Two reasons to question evolution

[Skwim]

A quick explanation of this OP

I previously posted this in the blue JW sub-forum before realizing where I was but didn't want it to go to waste, so I'm re-posting it here. It's a reply to Bible Student's response to a post Pegg made about an article titled " Two reasons to question evolution," which you can read here.

Awesome! :clap

Pfffft!

The asinine piece ↓---would we expect any different? Of course not.

Two reasons to question evolution

1. Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?—Psalm 10:4.

2.It matters what you believe. “If life came about by accident, then our lives—and all the things in our universe—are meaningless,” says a boy named Zachary. He has a point. After all, if evolution were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose. (1 Corinthians 15:32) On the other hand, if creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about the purpose of life and what the future holds.—Jeremiah 29:11.
To think about: How would knowing the truth about evolution and creation make a difference in your life?—Hebrews 11:1."
source
​

Number one. "Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on."

Although it doesn't say what they disagree on, we know it isn't the the fact of evolution; that it takes place. This is something all knowledgeable scientists do agree on. What they may not agree on are the particulars of how it happens, which is hardly unique. Many, many facets of scientific inquiry are in dispute to some degree or another, which is why science is so neat---the various solutions it generates and considers will inevitably lead to the best conclusion.

Moreover it's facetious to say that "If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?" In short , no one is wrong to question anything in science, but it has to be an intelligent questioning. To do it simply because scientists have yet to pin down every facet of evolution is stupid. As with other fields of science, they too have unresolved issues to explain, but this doesn't mean that the focus around which these issues hang is bogus. For example: Just because we don't know why the Higgs boson interacts with each particle differently, and that there are several explanatory ideas floating around, doesn't mean that Higgs bosons don't interact with each particle differently.


Number two. It matters what you believe. “If life came about by accident, then our lives—and all the things in our universe—are meaningless,” says a boy named Zachary. He has a point. After all, if evolution were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose"

First of all, it makes the egregious mistake of thinking that evolution addresses a first cause, and this alone shows how shallow an understanding of evolution the article's author has. This is a real
Furthermore, it begs the question that evolution must engender some meaning of life. It's like expecting botany to demonstrate why life has a purpose. It's utterly stupid. It also begs the question that life has to have meaning. I know this is antithetical to the backbone of the Christian religion, but the fact is, science simply doesn't deal with or care about such things. It's not about to change the way it does business just to reaffirm some religious conviction. Science lets the chips fall where they may and goes on from there.


"Awesome! :clap" ? Hardly. It's more like disgusting.

 

[LuisDantas]

About time! Thanks!

 

[Etritonakin]

I have been thinking about DNA as a "life program" which both drives from within and is affected from without.

I then began to wonder how programmable it is -and how much is determined by the programming, and how much is determined by the external.

For example... can DNA be programmed from within by humans to make certain changes over generations?

We have begun to program it....

Programming with DNA

...but can we predetermine specific changes over generations?

As one who believes in God as creator -and that we were made in his image -I am interested in what is now being done by man (though also concerned with the mess we could make).

We see that we are able to make direct changes, but the possibility of programming long-term changes over generations could be very telling.

Could it even be programmed to branch into two or more different species over generations (which
were also affected by their environment)?

I am also pondering data hiding and multiple layers of code. If the various atoms come together to form the molecules, atoms are made of smaller things, etc. etc., then they are all essentially layers of the code.

There is a point at which a 1 or 0 do not pertain to binary code. They can represent other things and be used with other things. They must be purposefully arranged into binary code and then built upon for higher languages.

I was going somewhere with that, but forgot -will try again later.

 

[Tiapan]

Two reasons to question evolution

1. Scientists don’t agree on evolution. Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they all can agree on.
To think about: If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?—Psalm 10:4.

2.It matters what you believe. “If life came about by accident, then our lives—and all the things in our universe—are meaningless,” says a boy named Zachary. He has a point. After all, if evolution were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose. (1 Corinthians 15:32) On the other hand, if creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about the purpose of life and what the future holds.—Jeremiah 29:11.
To think about: How would knowing the truth about evolution and creation make a difference in your life?—Hebrews 11:1."

By the same logic does it therefore follow:

1. Catholics, Mormons and Baptists don’t agree about religion. Despite decades of research, religious leaders have yet to come up with a common religion that they all can agree on.
To think about: If religious leaders can’t agree on religion—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?—Psalm 10:4.

2.It matters what you believe. “If life came about by predetermination, then our lives—and all the religion were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose as it is all previously figured out so we are just pawns in an orchestrated celestial play. (1 Corinthians 15:32) On the other hand, if evolution is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about the purpose of life and what the future holds.—Jeremiah 29:11.
To think about: How would knowing the truth about evolution NOT make a difference in your life?—Hebrews 11:1."

Cheers
.... and peace be upon you too

 

[psychoslice]

We may question evolution as much as we want to, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution makes much more sense than creationism.

 

[Desert Snake]

By the same logic does it therefore follow:

1. Catholics, Mormons and Baptists don’t agree about religion. Despite decades of research, religious leaders have yet to come up with a common religion that they all can agree on.
To think about: If religious leaders can’t agree on religion—and they’re supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?—Psalm 10:4.

2.It matters what you believe. “If life came about by predetermination, then our lives—and all the religion were true, life would not seem to have any lasting purpose as it is all previously figured out so we are just pawns in an orchestrated celestial play. (1 Corinthians 15:32) On the other hand, if evolution is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about the purpose of life and what the future holds.—Jeremiah 29:11.
To think about: How would knowing the truth about evolution NOT make a difference in your life?—Hebrews 11:1."

Cheers
.... and peace be upon you too

Pretty good stuff. My "religious" ideas are a mix of things outside the Bible with some Bible stuff as well, thing is, the whole "evolution" thing for me is outside religion, I don't have a 'religious bias' either way, I think this confuses people sometimes. If we look at Bible verses, what does it actually say, specifically, about evolution, not much, so it's a tad off topic, and irrelevant imo when religious denominations start 'telling' me what happened back before they even have their church history totally figured out, I mean, focus on that? However at the same time people are looking to the 'church leaders' for answers, they are trying to keep their credibility, it's a fine line between saying "I'm credible in the scientific area of things, but also religious", and "I'm credible in the scientific area of things, therefore completely contradicting things that are taken for granted traditionally in religion, that said, I can define religion as a church leader"...Right...it's very 'interesting'.

 

[Desert Snake]

We may question evolution as much as we want to, but it doesn't change the fact that evolution makes much more sense than creationism.

Many creationists believe in evolution actually.

 

[psychoslice]

Many creationists believe in evolution actually.

And many more don't.

 

[Skwim]

Many creationists believe in evolution actually.

Some times microevolution, but rarely, if ever, macroevolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution basically has no rival, nor does it deny a creator God (although it doesn't affirm one either). What people most often call "Creationism" is just a reactionary movement of denial of evolution. Calling it "Anti-Evolutionism" would make things clearer, but many of them want to present the matter as the Faithful fighting against Perdition.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was going somewhere with that, but forgot -will try again later.

I read your post and wanted to interject something.

The biological system is rather complex, and we not only carry a heritage from our parents in our DNA but also whatever setup in the ova cell from our mother, the diet, the upbringing, and much more. The DNA and mtDNA are only the ROM (so to speak, or perhaps BIOS is a better word for the computerists ). And how the DNA is translated into an actual body is not only controlled by the DNA, but it seems like the shape, the dormant ("junk") genes, and more are also part of influencing our body plan. Just some thoughts.

 

[rusra02]

Evolution, IMO, is religious dogma pretending to be science. Scientists cannot agree on how evolution supposedly occurred because the evidence for it is simply lacking. So bluster and propaganda are used to shore up the failed theory.
And if we evolved, then life would have no meaning, as some evolutionists admit. For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution, IMO, is religious dogma pretending to be science.

You call it dogma despite it working, being testable and widely tested, and in fact being the lynchpin of whole areas of (often lucrative) applied knowledge?

Your privilege, but an odd thing to say nonetheless.

Scientists cannot agree on how evolution supposedly occurred because the evidence for it is simply lacking. So bluster and propaganda are used to shore up the failed theory.

Uh... you realize that you are lying?

And if we evolved, then life would have no meaning, as some evolutionists admit.

Only to the extent that such meaning would need evidence that divine creation happened.

Is that even a real loss?

For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”

He does? Odd. He is so very wrong.

 

[rusra02]

You call it dogma despite it working, being testable and widely tested, and in fact being the lynchpin of whole areas of (often lucrative) applied knowledge?

Your privilege, but an odd thing to say nonetheless.




Uh... you realize that you are lying?




Only to the extent that such meaning would need evidence that divine creation happened.

Is that even a real loss?




He does? Odd. He is so very wrong.

He is not the only one. Biologist Jacques Monod: “Man knows at last that he is alone in the unfeeling immensity of the universe from which he emerged by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty.”

The ToE is the big lie, IMO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh, I am sure you can find evolutionists saying the oddest things.

There are, after all, so many of them. It is statistically impossible for some oddities not to be found.

That said, Jacques Monod's piece is actually beautiful.

The ToE is the big lie, IMO.

But it is not a matter of opinion. Do you have an opinion about whether carbohydrates exist?

 

[viole]

And many more don't.

I think most of them do. Evolutionary theists are creationists and I believe they outnumber the non-evolutionary ones.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

But it is not a matter of opinion. Do you have an opinion about whether carbohydrates exist?

Don't you know? Carbohydrates are one of the pillars of life, therefore it must be some form of magical supernatural pixie dust. It can't be just a chemical compound. That's how we have to spiritually understand carbs.

 

[Skwim]

And if we evolved, then life would have no meaning, as some evolutionists admit. For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”

First of all it's only fair, and even demanded by forum rules, that quoted sources be cited. Shame on you :slap: Then shame on you for misquoting Provine, although this is a tactic we've grown accustomed to.

Anyway, the relevant statement from Provine (with source included):

"First, the argument from design failed. There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. Modern evolutionary biology not only supports Darwin's belief in evolution by descent, and his belief in natural selection, but all of the implications that Darwin saw in evolution have been strongly supported by modern evolutionary biology.
source

​

Note that Provine says "“no ultimate foundation for ethics;" ← note the semicolon you slipped in, not "no ultimate meaning in life exists,← note the word "exists" and the comma you left out. Then you changed "no ultimate meaning in life exists,. . . . to " no ultimate meaning for life," And furthermore ended it with a period, which isn't there, rather than the comma, which is, AND then you left out the remainder of the sentence "and free will is merely a human myth."

Of course, if you lifted the quote from some other source which included these changes and omissions then you can't be faulted for them, but in as much as you chose to leave out your source there's no way we can know, so as it stands the blame for these deliberate changes lies with you.

As for the conclusions Darwin came to, they certainly don't mean that "Darwinism means 'no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.' " It means what it says. Go back and reread it carefully, without your "bias glasses" on. As it stands, it's evident you either have difficulty comprehending what you read, or have no compunctions about deliberately misrepresenting what you read.

and FYI, your credibility quotient is pretty much at rock bottom right now.

 

[Parsimony]

And if we evolved, then life would have no meaning, as some evolutionists admit. For instance, biologist William Provine says that Darwinism means “no ultimate foundation for ethics; no ultimate meaning for life.”

That's the argument from consequences fallacy, not to mention incorrect. Even with evolution, life could have meaning and purpose.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution, IMO, is religious dogma pretending to be science. Scientists cannot agree on how evolution supposedly occurred because the evidence for it is simply lacking. So bluster and propaganda are used to shore up the failed theory.

That because you continually and ignorantly mistaken evolution is about the origin of first life (abiogenesis), when it is not, know matter how many times we have tried to explain what you don't understand.

Your willful ignorance to understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution only demonstrate you don't have the capacity to learn the differences because your religious bias have clouded your reasoning.

Worse still. You often quote from pseudoscience articles, and even when you do quote from scientific site or article, you often misquote them, or you deliberately take them completely out of context, as skwim have pointed out (post 18).

I have lost the desire to explain to you (again) the differences because of this bias of yours and because of your stubborn ignorance.