Zero probability for Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

That's exactly what you said.

Nope.

 

[metis]

The claim was made that creationist are always inherently biased when comes to science because of thier belief in God creating. Quit trying to spin it.

I am not trying to "spin it", and I do believe that there often are overstatements made sometimes by both sides on this issue. My point was that accepting the reality of the ToE is not in any way incompatible with Christianity or theism in general.

 

[Jose Fly]

My point was that accepting the reality of the ToE is not in any way incompatible with Christianity or theism in general.

That may be true for you and millions of other Christians and theists, but from what I've seen over the years it's certainly not true for others. For psychological, social, and other reasons accepting the reality of evolution just isn't possible for them.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot go there lest they be kicked out of the faith, banished from all JW functions and events, and shunned by their JW friends and family. For many people that's far too steep of a price to pay and isn't even within the realm of possibility.

Other folks are so locked in to black/white thinking, they simply cannot conceive of viewing parts of their faith as allegorical, poetic, or something other than non-literal without abandoning it altogether. And oftentimes those sorts of folks are the ones who really do need their faith to help them get through life.

It's not so easy for everyone.

 

[ecco]

It's pointless to have a conversation with people who are already programmed to reject anything a creationist says. Your evolution religion makes you close minded.

A favorite tactic of Woosters and Creationists and Proselytizers is to accuse other people of being closed-minded. It's often a last-ditch effort:

"Gee, after all I've told you and shown you, you still disagree. You are closed-minded. If you could just open your eyes, you would see the rightness of what I'm saying".
​

Do you really think I haven't heard that before? Do you really think that all the stuff you posted and cut/pasted from the likes of Sanford is something others before you haven't already done? Do you really think that you brought anything new to this forum?

Your accusation of me being closed-minded is nonsensical because I've looked into all the stuff you posted many times over the past years. Sanford has been publishing his creationist woo since 1985.

 

[ecco]

Nice explanation of God's design.

Show evidence it was god's design.

 

[ecco]

The claim was made that creationist are always inherently biased when comes to science because of thier belief in God creating. Quit trying to spin it.

Yeah. I made that assertion.

It's not just a claim. It's a provable fact. People like Sanford and you accept many different branches of science. At least I assume you do.
Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth is a sphere?
Do you accept the science that provides overwhelming evidence that the earth revolves around the sun?

Hundreds of years ago people rejected both of these things. Christians based their disbelief on their reading of the Bible. However, today all but a tiny percentage of Christians overlook or rationalize those parts of the Bible that refer to "the four corners of the earth" and the belief that the sun actually moved across the earth from the East to the West.

Today, many people like you and Sanford accept these scientific findings and many others in the fields of medicine and aeronautics and cosmology because these findings are not contradicted in the Bible. You and Sanford completely reject evolution because it is in direct conflict with Genesis. The only reason you accept some science and reject other science is your religious beliefs.

Rather than address my points and answer the questions I posed you ducked and accused me of being closed-minded. Perhaps you need to look in a mirror.

 

[metis]

That may be true for you and millions of other Christians and theists, but from what I've seen over the years it's certainly not true for others. For psychological, social, and other reasons accepting the reality of evolution just isn't possible for them.

For example, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot go there lest they be kicked out of the faith, banished from all JW functions and events, and shunned by their JW friends and family. For many people that's far too steep of a price to pay and isn't even within the realm of possibility.

Other folks are so locked in to black/white thinking, they simply cannot conceive of viewing parts of their faith as allegorical, poetic, or something other than non-literal without abandoning it altogether. And oftentimes those sorts of folks are the ones who really do need their faith to help them get through life.

It's not so easy for everyone.

Oh, I very much agree, and leaving my fundamentalist Protestant church was quite traumatic for me as I had contemplated going into the ministry. But their anti-science bent, especially over the issue of evolution, just wore on me to the point whereas for over a decade I got so frustrated that I became quite agnostic. However, I did know that there were denominations that didn't take that anti-science bent, such as with my wife's Catholicism that I eventually converted to eight years after we were married.

I don't have a problem with someone who refuses to accept the ToE, but I have very much a problem with those who come here and lie about a supposed necessity of rejecting the ToE because it's supposedly anti-Christian. And then, even after many of us explain and show that it doesn't negate the concept of Divine creation, they ignore that reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh, I very much agree, and leaving my fundamentalist Protestant church was quite traumatic for me as I had contemplated going into the ministry. But their anti-science bent, especially over the issue of evolution, just wore on me to the point whereas for over a decade I got so frustrated that I became quite agnostic. However, I did know that there were denominations that didn't take that anti-science bent, such as with my wife's Catholicism that I eventually converted to eight years after we were married.

Wow, you went from a fundamentalist Protestant to an evolution-believing Catholic? Having grown up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I can imagine how traumatic that was for you. Does it still cause problems?

I don't have a problem with someone who refuses to accept the ToE, but I have very much a problem with those who come here and lie about a supposed necessity of rejecting the ToE because it's supposedly anti-Christian. And then, even after many of us explain and show that it doesn't negate the concept of Divine creation, they ignore that reality.

Well from their perspective that's just how things are. You being an "evolutionist" Catholic probably means they don't even see you as a "true Christian". So when you say evolution is compatible with Christianity, they may be thinking that what you're calling "Christianity" isn't really Christianity.

You and I both understand how prominent black/white thinking is among fundamentalists, so I would expect it would also apply in this situation.

 

[metis]

Wow, you went from a fundamentalist Protestant to an evolution-believing Catholic? Having grown up in a fundamentalist Christian family, I can imagine how traumatic that was for you. Does it still cause problems?

Not really. I took theology classes back in college and eventually taught a comparative religions course, so the people that know me know that it wasn't some sort of knee-jerk uninformed reaction that I made.

You being an "evolutionist" Catholic probably means they don't even see you as a "true Christian".

Catholicism accepts the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

The first time I ran across that was from a priest I coincidentally ran across back in 1962. Matter of fact, one of the foremost experts in human evolution was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was an expert on Homo erectus in the 1940's-50's [called by different names back in his time].

So when you say evolution is compatible with Christianity, they may be thinking that what you're calling "Christianity" isn't really Christianity.

Well, being Catholic often gets that response for that and numerous other reasons, let me tell ya.

 

[Jose Fly]

Not really. I took theology classes back in college and eventually taught a comparative religions course, so the people that know me know that it wasn't some sort of knee-jerk uninformed reaction that I made.

Ah, so you were indoctrinated by liberal college elitist professors!

Catholicism accepts the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

The first time I ran across that was from a priest I coincidentally ran across back in 1962. Matter of fact, one of the foremost experts in human evolution was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was an expert on Homo erectus in the 1940's-50's [called by different names back in his time].

Well, being Catholic often gets that response for that and numerous other reasons, let me tell ya.

That's what I was getting at. Among the evangelical Christians I grew up around, a person accepting evolution and converting to Catholicism definitely removes them from the category of "true Christians".

In my experiences, very few fundamentalists are at all open to even considering that sort of thing. As I like to put it, you may as well be trying to talk an Orthodox Jew into eating pork.

 

[metis]

Ah, so you were indoctrinated by liberal college elitist professors!

Actually that damage was done before I went to college, so blame my parents for that as they were what I call "museum freaks"-- much like myself.

Speaking of which, one of my greatest thrills was when I visited a museum in Casper, Wyoming, about 20 years ago and held in my hands a roughly 60 million year old dinosaur rib that was about 6 foot long. Heck, that's even older than I am!!!

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually that damage was done before I went to college, so blame my parents for that as they were what I call "museum freaks"-- much like myself.

I hope they were okay with the path you took. My folks really questioned how they raised me because I didn't grow up to be a Christian.

Speaking of which, one of my greatest thrills was when I visited a museum in Casper, Wyoming, about 20 years ago and held in my hands a roughly 60 million year old dinosaur rib that was about 6 foot long. Heck, that's even older than I am!!!

That's so cool!

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yeah. I made that assertion.

​

Rather than address my points and answer the questions I posed you ducked and accused me of being closed-minded. Perhaps you need to look in a mirror.

Like I said, why have a conversation with someone who isn't listening?

You didn't make any points, youre just regurgitating the same old insults.

 

[Polymath257]

Talk about missing the point.

On the contrary, that *is* the point. Because what I described is *precisely* natural selection.

Are you going to acknowledge that claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God is tilting the scales and making it impossible for you to ever consider anything a creationist says?

If that is what anyone stated, it would be problematic. But, there are *many* working scientists that believe in God *and* understand that the universe is billions of years old and that evolution happens.

If a believer in God is willing to follow the evidence, there is no scientific issue. The problems come when they think their belief says they can ignore the evidence or use poor arguments to support a position not based on the evidence.

Having a *testable* theory is the key. Does your theory make claims that can be tested? Specific claims that, if the observations go in a way not expected, would show the theory to be wrong? if not, it is simply not a scientific theory at all. Is the evidence publicly available even to skeptics? if not, it isn't anything more than opinion. Do you have to believe before you can look at the evidence? if so, you are using confirmation bias.

When creationists come up with a testable theory that aligns with the evidence, they will be listened to. Don't expect to be taken seriously if you deny actual observations.

 

[Polymath257]

It's pointless to have a conversation with people who are already programmed to reject anything a creationist says. Your evolution religion makes you close minded.

Exchange 'creationist' with 'evolutionist' and 'evolution' with 'creation' and you have perfectly described our position.

So, how to break this stalemate? How about by looking at the actual evidence, using mathematical models to attempt to see what is going on, make predictions for future observations and see if they are correct?

Oh, wait, that is *exactly* what the scientists do.

 

[Polymath257]

That's exactly what you said.

Where?

 

[Polymath257]

The claim was made that creationist are always inherently biased when comes to science because of thier belief in God creating. Quit trying to spin it.

Compare to

"Are you going to acknowledge that claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God"

Do you see the difference?

Creationists are biased. Not all people who believe in God. But, in the case of creationists, their beliefs are such that they cannot or will not actually look at the evidence.

There are many Christians who are scientists. Their Christianity does not stand in the way of their doing real science nor does it stand in the way of their understanding that evolution occurs.

As an example, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. But he *also* has publicly pointed out that creationism and ID are bunk. His belief in God does not stand in the way of his doing science.

But, in the case of creationists, their beliefs are such that they *cannot* acknowledge the evidence against them. And *that* is a bias that prevents them from being science honestly.

 

[ecco]

Like I said, why have a conversation with someone who isn't listening?

I asked if you believed in heliocentricity and a spherical earth. I listened for the response. There was none. You don't respond and then you complain I'm not listening.

You didn't make any points, youre just regurgitating the same old insults.

The point I made was that people only accept science to the point where it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

• That's why most Fundamentalist Creationist YECs can accept heliocentricity and a spherical earth but must reject Evolution and carbon dating and plate tectonics because it conflicts with Genesis and Ussher's interpretation of the "begats". I say "most", because among YECs there are still geocentrists and flat-earthers (perhaps you).
• That's why Old Earth Creationists can accept heliocentricity and a spherical earth and carbon dating and plate tectonics because they ignore Ussher's interpretations, but reject Evolution because it conflicts with Genesis.
• That's why there are Christians who read Genesis as allegory and can accept heliocentricity and a spherical earth and carbon dating and plate tectonics and Evolution and still retain a belief in God.

If you find being reminded of these groupings and your place in them is insulting, well, that's your problem.

BTW, if Marcion had prevailed, we wouldn't need to have these discussions.

 

[Wildswanderer]

When creationists come up with a testable theory that aligns with the evidence, they will be listened to

The catch 22 is this: when they come up with such theories and they have, the general scientific community will not take them seriously.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Compare to

"Are you going to acknowledge that claiming that creationists are wrong simply because they believe in God"

Do you see the difference?

Creationists are biased. Not all people who believe in God. But, in the case of creationists, their beliefs are such that they cannot or will not actually look at the evidence.

There are many Christians who are scientists. Their Christianity does not stand in the way of their doing real science nor does it stand in the way of their understanding that evolution occurs.

As an example, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. But he *also* has publicly pointed out that creationism and ID are bunk. His belief in God does not stand in the way of his doing science.

But, in the case of creationists, their beliefs are such that they *cannot* acknowledge the evidence against them. And *that* is a bias that prevents them from being science honestly.

Athiests are equally biased then. They would never acknowledge ID as a real theory even though there's plenty of evidence because thier religion won't allow it.