Evolution is an elaborate fairy tale

Pete Harcoff · #**121** 10th November 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

Rather than dance with you around this issue, I'm going to email him myself to see what he says.

I received a response from Dr. Wise, however, he declined to give me permission to post it in a public forum (I don't blame him).

But, to paraphrase his response, he said that in lieu of scripture the physical geological evidence in the Earth favors an old Earth. On the other hand, he that the geological data applied to the creationist and non-creationist interpretations as a whole (I assume he means including things like the flood account) there may be more even split between the two.

lucaspa · #**122** 10th November 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by bevets

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

The ancient seekers after truth differ from their modern successors in only one respect. It was permitted to them to suppose that supernatural forces were at work in the world-forces which could be perceived only by the eye of faith. The modern seeker refuses to accept any explanation which involves the action of a supernatural agent, even as a last resort. ~ Arthur Keith

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin

The first two quotes are accurate. However, you forgot to ask yourself if they really represent science and evolution or if they only represent the opinion of the author.

The last quote is laughable because it shows how little creationists read. Lewontin is actually poking fun at this attitude and showing this attitude is not part of science.

Yes, Keith and Provine are ardent atheists. However, you don't believe them at face value when they say there is no God, do you? Yet you turn around and believe them at face value when they say evolution backs atheism! Surely the irony is apparent to you.

Provine and Keith are trying to convince people that science is atheistic. If they can, they win the theism vs atheism battle. The problem is that science is not atheistic. They are misstating science and evolution.

A major irony here is that Provine's statement works only because of the efforts of creationists! Creationists are the ones that have made evolution "the greatest engine of atheism". If they would simply follow Darwin and McCosh, then Provine's use of evolution for atheism disappears!

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Arthur Dietrich · #**123** 10th November 2003, 04:13 PM

*watery eyes*

You..you mean the Evolution Fairy isn't going to come and turn me into a cat if I'm good?

sci·ence
n.

1. <LI type=a>The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

ev·o·lu·tion
n.

Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Theory of Evolution

n : a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

Scientific theory

n : a theory derived from or used in science

It seems The Evil Athiests-Those Intentionally Misleading Everyone-AKA- TEA TIME(TM) have gotten into the dictionary as well. They're tricking us into thinking ToE has nothing to do with proving/disproving God or creation. All those facts and evidence used to form the ToE really threw me XP

tcampen · #**124** 10th November 2003, 04:45 PM

No, Dr. Wise is certainly not God.

But I'm inclined to think Lucaspa might be!

Nathan Poe · #**125** 10th November 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by tcampen

No, Dr. Wise is certainly not God.

But I'm inclined to think Lucaspa might be!

If not, I'm certainly willing to nominate him for the job. Anyone second it?

PhantomLlama · #**126** 10th November 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by tcampen

No, Dr. Wise is certainly not God.

But I'm inclined to think Lucaspa might be!

He does seem to be all-knowing sometimes.

YourBrother · #**127** 10th November 2003, 05:31 PM

I read some of Darwin's , Origin of Species. Darwin doubted his own work more than Evolutionists do, he himself makes the best arguments against his own theories, actually.

And it was The Descent of Man that really caused all the problems, this is the book he published years later than suggested man had evolved from apes. You can read these books online, just do a search.

One book I saw at the bookstore, called The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. It was written by Charles Darwin. In it, he gives an amazing explanation of how animals express emotions like sadness, anger, irritation, pensiveness, melancholy, almost every subtle emotion you can find in an adult human, animals express these emotions, too.

I think Darwin was trying to show that God lives in animals, too. He wasn't trying to prove people are beasts, but that beasts are every bit as 'human' as humans are. In fact, many animals mate for life, most humans these days do not. Are Penguins more Godly than these humans, because they do not practice divorce?

And how are animals less intelligent? Beavers contruct damns by gnawing down trees, then dragging them, arranging the logs, then filling in the cracks, much like early settlers built log cabins. And they do it without any hands. Beaver damns are only one example of the amazing craftsmanship of animals. Wasps build elaborate, paper mache hives that are works of art. Birds learned to weave fibers eons before humans did, humans most likely learned weaving from looking at bird's nests. Animals even know more about medicinal herbs than most people. They know what to eat to cure a sick stomach, or illnesses. Dogs will eat certain types of plants when they are sick, bears, cats.

When Darwin arrived on the Gallapagos islands, no man had ever been on that island. He noted that the animals had no fear of humans. They simply walked right up to them out of curiousity. So is animals fear of humans something animals have learned, because, they know that humans are cruel and murdering beasts?

They keep destroying all the animals habitat around here, driving them out into the roads, they all get hit, dead animals all over the roads, til at last there's none left. What a stupid world it would be without animals.

Animals are so finely crafted by the maker, i have no doubt it took God millions or billions of years to make them perfect. God makes them, life tests them, what's the big deal.

lucaspa · #**128** 10th November 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomLlama

He does seem to be all-knowing sometimes.

Thank you, but the job is filled. Despite Dr. Wise's, Hovind's, Ham's, Morris', Wysong's, Johnson's etc. attempts to take the job away.

lucaspa · #**129** 10th November 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by YourBrother

When Darwin arrived on the Gallapagos islands, no man had ever been on that island. He noted that the animals had no fear of humans. They simply walked right up to them out of curiousity. So is animals fear of humans something animals have learned, because, they know that humans are cruel and murdering beasts?

Let's say it is something selected for. Animals alive today are descended from animals who were afraid of humans, avoided them, and were not killed by humans. You are seeing natural selection at work.

They keep destroying all the animals habitat around here, driving them out into the roads, they all get hit, dead animals all over the roads, til at last there's none left.

Not all the animals get hit on roads. Again, there are going to be some individuals with variations that either 1) have them avoid roads or 2) allow them to cross safely. Since these are the animals that will survive, pretty soon all the animals will be descended from them and not many will be dead on the roads. Natural selection at work.

Animals are so finely crafted by the maker, i have no doubt it took God millions or billions of years to make them perfect. God makes them, life tests them, what's the big deal.

You were doing so well until you got here. Animals are not perfect. This is what led Christians to accept evolution so readily. The theory of special creation, and particularly the idea that the designs in animals were perfect, had run into real problems when the animals were really studied in the period 1780-1850. There are so many sadistic, and stupid features about how animals are "crafted" that you couldn't conclude a wise, loving God had individually crafted them. You could conclude that a sadistic, stupid, and Alzheimer's god had crafted them, but such a god did not fit what Christains knew and believed about God. Natural selection got God off the hook. If God used natural selection to do the crafting over long periods of time, then the designs are due directly to natural selection, not God. And God is off the hook because natural selection is going to be shortsighted, a little dumb sometimes, and not know about good designs in other animals.

lucaspa · #**130** 10th November 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Pete Harcoff

I received a response from Dr. Wise, however, he declined to give me permission to post it in a public forum (I don't blame him).

But, to paraphrase his response, he said that in lieu of scripture the physical geological evidence in the Earth favors an old Earth. On the other hand, he that the geological data applied to the creationist and non-creationist interpretations as a whole (I assume he means including things like the flood account) there may be more even split between the two.

Which of course means that Dr. Wise is no longer doing science because he is not looking for falsification. Instead, he is making two stacks of "evidence for" and comparing the heights of those stacks.

Either he has never read Popper or is deliberately ignoring him and all other scientists: you can always evidence for a theory is that is all that you are looking for. What counts is evidence falsifying a theory. Wise has never attempted to really falsify YEC. As he admits, he can't. Such a falsification would mean, for him, falsifying the existence of God. And Wise can't do that.