What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Deeje]

I notice an absence of those who could answer that question with authority and lots of speculations from the usual suspects on the other side.
@Deeje, @Hockeycowboy, where are you?

Didn’t see this.....the downside of being asleep when threads are posted.....thanks for the heads up...

What’s up with evolution? Just about everything from our perspective. Let me give you a list...

1) The definition of a “scientific theory” is the opposite of what the word means in any dictionary. Who did that?

2) There is no actual proof for their first premise, that all life “evolved” from a single celled organism that just popped into existence accidentally one day, with the amazing ability to eventually transform itself into creatures the size of a three story building. They want to believe that all life forms were spawned by this single cell, way back when no one was around to document anything. Is that provable science or imagination run amok?

3) Evolution is presented as fact, despite being devoid of any real provable evidence to support the whole premise. When do the musings of science become “facts” that have to be defended with religious fervour? Why do the science buffs care what we believe?

4) “Adaptation” is presented as “evolution” but it is a natural ability designed into every living organism to produce new varieties of itself. It never produces a new creature....and science cannot prove that it ever has.

5) The whole theory depends on “common ancestors” who are intermediate species between one and another, but these “missing links” are never identified, because none have ever been found....though some have been suggested. They are somewhat ‘mythical’ but the whole theory depends on them.

6) It takes as much “faith” and “belief” to accept this unprovable theory as it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because the “evidence” for evolution is based entirely on acceptance of how “evidence” s interpreted...but how will evidence be interpreted without bias?

7) Those in the scientific community are pressured to accept this theory as fact, (despite any personal misgivings they may have) unless they want to lose all credibility in the hallowed halls of academia, face ridicule, and also possibly lose their employment.

That will do for starters....

 

[SigurdReginson]

Am I the only one thinking about this guy from the title alone?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

Evolution is the ridiculous theory that everything was created by a series of accidents. In a common sense world it should be the stuff of comedy routines.

 

[Rival]

Evolution is the ridiculous theory that everything was created by a series of accidents. In a common sense world it should be the stuff of comedy routines.

But why spend so much time on it? It's like those atheists who won't stop talking about God.

 

[firedragon]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

In the current scenario theists generally dont "focus" on evolution. Its a side topic of some, not the main topic of all. It is mostly the Atheists who bring it up more as a general caricature.

Also, Muslims never really had this YEC type of movement, and only a few of them really focus on evolution as in to prove its wrong. In fact you should know Muslims were propagating evolution in their thinking and writing since the 10th 11th century and very prominently in the 14th century. Some Westerners called evolution the Muhammedan theory.

Also the problem is many people conflate Darwinian evolution to evolution while thinking "I own evolution and its my tool" but are predominantly lead by their leaders' ignorance of the nuances.

 

[Viker]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

The evolution vs. creationism issue is the single most important thing. More so than the Eucharist or baby Jesus days. If Chreationist fantasy comes true they will have murdered the evil dragon (science).

 

[Revoltingest]

But why spend so much time on it? It's like those atheists who won't stop talking about God.

Who?

 

[Viker]

Who?

 

[McBell]

But why spend so much time on it? It's like those atheists who won't stop talking about God.

What is even more baffling is that the vast majority of creationists are not even arguing against evolution.
They are whooping up on some nonsensical crap they have labeled evolution.
Post #23 is a prime example of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Didn’t see this.....the downside of being asleep when threads are posted.....thanks for the heads up...

What’s up with evolution? Just about everything from our perspective. Let me give you a list...

1) The definition of a “scientific theory” is the opposite of what the word means in any dictionary. Who did that?

Any examples you care to cite?

2) There is no actual proof for their first premise, that all life “evolved” from a single celled organism that just popped into existence accidentally one day, with the amazing ability to eventually transform itself into creatures the size of a three story building. They want to believe that all life forms were spawned by this single cell, way back when no one was around to document anything. Is that provable science or imagination run amok?

So no real second point. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. How many million times does that need to be explained to you? All the evidence does support that life evolved from a point after it first emerged.

3) Evolution is presented as fact, despite being devoid of any real provable evidence to support the whole premise. When do the musings of science become “facts” that have to be defended with religious fervour? Why do the science buffs care what we believe?

Things have been demonstrated to evolve. How is that not a fact? When do your claims rise above logical fallacies and gain the luggage of evidence?

4) “Adaptation” is presented as “evolution” but it is a natural ability designed into every living organism to produce new varieties of itself. It never produces a new creature....and science cannot prove that it ever has.

You can keep trying to redefine terms in an effort to force your personal opinions into existence, but that does not change the fact that adaptation is evolution.

5) The whole theory depends on “common ancestors” who are intermediate species between one and another, but these “missing links” are never identified, because none have ever been found....though some have been suggested. They are somewhat ‘mythical’ but the whole theory depends on them.

I have never identified my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandparents either, but I am evidence that they existed. They came from England, Germany, Croatia and Austria. If that is true, then why are there English, German, Croatian and Austrian people still around?

The theory does not depend on common ancestors. It predicts them.

6) It takes as much “faith” and “belief” to accept this unprovable theory as it does to believe in an Intelligent Designer, because the “evidence” for evolution is based entirely on acceptance of how “evidence” s interpreted...but how will evidence be interpreted without bias?

Gravity is unprovable, but I do not need faith to avoid dropoffs. The theory explains the evidence. It is not merely opinion.

7) Those in the scientific community are pressured to accept this theory as fact, (despite any personal misgivings they may have) unless they want to lose all credibility in the hallowed halls of academia, face ridicule, and also possibly lose their employment.

There is no evidence for this. Scientists lose credibility when they start making untestable claims that have no evidence.

That will do for starters....

The same old, tired, debunked claims that always come up. And just as empty as usual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolution is the ridiculous theory that everything was created by a series of accidents. In a common sense world it should be the stuff of comedy routines.

I had no idea. All the stuff they teach in science class doesn't attribute creation to evolution at all. It is almost as if you have no idea what the theory is saying and are just repeating a straw man argument that is perpetuated on the internet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But why spend so much time on it? It's like those atheists who won't stop talking about God.

Here is my take on it for whatever it is worth. Science has been shown to be a powerful tool of discovery. Medicine, agriculture, engineering, and a host of other applied fields all have been built on the basis of knowledge acquired using science. The computers and the network we are using did not arise out of biblical prophecy, but were developed using the knowledge of science. It is so successful that even those that deny it recognize that fact. Now if your view of religion deifies your holy texts through the magic of literal translation, then science is a threat to that view.

It may be a simplification, but I think it is an accurate account for the dissent against the theory of evolution. People have pinned their views on literal translations of human writing and claim it is dictated by God. Sciences that deal with the origin of species confounds that view. For some people, God cannot exist if the Bible turns out to be allegorical in part.

 

[Psalm23]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

It is possible it is viewed that to believe in evolution may be seen as a step toward losing faith in God. However there are Christians who believe in evolution too. Plus one can believe in God and evolution at the same time. I believe debating over evolution is ok, but to obsess over it is not good.

 

[Windwalker]

Evolution is the ridiculous theory that everything was created by a series of accidents. In a common sense world it should be the stuff of comedy routines.

Haven't you ever seen "Divine accidents" occur in your life? Why couldn't that happen in nature too? Isn't God capable of creating through evolution through these happy 'accidents'?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is possible it is viewed that to believe in evolution may be seen as a step toward losing faith in God. However there are Christians who believe in evolution too. Plus one can believe in God and evolution at the same time. I believe debating over evolution is ok, but to obsess over it is not good.

I believe in God and Christ. I accept the theory of evolution based on the evidence and the predictive and explanatory power of the theory.

 

[F1fan]

I think it's all ego, vanity and narcism.
Their religion tells them that they are "special" and the entire point of the universe.

These fringe frameworks do create a sharp line of tribalism. I think people without a healthy sense of self need to have a strong and even divisive framework that they can identify with so they can say "That is them, this is us.". The more controversial, the more pressure they have on their framework and identity, and the more they fight for it. It's exceptionally weak and frail as identify goes because it doesn't rely on any accomplishment, not basis in reality. It's totally illusionary. This is why we see these folks vilify science, experts, and facts and reason. We can see another example in the Qanon folks. And those who believe there is voter fraud and trump was cheated. All these irrational belief frameworks rely of a conspiracy of thought, and this is essentially tribalism. Very attractive and addictive to the weak minded.

 

[firedragon]

2) There is no actual proof for their first premise, that all life “evolved” from a single celled organism that just popped into existence accidentally one day, with the amazing ability to eventually transform itself into creatures the size of a three story building. They want to believe that all life forms were spawned by this single cell, way back when no one was around to document anything. Is that provable science or imagination run amok?

No offence, but you got this fundamentally wrong.

Even if you dont believe in evolution, in order to have some polemics on it it is I think important to understand it. Evolution does not theorise how life "popped into existence". That is abiogenesis.

 

[F1fan]

Who?

Thor, obviously. One of the movies was on cable last night. Can't stop talking about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thor, obviously. One of the movies was on cable last night. Can't stop talking about it.

Love that guy. The hammer and the banging. All the lightening. The vigorous drinking of the mead.

 

[blü 2]

Disclaimer: I could myself be considered a kind of creationist, so I'm not here to rag on them!

But what is with this mostly Christian obsession (although I have seen it in the Muslim world too) with the theory of evolution? Aren't there better things to wrangle about? Healthier things to focus on?

In the eyes of the fundamentalist ─

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

─ from The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School's Tenets of Creationism​

And the purest form of this is Young Earth Creationism (the YECs) which accepts Bishop Ussher's timeline for the creation of the earth and its critters in 4004 BCE (though small extensions of this are found here and there).

In the good ol' days when I used to post on the late lamented Beliefnet, evolution was simply untrue. Since then, it's become allowable to admit that evolution takes place within kinds. A kind has no clear definition, which is its great virtue, It's sort of like a genus, and sort of like a species, and often enough you can't tell what it's sort of like.

But if the large picture of evolution is correct, that we're all descended from the first self-reproducing cell some 3.5 or more billion years ago, then the earth would not be created c. 4004 BCE and all the earth's critters would not the result of God's special creation as described in Genesis.

As you can see from the quote above, the fundy position does not permit smiles or nods, so no metaphorical readings are allowed lest they build a bridge between fact and faith.