Do you always twist people's words, or only when they disagree with you about evolution?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Putting the JW Stand on Evolution into Perspective
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Yes, we have a JW just across the street who has a farm similar to ours.
McBell
Unbound
No they don't.
Not even close.
They reject evolution on religious grounds and try in vain to stuff science into their belief box.
McBell
Unbound
McBell
Unbound
Only if you completely ignore all the bad "designs".
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I have only gone through a few so far. For exaple the biochemist in belgium actually works with photovoltaics and lasers. The second one I can only ever find through creatinoist sources at all. A few more of similar stories but there has already been a good response to this post by another poster.
I noticed you slipped in a few ringers---non-biologists. Naughty, naughty! In any case, it's well known that there are a few scientists who don't acknowledge evolution; however, consider Project Steve.
NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, NCSE supporter, and friend.
I do hope this list and others put to rest the notion that only believers in the ToE are credible scientists. BTW, how do you suppose such a notion took hold, that no credible scientist rejects the ToE? You don't suppose it came from people like Richard Dawkins, do you? He said, "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)" That false claim, that no credible scientists reject evolution, is outright fraud, IMO. However many scientists do reject the ToE, privately for justifiable fear of retribution, or publicly as some scientists have courageously done, I believe the numbers are significant and growing.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Oh, I am sorry. Were you trying to be petty?
Usually I am fair. But I have been none to mirror passive aggressive or derisive behavior once it is presented.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Cant say. And personally, I've never heard it.
No it isn't. Fraud implies deliberate deceit, and I see no reason Dawkins would bother to deceive anyone about his conclusion. But what other category do you think there is? We have:
Ignorant
Stupid
Insane
Wicked
Personally, I believe the vast majority of those who reject evolution are ignorant (includes most creationists); some just plain stupid (includes a decent number of creationists), a very few insane (perhaps a handful of creationists), and maybe a smattering who are wicked (probably more than we think).Stupid
Insane
Wicked
"Many" is a gross overstatement. It implies a large number, and there is no large number of scientists who reject evolution.
According to the graph your "many" turns out to be 2%. At least 97% of scientists accept some form of evolution.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Morphology, their physical characteristics are very similar, and genetics. Both share an inordinate amount of DNA. Their genetic differences are extremely small.
Gotta remember that evolution is driven by the need to adapt, and that not all populations of an organism are necessarily confronted by this need or the same need. So, while one population of wolves may have been forced to change in order to survive, another population may not have been and continued to reproduce as they always had. And, another population may have been forced to adapt in a much different way than the first population.Giving us three versions---species, or subspecies perhaps.
Just as an FYI, wolves and dogs are the same species Canis lupus; Eurasian wolves comprising the subspecies C. l. lupus, and dogs making up the subspecies C.l. familiaris. (Canis lupus, has 40 subspecies)
This comes down to the details of biological investigation, none of which has any place in a book written for the lay reader. There is indeed physical evidence, but it no doubt lies in scientific papers neither you nor I could easily understand.
And I doubt that he presented such speculation as solid evidence--Dawkins is a very careful writer.
Last edited:
The same reason that there are still Europeans despite the fact that the United States was founded by Europeans: not all wolf populations evolved into domestic dogs anymore than all European populations became American. Wolves and dogs also readily interbreed. They are classified by some scientists as being the same species.
Not just because he says it, but because broccoli, kale and cabbage are all different cultivars of the same species (Brassica oleracea). Like with wolves and dogs, they can be crossed with each other.
That makes sense... thanks. I am not sure on the margin of error.
Ok so you met one and this now makes you an expert on them...
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
He explains that in the book. Are you sure you've read it?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
You believe that God did it, and you don't know how he did it, but you're absolutely sure that God could not have done it through evolution. You see that as impossible? Is it easier to believe God poofed things into existence or is it easier to believe God created a universe that could produce life? After all, the scriptures says that God commanded the sky, ocean, and land to produce life.
Last edited:
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Because it doesn't fit with what you'd like to believe?
gnostic
The Lost One
Sometimes, and sadly, it's both.
gnostic
The Lost One
And you making the typical mistake that all creationists make about evolution. They don't understand it, and think it is about the origin of first life.
Evolution isn't about the origin of FIRST life. It is about why populations of species change over time - biologically and genetically.
Natural selection, Darwin's theory on evolution, is about how and why they change, and you don't need to go all the way to first life, billion(s) of years ago to study those changes. Some of the changes occur because of environmental factors, such as the availability or scarcity of resources, food or water (or any combination of the three), or the changes in terrain or climate, etc. If they don't adapt to their environment, they might die out, hence Darwin's "survival of the fittest".
Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean being the strongest or the smartest. It is about being able to adapt to the changes, by passing the right genes to the next generation.
Take the butterflies for instance. They are neither the strongest insect, nor the smartest, yet they exist today among other insects and from predators. That because they found niche in nature, that have allowed them to survive and flourished. Hence, as weak insects, they are "fit" because they could adapt to changes.
I am sure you have heard of mutation. That's another biological mechanism that cause "evolution", in how life evolve.
Mutation doesn't replace natural selection; instead they complement each other, actually giving us a better understanding of natural selection, that went beyond Darwin's original theory. Mutation has actually made natural selection a stronger theory than before.
BUT have you ever heard of Gene Flow?
Gene Flow is another biological change, where natural selection or changes in natural environment are not factors that cause change. Change could be due to new migration of animal come into territory of the current species, intermix with them, and over generations, new species may arise, and become the dominant species.
Anyway, none of these theories (natural selection, mutation, gene flow, genetic hitch-hiking, and genetic drift; all of them are different mechanisms to evolution) relate to abiogenesis, which is the research on the origin of first life.
Abiogenesis is about how inorganic matters formed into organic matter, life.
Creationists confused abiogenesis with evolution, just as you are doing right now. They often against evolution, when they should actually be arguing against abiogenesis. And that a serious flaw in reasoning and intelligence if they refused to understand the differences between two different fields.
And if the current studies or research in abiogenesis failed, or are wrong, that doesn't in anyway make theory on evolution wrong, because evolution isn't about first life - evolution isn't abiogenesis.
Not on bullying alone. Many simply believe what they have heard all their lives, that the ToE is "fact". Some, many in my opinion, simply do not want there to be a God they are accountable to. Educators and scientists who dare question evolution do so at peril to their career and livelihood. The media spouts the evolutionary line without question. Taken together, little wonder so many have been taken in. If the evidence for evolution is undeniable, as you claim, why do millions of educated and thoughtful people, including scientists, deny evolution?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Because their faith means more to them than the facts. Facts are more easily dismissed then their need for a perceived salvation. In fact, putting salvation first means that anything that even comes close to generating doubt about the program is automatically rejected. No need to even look at it or its merits. "I don't give a rat's *** what it says. If it isn't in accord with my faith it can't be true." And the 3% of the scientists who reject evolution ain't very much. In fact, I would bet that almost all of them are in sciences well removed from biology.
"Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,"
source
According to Newsweek in 1987:
"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%
source