If Evolution is Not True...

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

 

[sun rise]

Personally I see no value in "debating" the fact of evolution with people who don't or won't accept science.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

There's no "evolution debate" nor is it "going on forever".

It's scientific fact.

People who deny it are kidding themselves.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, we're accumulating evidence for the hypothesis that "agreement is the antithesis of conversation."

 

[Skwim]

If evolution isn't true (God forbid. ) then creationism is true by default because................................................................................well because that's what creationists say. Why else would they continually attack evolution if it wasn't? They ain't stupid ya know. .............Ya know!

.

 

[pearl]

Following the "Big Bang" the Hypercycle together with the green algae and oxidation provide the possibilities for Life and thus for the appearance of man; the principles of self- organization and self-correction are givens. For modern man it is difficult to accept the idea that what is essential to his creativity is already a "given". But because of its own inner logic, all rational, discursive thinking ends "naturally" with the rationalistically unanswerable question "What or who is the agent outside the universe which provided this 'given' in the first place?" 'The Structure of Biblical Myths"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

Interesting questions, and if I were to try and put myself in the shoes of a believer, I suppose I would have to turn to Satan as an explanation for the "bad guys" (note: not my interpretation). Though not a "creator", perhaps Satan has the ability to sway or affect the aspect of some creatures toward the negative. Although, I suppose that in itself would be a form of mutation or evolution.

Boy... arguing from the side of belief is actually pretty tough.

 

[Kemosloby]

Evolution is partially true. As we can see by the bible, God sometimes does things in a natural way, and sometimes in a special way. Hypothetically, If God created one seed and all life, save man who was created seperate, developed from that one seed, God created all life by making that seed.

 

[siti]

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

Well, of course you have misinterpreted the entire notion of creationism and intelligent design. It is perfectly obvious that the polio and smallpox viruses belong to virus-kind and can thus change in response to environmental and biological circumstances - such as undoubtedly arose in the Garden of Eden about 6000 or so years ago shortly after God created them all. As a result of one man's disobedience, the entire world was subjected to the influence of a talking snake called Satan. Human-kind began to die before they had even reached a thousand years of age, virus-kind morphed into a death-dealing parody of it's Creator's original intent and amoeba-kind and revolting-parasite-kind took on an ugly appearance that was never meant to be by the Creator. The arch-enemy, Satan then set about deliberately digging holes all over the planet in which to place the bones of long-dead things in rocks that appear to the uninformed science-believer to be much older than they really are so that men would be subjected to the ignominiously ill-informed notion that they had evolved from brute beasts. Of course, only the faithful will see through this ruse of Satanic subterfuge and deception. The entire world - not just the WHO - is indeed the enemy of the true God and if those buggers believe in evolution (and God-forbid probably climate change and any other God-defying baseless propaganda that I don't agree with) then they are part of the great Satanic conspiracy too. Ultimately they will all burn in hell, whilst I, in my Christ-like compassion, laugh my a*** off in glee at their downfall. And what is more - you cannot post a single shred of evidence to prove that what I am saying is not true. (And even if you do, I'll just pretend not to notice it and repeat the claim that you can't post it over and over until you finally give up and I claim victory).

There - stick that in your commie evolutionary pipe and smoke it!

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Evolution is partially true. As we can see by the bible, God sometimes does things in a natural way, and sometimes in a special way. Hypothetically, If God created one seed and all life, save man who was created seperate, developed from that one seed, God created all life by making that seed.

Yeah he intentionally misleads by being vague in his book that he spreads with humans from one place, wants us to believe in him, punishes us if we do not, is omnipotent, and is omnibenevolent........

Or he is not real....whichever makes sense to you.

 

[Skwim]

Evolution is partially true. As we can see by the bible, God sometimes does things in a natural way, and sometimes in a special way. Hypothetically, If God created one seed and all life, save man who was created seperate, developed from that one seed, God created all life by making that seed.

And as has been explain many times, origins is not a concern of evolution, only the diversity of life and how it comes about.

.

 

[Nietzsche]

Yeah he intentionally misleads by being vague in his book that he spreads with humans from one place, wants us to believe in him, punishes us if we do not, is omnipotent, and is omnibenevolent........

Or he is not real....whichever makes sense to you.

Don't forget he also apparently crafted the earth to make it seem like everything happened naturally, effectively telling us to ignore over-whelming evidence in favour of blind, baseless faith.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Interesting questions, and if I were to try and put myself in the shoes of a believer, I suppose I would have to turn to Satan as an explanation for the "bad guys" (note: not my interpretation). Though not a "creator", perhaps Satan has the ability to sway or affect the aspect of some creatures toward the negative. Although, I suppose that in itself would be a form of mutation or evolution.
Boy... arguing from the side of belief is actually pretty tough.

My understanding is that Satan does have the ability to sway or affect.....in that Satan brings 'woe' to Earth according to Revelation 12:9,12 deceiving or misleading the world world of mankind.
Just as in Eden, Satan could have used that serpent as a ventriloquist uses a dummy.
So, Satan is a behind the scenes Puppeteer influencing people.
The 'spirit of the world' even pervades the air waves (TV/Radio, etc.) which often reflects the mind of Satan.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yeah he intentionally misleads by being vague in his book that he spreads with humans from one place, wants us to believe in him, punishes us if we do not, is omnipotent, and is omnibenevolent........
Or he is not real....whichever makes sense to you.

Who is being punished, where ?
From what I see, people are doing what they want to do without interference, unless from some other human.
We have two choices ' repent ' if we do Not want to ' perish ' ( be destroyed ) according to 2 Peter 3:9.
There is No double jeopardy connected to perishing, but just being destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Who is being punished, where ?
From what I see, people are doing what they want to do without interference, unless from some other human.

........then why is there a whole field of philosophy based on ethics? Most of which are completely secular?

Why am I a atheist pacifist that came from a military family then?

 

[Repox]

It could be the two perspectives are correct. God designed the universe and evolution on earth was part of that design. If we could only know about God's plan and its purpose, then we might know more about the particulars.

 

[Altfish]

Well, if evolution isn't happening (as in this thought experiment) there doesn't need to be a panic over antibiotics anymore. I knew there'd be at least one good outcome.

 

[Tomyris]

The Evolution debate goes on forever, of course, and I strongly doubt that either side will ever stand down. Each side for their own reasons, of course (for better or worse)!

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

There are, as one might expect, consequences that can be understood if this is the case. Most obviously, life had to have been either created, or always have existed -- those are the only two possibilities. This would also be entirely true of every species of life, if we accept that one species cannot give rise to another -- that (as I've heard approximately a zillion times to often!) "cat's can't turn into dogs!" (Which of course is also not part of evolution, but one can't expect understanding from everybody, can one?)

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

Let us now look at the causes of polio and smallpox, which have both been eradicated in the most of the first world, along with a host of horrible other creatures, from amoebae to revolting parasites.

If polio and smallpox were created (as they must have been if evolution [and abiogenesis] is false), and if they were created with a purpose -- then the first world effort of the last century to eradicate them in the first world, and the present effort to eradicate them everywhere, is an attempt by humans to thwart that purpose. If the creator in question is "God," as usually defined in the Abrahamic religions, how do we justify trying to defeat the Creator's (God's) purpose? Are we capable of determining that that purpose was wrong? Is the World Health Organization (WHO) the enemy of at least some of God's purposes on earth?

There'll be more, but I'll leave it there for now...looking forward to responses.

I don't think you can make the assumption of deistic creation simply from an absence of evolutionary theory. The story provided by evolution is pseudo-theology which provides the modern world with part of its mythology. Biological science frankly melts much more often than that in other fields, whereas the evolutionary theory has been held fixed since the 19th century for basically ideological reasons, some of which supported most of the 20th century's killing.

So if we don't have evolutionary theory, then what? Well, we're discovering an entire field of Lamarckian epigenetics these days, though we're not allowed to call it that, because Darwin was right is a canonical received gospel of "science". That goes away, and we can start to conduct serious work into heredity. But more seriously, we start to return to a holistic view of the world, a premodern conception, in which an ecosystem is greater than the sum of its parts. Species certainly are recognized to adapt, but the mediating force is held at a respectful remove from our interaction with them, which is the critically important thing, and we can start respecting nature as a holy thing, rather than debasing both it and ourselves as creatures of the "sexual selection".

To go back to the real point, a bit beyond this thought exercise, of course species change and adapt according to the environmental conditions they find themselves in. So do humans, and indeed, so do human cultures. But the picture of this is far more complex than simple Darwinian evolution as still propounded by individuals like Dawkins et. al. and the picture that comes from strictly Darwinian evolution is a bleak, pitiless picture which has been used to justify racial holocaust and sexist subjugation of womankind alike, while slowing down biological-technical research and preventing us from maintaining a society capable of helping individuals, by denying the influence and importance of epigenetic heredity.

But doing that would run counter to the orthodoxy of established science, so we are left with these ferocious science-defenders, most being second-rate "scientists" themselves, policing the diversity of scientific endeavour.

Theories that incorporate ideas which negatively impact society are not worth having even if they are statistically more likely. Evolution refers to a set of events, and while those events are biologically important, they have been put into a framework which has had evil consequences for societies of the world in general. It would be better to disassociate the biological from the evolutionary framework and instead place it firmly into an ecological one, which is essentially congruous with conceptions of virtue and harmony across all cultures.

 

[Windwalker]

But for this one thread, let's just assume that Evolution is not true, that Darwin was wrong, that species cannot give rise to other species, that non-life cannot give rise to life (abiogenesis, which is of course not part of Darwin's theory, but let's allow it in for this one thread).

We'd have to do more than assume Darwin was wrong. We'd have to assume scientists in a myriad of the different branches of science have read and tested the data over the last 150 years have no idea what they are doing.

But for arguments sake, let's say we had NONE of that data that scientists have discovered and confirmed in all this time. What would we have? Very simple. We'd be living in a premodern, prescientific era where we attributed natural events to supernatural explanations; disease caused by spirits, hurricanes are God's wrath, etc.

We'd be living in the dark ages, and we would not be having this discussion on computers or an Internet which never could be created by pre-scientific, premodern humans. We'd be throwing stones at each other saying our particular creation myths were the right ones and the other tribes' stories were false because ours were right. And we wouldn't know any better. It would not be this world we know today.

That's what it would look like.

 

[Polymath257]

What if geocentrism is true?