Why hate Evolution So?

[coolname123]

If you hate text walls, I'll try to sum this all up at the bottom... but I'm a rambler so it may take me a couple thoughts to arrive at what I want to ask.

So here's a few things that have confused me over Evolution... or I suppose more accurately things that have confused me over the hatred towards Evolution. I for one see absolutely no reason why the two can't peacefully co-exist but, even if you don't share that opinion, Evolution is merely a scientific theory that attempts to explain the diversity of life... Evolution is not even the theory that discounts the creation accounts (though fair warning, I also don't buy into the literal interpretation of the entire bible... which is not the same thing as picking and choosing).

But my question has two parts... The second part because I've got a pretty good idea what kind of responses may occur here. So even if that isn't an idea you're willing to entertain, Why go through all the effort trying to get ID or Creationism recognized as a scientific theory... It's not, if you took the time to understand science that would be painfully clear. It's an acceptable philosophy I suppose, but science it certainly is not. At least not until it's supporters can get some peer reviewed knowledge to back it. If you dislike Science, then don't buy into it... I may not think terribly high of your intellect considering how important Science is as a part of our everyday life. But even that makes more sense and is more reasonable than ID as a legit scientific theory.

What makes most sense from an ID perspective is Recognizing the scientific theories as an accurate academic description of the workings of our planet that appears random to the objective eye... but then realizing that even though God's hand may be unseen to science, that does not means it does not exist.

So I guess my real question is, why must Evolution be associated with evil when all it is is an explanation of Data? ID can still be believed as an acceptable philosophy, so why hate Evolution with such passion?

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess my real question is, why must Evolution be associated with evil when all it is is an explanation of Data? ID can still be believed as an acceptable philosophy, so why hate Evolution with such passion?

ID can take a hike.

Having said that, let me say with equal conviction that evolution can take a hike as well.

Evolution may be 'merely a scientific theory' to you, but to others, evolution is a tool for justifying heinous acts of savagery from abortion to genetic engineering.

Downplaying a child in a mother's womb to that of 'fetal tissue' has the effect of stymying the conscious; and playing with people's genes to effect a master race is just plain wrong, and led to all sorts of crimes against humanity.

I spit on evolution and the science that backs it.

In addition, evolution blasphemes the God of Heaven, mainly by using third-rate terminology to explain 'scientific' progress -- such as referring to God's creation that was 'made in the image and likeness of God' as 'mutant copy-errors.'

Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, which then quite often has the effect of pitting 'brother against brother' in a type of spiritual civil war.

Enough said -- and I'm not interested in anything you have to say otherwise.

 

[Davian]

<snip rant>
I spit on evolution and the science that backs it.

Except for the parts that provide computers and cable TV, of course.

In addition, evolution blasphemes the God of Heaven, mainly by using third-rate terminology to explain 'scientific' progress -- such as referring to God's creation that was 'made in the image and likeness of God' as 'mutant copy-errors.'

Where does the ToE state that?

Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, which then quite often has the effect of pitting 'brother against brother' in a type of spiritual civil war.

How does 'evolution' - biological change over time - do that?

Enough said -- and I'm not interested in anything you have to say otherwise.

That's quite the straw man you are hauling around there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except for the parts that provide computers and cable TV, of course.

Oh, now we're gonna play Cosmic Evolution, aren't we?

Then when I post how evolutionists "conveniently" leave out 9 billion years of cosmic evolution and jump right to what begins to happen just after abiogenesis occurs, I get, "What does cosmic evolution have to do with what we're talking about?"

That's the thing about science; it's like that find-the-gray-dot that keeps jumping around when you look at it directly.

Science has more escape hatches than the Challenger and Deepwater Horizon put together.

Where does the ToE state that?

Cute.

How does 'evolution' - biological change over time - do that?

QED the first point in this post.

Now that I bring cosmic evolution into the picture by comparing it to Genesis 1, you suddenly want to talk biological evolution.

That's quite the straw man you are hauling around there.

I'm surprised you don't have a "wise" name for him as well.

 

[coolname123]

Just to clarify, evolution is much more than merely a theory to me... And personally I see a lot of the justifications used by creationists to be just a heinous. I mean you throw the term abortion as if it's a black and white issue, but what of the situations where not aborting the child results in the mothers death... Anti-Abortion signs tend to label the abortion as murder, but by that same logic, not allowing the abortion to happen is murder on the other side... so which murder is more acceptable?

Now spitting on the science that backs it, while having a certain logic behind it, is the same science that sends us into space, makes your microwave work and keeps you from dying on a daily basis... Simply saying you spit on science is one thing, actually backing your words with actions and living without it is quite another.

"Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1"

Alternate interpretations of Genesis have been around long before Evolution ever hit our radar... Even dating back to the early Isrealites listening to Genesis in the oral tradition, familiar with "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and hearing all those familiar stories making their ways into this new version of the story presenting an alternative way of life.

But it appears as though you're really not interested in dialogue... But then what's the point of engaging in a forum if not discussion? So there's my perspective.

 

[VirOptimus]

ID can take a hike.

Having said that, let me say with equal conviction that evolution can take a hike as well.

Evolution may be 'merely a scientific theory' to you, but to others, evolution is a tool for justifying heinous acts of savagery from abortion to genetic engineering.

Downplaying a child in a mother's womb to that of 'fetal tissue' has the effect of stymying the conscious; and playing with people's genes to effect a master race is just plain wrong, and led to all sorts of crimes against humanity.

I spit on evolution and the science that backs it.

In addition, evolution blasphemes the God of Heaven, mainly by using third-rate terminology to explain 'scientific' progress -- such as referring to God's creation that was 'made in the image and likeness of God' as 'mutant copy-errors.'

Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, which then quite often has the effect of pitting 'brother against brother' in a type of spiritual civil war.

Enough said -- and I'm not interested in anything you have to say otherwise.

This post is incredibly funny (and sad). Strawman doesnt even begin to describe the problems with this post.

 

[Davian]

Oh, now we're gonna play Cosmic Evolution, aren't we?

Then when I post how evolutionists "conveniently" leave out 9 billion years of cosmic evolution and jump right to what begins to happen just after abiogenesis occurs, I get, "What does cosmic evolution have to do with what we're talking about?"

No. The point was that the science that backs the concept of biological evolution and the scientific theory of evolution is the same as that used for technology. You are getting your goalposts mixed up.

That's the thing about science; it's like that find-the-gray-dot that keeps jumping around when you look at it directly.

And what does the bible have to say about why our eyes do that?

Science has more escape hatches than the Challenger and Deepwater Horizon put together.

Still, that is nothing compared to religion. Try to pin razetherock down on some aspect of the bible.

Cute.

Mutations are not errors. We only project that onto them when things go wrong. What we consider wrong.

QED the first point in this post.

Your point was off. It demonstrated nothing.

Now that I bring cosmic evolution into the picture by comparing it to Genesis 1, you suddenly want to talk biological evolution.

Perhaps you should be more explicit when you use the word 'evolution' in the future.

I'm surprised you don't have a "wise" name for him as well.

He's your strawman. You should give him a name. That way we know right away that you are not referring to the actual scientific theory of evolution.

And would it not be easier to learn about the ToE that haul that straw man around? Or is your faith that fragile?

 

[Trogool]

ID can take a hike.

Having said that, let me say with equal conviction that evolution can take a hike as well.

Evolution may be 'merely a scientific theory' to you, but to others, evolution is a tool for justifying heinous acts of savagery from abortion to genetic engineering.

Downplaying a child in a mother's womb to that of 'fetal tissue' has the effect of stymying the conscious; and playing with people's genes to effect a master race is just plain wrong, and led to all sorts of crimes against humanity.

I spit on evolution and the science that backs it.

In addition, evolution blasphemes the God of Heaven, mainly by using third-rate terminology to explain 'scientific' progress -- such as referring to God's creation that was 'made in the image and likeness of God' as 'mutant copy-errors.'

Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, which then quite often has the effect of pitting 'brother against brother' in a type of spiritual civil war.

Enough said -- and I'm not interested in anything you have to say otherwise.

You frighten me.

 

[driewerf]

Evolution has morally bankrupted society after society by creating an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, which then quite often has the effect of pitting 'brother against brother' in a type of spiritual civil war.

If the theory of evolution has pitted brother against brother, who was then the evolutionist: Cain or Abel?

 

[AV1611VET]

You frighten me.

I'm just hot air --

Believe me ... my bark is much worse than my bite!

 

[AV1611VET]

If the theory of evolution has pitted brother against brother, who was then the evolutionist: Cain or Abel?

That's easy to answer ...

I can see Abel saying, "You're a farmer."

I can see Cain saying, "You're an ignorant goat-herder."

I like your analogy ... evolution perpetuates the anger Cain had for Abel.

 

[Elendur]

That's easy to answer ...

I can see Abel saying, "You're a farmer."

I can see Cain saying, "You're an ignorant goat-herder."

I like your analogy ... evolution perpetuates the anger Cain had for Abel.

I don't understand who you say is the evolutionist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand who you say is the evolutionist.

I was trying to paint Cain as the evolutionist; but now that you mention it, they both sound like evolutionists don't they?

It's actually a little complicated.

Evolutionists like to say that civilization started out with farming, which technically it did not, since Adam's job was horticulture, and God would handle the farming aspect; but the Fall threw a simian wrench in the works, and Adam had to farm.

Evolutionists today like to say civilization started out with farming, but the Jews again threw a simian wrench in their computer paradigm by living in the desert for 40 years.

So evolutionists now like to say civilization started out with farming, but the Jews were exceptions; they were ignorant, bronze-age goat herders.*

Just like we Christians are ignorant, atomic-age Bible thumpers.

Science now [somewhat**] recognizes the Jews, but has turned its hatred toward Christians in particular and all things sacred in general.

* Neo-science is actually divided on this issue -- some deny the Jews existed in Egypt and the desert at all.

** I love asking scientists if, in their opinion, Israel is the Promised Land; and if so, who promised it.

 

[Elendur]

I was trying to paint Cain as the evolutionist; but now that you mention it, they both sound like evolutionists don't they?

It's actually a little complicated.

Evolutionists like to say that civilization started out with farming, which technically it did not, since Adam's job was horticulture, and God would handle the farming aspect; but the Fall threw a simian wrench in the works, and Adam had to farm.

Evolutionists today like to say civilization started out with farming, but the Jews again threw a simian wrench in their computer paradigm by living in the desert for 40 years.

So evolutionists now like to say civilization started out with farming, but the Jews were exceptions; they were ignorant, bronze-age goat herders.*

Just like we Christians are ignorant, atomic-age Bible thumpers.

Science now [somewhat**] recognizes the Jews, but has turned its hatred toward Christians in particular and all things sacred in general.

* Neo-science is actually divided on this issue -- some deny the Jews existed in Egypt and the desert at all.

** I love asking scientists if, in their opinion, Israel is the Promised Land; and if so, who promised it.

Ah, I thought it was Abel who was the evolutionist, telling Cain an observed fact, while Cain got angry and started with name calling.

And I might just say this:
Evolution =/= evolutionists
Evolution =/= history
Evolutionists =/= historians

I've got to ask you a question, since everything useful and true is in the bible, why post here in the science section?
(Just saying, you're relying heavily on the bible in this post)

 

[Theofane]

Why hate Evolution So?

Of all the things to hate, why hate Evolution? What has Evolution ever done to me that I should hate it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got to ask you a question, since everything useful and true is in the bible, why post here in the science section?

Well, I thought maybe I would answer the OP's question.

I mean, it reads like it was direct right at me -- although it probably wasn't, I certainly felt qualified to answer.

And for the record, I've started threads where I've begged and begged atheists and Internet scientists to leave God and/or the Bible out of it, but to no avail.

 

[Elendur]

Well, I thought maybe I would answer the OP's question.

I mean, it reads like it was direct right at me -- although it probably wasn't, I certainly felt qualified to answer.

And for the record, I've started threads where I've begged and begged atheists and Internet scientists to leave God and/or the Bible out of it, but to no avail.

That's what most scientists do. The atheists as well.

It's mostly extremists who tries to smirch science or atheists, thus creating the need for defense.
And the most effective defense against smirching is to explain how it really works.

With this hard-core view of science you have, what is your justification of using the fruits of science?

Sorry if I'm getting off topic and personal, but your reply to the OP is frightening (and that is mostly what I have in mind right now).

 

[AV1611VET]

With this hard-core view of science you have, what is your justification of using the fruits of science?

Sorry if I'm getting off topic and personal, but your reply to the OP is frightening (and that is mostly what I have in mind right now).

I thought my rant was against evolution -- not science.

My views on science are well-known here -- (or should be by now).

But to reiterate them:

I hold science up to a Higher Standard than even scientists themselves do.

I believe science is a gift from God, in fulfillment of Jesus' words:

John 10:10b I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

In other words, I believe the Holy Spirit gives some select people the 'gift of knowledge' -- or an innate desire to learn how God's creation works.

Instead, most scientists today use science against God and His Word.

 

[Elendur]

I thought my rant was against evolution -- not science.

My views on science are well-known here -- (or should be by now).

But to reiterate them:

I hold science up to a Higher Standard than even scientists themselves do.

I believe science is a gift from God, in fulfillment of Jesus' words:

John 10:10b I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

In other words, I believe the Holy Spirit gives some select people the 'gift of knowledge' -- or an innate desire to learn how God's creation works.

Instead, most scientists today use science against God and His Word.

Good that you've got your stance well defined at least.
I'll end this derailing then, thanks for answering

 

[AV1611VET]

Good that you've got your stance well defined at least.
I'll end this derailing then, thanks for answering

My pleasure.

It's important that people not think that I am against science.

I've thought about changing my user title, but I like it too well.

I do realize that I come across as against science, but I'm only against about 5% of it.