What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
Probably because they don't know enough about the rest of science to understand just how much it contradicts their beliefs.What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
Clearly that's why they're not aware that their objections are baseless. But I don't think that's why they single out evolution.I think it's because evolution is not an easy subject to grasp and requires careful study. Most creationists aren't willing to put forth a lot of study about things they are really against.
Basically, it is the desire to feel special, and not to be related to dirty, souless apes. Afterall, there are other ways to interpret scripture that do not conflict with reality.What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
Then you have clearly missed a very important fact of evolution, which is understandable because creationists love to promote the "abiogenesis only" lie about evolution. Evolutionary theory has never said abiogenesis is essential. Both abiogenesis and special creation can be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Evolution only addresses the change/diversity following the appearance of first life, however it arose.Willtor said:It isn't about evolution. You can see this in the arguments (both on the forum and in the creationist literature). Every argument is lashing out against a perceived threat called "evolution" but I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution. Even the ostensibly informed creationist arguments against "evolution" are against abiogenesis, geology, genetics, physics, or are simply expressions of incredulity.
Perhaps so, but it IS a reason many Christians do reject evolution.There is a general feeling that evolution has something to do with humans being related to other apes but it isn't about that or the Church would not have basically accepted evolution by the early 20th century.
I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview. And the underlying need to there to be an "us" and "them", something to set the "us" apart as special while vilifying the "them" and setting the stage for elaborate conspiracy theories and justifications (IE: "evolutionists enjoy sinning and just don't want to be accountable to God", etc.).It isn't about evolution. You can see this in the arguments (both on the forum and in the creationist literature). Every argument is lashing out against a perceived threat called "evolution" but I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution. Even the ostensibly informed creationist arguments against "evolution" are against abiogenesis, geology, genetics, physics, or are simply expressions of incredulity. There is a general feeling that evolution has something to do with humans being related to other apes but it isn't about that or the Church would not have basically accepted evolution by the early 20th century.
I suspect the cause is the fear and disdain expressed by many preachers in the pulpits and on the radio. For them it isn't really about evolution, either. It isn't really even about science (or there wouldn't be a "Creation Science" movement). "Evolution" has become a catch-all word to describe all of the evil (real or perceived) that threatens people. From my own experience, one of the elders at my former Church would sometimes preach and talk about opposition from the "unbelieving evolutionists." Now, rationally, one could ask what about the "unbelieving non-evolutionists," or the "believing evolutionists," but the fact was that he probably hadn't given the actual idea of evolution a lot of thought. For him, "unbelieving evolutionist" was a scapegoat for certain problems that he perceived.
It's easy to take it personally when one values the understanding that comes through evolution (or science in general). But try not to take it hard. It isn't about what you think it's about.
I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?flicka said:I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview.
I think you are splitting hairs here. If I can presume to speak for the authors of the posts you are referencing, I think they are pointing out the whys of disputing evolution as opposed to the actual disputing, which is the main point of my query.I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?
The subject of IzzyPop's questions was the singling out of evolution for treatment." What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?"So obviously any reference to this issue---the singled out treatment on evolution---would necessarily be about evolution. How can you address the singled out treatment on X if you say such a treatment is not about X?
I think your thinking, and that of Willtor, may have gone astray here.
I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?
The subject of IzzyPop's questions was the singling out of evolution for treatment." What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?"So obviously any reference to this issue---the singled out treatment on evolution---would necessarily be about evolution. How can you address the singled out treatment on X if you say such a treatment is not about X?
I think your thinking, and that of Willtor, may have gone astray here.
IzzyPop said:I think you are splitting hairs here. If I can presume to speak for the authors of the posts you are referencing, I think they are pointing out the whys of disputing evolution as opposed to the actual disputing, which is the main point of my query.
Then you have clearly missed a very important fact of evolution, which is understandable because creationists love to promote the "abiogenesis only" lie about evolution. Evolutionary theory has never said abiogenesis is essential. Both abiogenesis and special creation can be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Evolution only addresses the change/diversity following the appearance of first life, however it arose.
Perhaps so, but it IS a reason many Christians do reject evolution.
Just to clarify.
Considering Willtor's original direct reply to your OP questions--- "It isn't about evolution"---I can only assume his "it" refers to the singled-out treatment your talking about. "It" = singled-out treatment of evolution. But he then goes on to say he's never seen such treatment. "I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution"
Flicka then agrees with Willtro, "I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview." From this it is apparent her "this" is the same as Willtor's "it." And because Willtor's "it" = singled-out treatment of evolution, I fail to see how she can say the "singled-out treatment of evolution" is not about evolution.
To single out anything implies some particular/special character of it is at the root of such singling out. Why else single it out? So there must be something unique to evolution that has prompted the action, and therefore evolution cannot be dismissed as not having anything to do with "singling it out for treatment." Her remark simply makes no sense.
Now she may have something else in mind, as you suggest, but going by what she said, she made a logical mess of it.
And this is why I asked her at the outset, "Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?
What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?
Willtor said:I wouldn't say I've missed that point. Merely, "anti-evolution" arguments orrely actually target the theory of evolution and frequently direct themselves towards abiogenesis, geology, etc.
I don't see any "ostensibly" to it. It IS an attack on evolution. Evolution is exactly what the OP is about: "Why Evolution." To marginalize it is hardly fair."It" - is the basis for attacks (ostensibly against evolution).
Oh, I have no doubt that only a few attacking creationists understand what evolution is all about---and those that do usually ignore the evidence---but never the less, most who attack evolution do so by addressing the evidence that under-girds evolution.The singled-out treatment of evolution is not about evolution. There's a difference in semantics. When you talk about evolution, you mean "a change in the frequency in alleles within a population." When most creationists talk about evolution they don't mean that.
See my links above. Creationists DO try to take on evolution on its terms, it just happens that they aren't any good at it. They don't attack its definition as such, but rather the evidence that supports it. And this is where any good attack should be made; on the evidnce. To show that "a change in the frequency in alleles within a population over time" does not result in the diversity of life we see, creationists attack everything they feel is relevant to the such a claim. This is why age is such a prominent issue in their attacks.We're all using the same word but it means something very different. That's why I said that when one reads most creationist anti-evolution arguments one is surprised to find how little they have to do with "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population."
Sure they are. It's just that creationists often focus on issues that science has long taken as fact or have found to be supported by current scientific evidence. How creationists consider evolution is exactly how evolutionists consider it: an explanation of the diversity of life. Evolutionists assert this explanation. Creationists deny it. Both are talking about the very same thing, even those creationists that get lost in their attacks..Evolutionists and creationists aren't speaking the same language.