when the evidence is so well-established.

Equally some creationists wonder why, with all the discrepencies and contradictions, some choose to keep the faith in ToE!

Such is the effect of propaganda and misinformation. It has nothing to do with the ToE - or for that matter, with faith.

Perhaps, we were not created nor did we evolve. Maybe we are really cyber people participating in a virtual game with aliens at the controls, and we aren't really here at all.

At some level everything is possible. But not everything is well-supported by fact, evidence and experimentations.

 

[Anaximander]

I would think that you could divine that creationists wish to justify their theology with scientific authority. Unfortunately for them, science as a whole has thoroughly proven the theories of evolution that the creationists reject a priori so they can hold to their interpretation of Genesis.

Creationists aren't just interested in lying about science to fit their view, they are threatened by the possibility of changing everything that they know about God.

It's part of their cosmological theology: if this one thing is wrong about God, then their entire understanding of God and the cosmos falls apart. That's a significant threat.

Very interesting angellous_evangellous. You can see the battle of two worldviews, one that embraces a foundation in authority from God and another that embraces a foundation in rational thought.

best,

 

[Runewolf1973]

What is it that stops creationists having trust in science, and not jut looking at science critically (which is a good thing) but look at their religion critically too.

The intelligent design debate (mainly in America) has fueled much discussion over science and religion. Many creationists such as Concerned Women for America president, Wendy Wright, insists on teaching the 'controversy' on evolution, but don't want to teach the 'controversy' on their religion, in schools.

I would love to know why this is fair? What makes creationists so adamant to argue evolution when there is so much evidence for it and no evidence for creation?

Give it another 100 years or so....we won't have to worry out the religion vs science debate. It seems to me that relgion is something the majority of people (that I notice anyways) are born into...their parents were Chrisitian for instance...so they raise their children as Christians. But the time is coming where more and more young people these days are favoring science over "salvation". Those young people will go on to raise their children about science and evolution. I feel that in another 100 years all the "Gods" remaining will go the way of the Greek gods...myth and legend. So basically creationists are so adamant about defending their religion because they have the most to lose. What do atheists have to lose? It can be both good and bad in a way. Religion over the centuries has definitely spiced up our world history....maybe soured it a bit too in some ways.

 

[McBell]

Ever noticed that creationists never seem to find any discrepancies in their own work? I haven't heard of a single case of argument and revision of theory within the creation/ID community. Have you?

Well, I hear tell that actually having a theory would help...

Just saying.

 

[evolved yet?]

Give it another 100 years or so....we won't have to worry out the religion vs science debate. It seems to me that relgion is something the majority of people (that I notice anyways) are born into...their parents were Chrisitian for instance...so they raise their children as Christians. But the time is coming where more and more young people these days are favoring science over "salvation". Those young people will go on to raise their children about science and evolution. I feel that in another 100 years all the "Gods" remaining will go the way of the Greek gods...myth and legend. So basically creationists are so adamant about defending their religion because they have the most to lose. What do atheists have to lose? It can be both good and bad in a way. Religion over the centuries has definitely spiced up our world history....maybe soured it a bit too in some ways.

A lot of people thought the Hollow Earthists would die too but they are all over the internet

 

[Half Asleep]

Researchers that support TOE themselves find discrepancies and argue amongst themselves. There is much more than ' a flaw', to be concerned about.

Again, you demonstrate your demonstrable lack of understanding regarding the scientific method.

 

[Man of Faith]

There are many definitions of evolution and many of the definitions are scientific. Therefore there will be plenty of evidence of evolution. Creationists accept evolution to a point. The problem comes in when the concluson of what we see becomes evidence of what we don't see. What we are taught is evolution did its think in the darkness of the past and we just have to accept it. That isn't science.

 

[Willamena]

A lot of people thought the Hollow Earthists would die too but they are all over the internet

To be fair, being "all over the Internet" is as easy as copying a single webpage dozens of times.

 

[Willamena]

There are many definitions of evolution and many of the definitions are scientific. Therefore there will be plenty of evidence of evolution. Creationists accept evolution to a point. The problem comes in when the concluson of what we see becomes evidence of what we don't see. What we are taught is evolution did its think in the darkness of the past and we just have to accept it. That isn't science.

But "the conclusion of what we see becomes evidence of what we don't see" is precisely "belief in God."

 

[Man of Faith]

But "the conclusion of what we see becomes evidence of what we don't see" is precisely "belief in God."

Here is the difference. Creationists don't have a problem admitting that, evolutionists do. Ones worldview determines what they believe. I will admit that all day long. But evolutinists will say they have science on their side when they really don't. They have the commonly accepted theory is all, not anything that can be proven. They have a requirement of naturalism on their side is all.

 

[PolyHedral]

Of course it can't be proven; Neither can gravity. Doesn't mean it can't be treated as "true" for almost all intents and purposes.