Evolution: an evil plot, or sound science?

Gooch's dad · Apr 24, 2002

OK, here's one for the creationists. I keep seeing posts along the lines of 'Evolution ain't fact, period' and, from unworthyone yesterday,

"Evolution (the deity) would have to come up from hell and slap me in the face."

So what is your opinion about the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of evolutionary biologists worldwide? They are studying this every day. They make their living off of trying to find some fault with the theory (none have yet succeeded). A huge number of these evolutionary biologists are probably Christians. You don't think so? Then have a look at the web page for Baylor Baptist college in Texas, especially this listing of undergraduate Biology courses:

http://www3.baylor.edu/Biology/Undergrad/Courses.html

Partway down the page is this, one of several courses that teach evolution:

4365 Topics in Evolution: Processes which establish or eliminate variation in populations and how these mechanisms effect biological diversity.

A bit earlier is this course:

3429 Comparative Chordate Anatomy: Structural, functional, and evolutionary relationships of the chordates, particularly vertebrates.

Hop on over to the web page for Southern Methodist University, at http://www2.smu.edu/biology/ and we find this:

3303. Evolution.
5320. Viruses and Molecular Evolution.
5320. Viruses and Molecular Evolution.
Examination of the prebiotic world and the current theories on the evolution of invasive elements, such as plasmids, transposons, mobile introns and viruses, including HIV. Prerequisites: BIOL 4321 or 4322.
5366. Vertebrate Origins and Evolution (GEOL 5366).

OK, that is just two of many Christian colleges that teach evolution.

OK, what about churches themselves? On this page we have a whole list of churches (most of them Christian) with statements supporting the teaching of evolution as sound science. This list includes:

The Lutheran World Federation
United Methodist Church
The General Convention of the Episcopal Church
United Presbyterian Church In The USA

OK, so answers? Is it a big evil conspiracy by all those scientists? If so, how can so many of the scientists be Christians themselves? And how can so many Christian churches come out in support of evolution as sound science?

I want answers!

ZiSunka · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
OK, here's one for the creationists. I keep seeing posts along the lines of 'Evolution ain't fact, period' and, from unworthyone yesterday,

So what is your opinion about the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of evolutionary biologists worldwide? They are studying this every day. They make their living off of trying to find some fault with the theory (none have yet succeeded).
[

That's cute!

Hundreds of thousands who can't prove evolution is false.

First, there aren't hundreds of thousands worldwide. There are a few thousand. You grossly overestimate the amount of money that is available for this type of research. There is barely enough funding to support a handful of professors who do research while supporting themselves by teaching. Maybe a dozen scientists are able to procur grants that provide any substantial income. They have a lot of grad assistants who do the biggest part of the work, then they write up the results and publish it.

And, it is a publish or perish kind of world. Professors who don't regularly publish their research are not promoted and do not receive grants. In my tenure as a research scientist (very low salary by the way), I saw several professors whose research did NOT bear out their hypothesis, so they just rewrote their hypothesis to make it publishable. One I knew actually confessed that he often made up data so he could have something to publish.

Science is not as pure and holy as you think it is. It is marred by the personal needs and wants of the humans that conduct it. That's why scientific "facts" change so often! Different scientists have different agendas and different moralities. They "gather data" to support their need to publish.

Gooch's dad · Apr 24, 2002

A 'handful' of scientists? lol, that's cute!!

Virtually every university has several professors doing biology. Evolution is inseparable from modern biology, you can't be doing biology and not be studying some effect or characteristic of evolutionary biology.

I'll find some numbers to prove you wrong, but that will have to wait for a later post. The rest of your post appeared to be a personal attack on all of science, which doesn't really say much at all.

As for my original claim--regardless of the number of scientists doing evolutionary biology, their are ALL trying to compete with each other. If one managed to prove evolution to be baseless, if one managed to find contradictory evidence--that one person WOULD get a Nobel Prize. Without a doubt.

All it would take is for a paleontologist, for example, to find ONE mammal fossil in the Cambrian layers. This has never happened. Not once. The geologic layers match exactly the development from simpler creatures to more complex creatures, over billions of years. Nowhere is a fossil out of place.

If you want to talk about probabilities and chances--what are the chances that random processes put all those fossils in exactly the right order? The chances against it would be larger than the # of atoms in the universe!

So again--what about those Christian universities? Hello?

seebs · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by lambslove

That's cute! Hundreds of thousands who can't prove evolution is false.

Well, it should be pretty easy, if it is false. There are dozens of things that have been identified as evidence that would compellingly show that at least some part of the theory is wrong. There are trillions of different ways you could make DNA, all of which would be equally functional; common descent is mostly argued based on the fact that, so far, we've never found any of them in use, except the one that's in use in every living thing we've found on Earth.

If, some day, we find that some species, somewhere, is using a different set of molecules for DNA, then we'll have very good evidence that that species *isn't* from the same evolutionary tree that we are.

Seriously, though, I would say that "hundreds of thousands" is probably about right, worldwide. Just about all biologists are using evolutionary theory daily; it's about as fundamental to modern biology as Ohm's law is to electrical engineering.

Any time a substantial challenge arises, it generates quite a lot of interest. Modern evolutionary theory is substantially different from the fairly simplistic model Darwin came up with.

2infinity · Apr 24, 2002

Anita has quite often demonstrated the parallel between evolution and Satan. Well, I steeled myself and checked out the church of satan website (can you beleive that such evil is allowed on the internet!), and guess what I found. In the basic tenents of satanism there are statements which can be attributed to evolution!

I can understand that this may offend many peolple here, so if you are not ready please do not read any further. Here are just a few of the beleifs of satanists that i found there.
From The Nine Satanic Statements : #7 states "Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his divine spiritual and intellectual development, has become the most vicious animal of all! "
Evoluton also despicts man as just another animal.
Hmmmmm

From The Nine Satanic Statements : #5 states "Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek! " # 8 states "8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! "

Sounds like evolution's Survival of the Fittest to me!

Now, I realize that many evolutionists claim to be athiests or even christian (yeah right). But remember, convincing people that he does not exist is satan's greatest achievement.

Gooch's dad · Apr 24, 2002

OK, 2infinity, I won't even bother dealing with the logical fallacies in that post, other than to ask WHY you didn't address the FACT that evolution is taught as sound science at such colleges as Baylor Baptist, and Southern Methodist U?

Do you people even realize that Behe DOES accept common descent and the fact that chimps and humans have a common primate ancestor?

seebs · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by 2infinity
Anita has quite often demonstrated the parallel between evolution and Satan. Well, I steeled myself and checked out the church of satan website (can you beleive that such evil is allowed on the internet!), and guess what I found. In the basic tenents of satanism there are statements which can be attributed to evolution!

Sure, and they probably also believe in mathematics. The "church of satan" are a bunch of kooks, and furthermore, they're quite aggressive about pointing out that they are *not* worshipping the Christian "devil" figure at all. They're just in it for the shock value.

Anyway, if I can find anything in the beliefs of the "Church of Satan" that is supported by the Bible, will you denounce the Bible? It is possible for false people to use true statements as part of their belief systems.

ZiSunka · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
A 'handful' of scientists? lol, that's cute!!

Virtually every university has several professors doing biology. Evolution is inseparable from modern biology, you can't be doing biology and not be studying some effect or characteristic of evolutionary biology.

I'll find some numbers to prove you wrong, but that will have to wait for a later post. The rest of your post appeared to be a personal attack on all of science, which doesn't really say much at all.

As for my original claim--regardless of the number of scientists doing evolutionary biology, their are ALL trying to compete with each other. If one managed to prove evolution to be baseless, if one managed to find contradictory evidence--that one person WOULD get a Nobel Prize. Without a doubt.

All it would take is for a paleontologist, for example, to find ONE mammal fossil in the Cambrian layers. This has never happened. Not once. The geologic layers match exactly the development from simpler creatures to more complex creatures, over billions of years. Nowhere is a fossil out of place.

If you want to talk about probabilities and chances--what are the chances that random processes put all those fossils in exactly the right order? The chances against it would be larger than the # of atoms in the universe!

So again--what about those Christian universities? Hello?

You grossly overestimate the power that the theory of evolution has over modern biology. Most of the biologist I know are NOT studying evolution. Most of them are studying cellular biology. You really need to get in touch with the real stats before you start making statements like that.

The fossil record is so sketchy and incomplete that no vaild conclusions can be drawn from it.

As for your statement about fossils and randomness, I think you just proved the ID point. It couldn't have happened randomly. Which means, since evolution is based on random happenings, it can't be an evolutionary process.

As for evolution being taught in Christian colleges, I think you will find that it is Organic Evolution being taught, which is the study of changes in gene pools, not the study of one species changing into another. Again, after you get your biology degree, come back with real facts and we'll talk.

As it is, you are boring me. It's the same old arguments everytime from you evolutionists. We've heard it, seen it, argued it and we're bored.

Gooch's dad · Apr 24, 2002

You grossly overestimate the power that the theory of evolution has over modern biology. Most of the biologist I know are NOT studying evolution. Most of them are studying cellular biology. You really need to get in touch with the real stats before you start making statements like that.

Yada yada yada. And you grossly underestimate the power that the theory of evolution has over modern biology. Each year there are dozens of conferences, each with thousands of attendees, in all areas of biology--virology, bacteriology, HIV research, etc. Each one of these fields is completely intertwined with evolutionary biology. Where are YOUR statistics? If you claim to refute the dominant paradigm which is accepted science, you had better provide more than just opinions.

The fossil record is so sketchy and incomplete that no vaild conclusions can be drawn from it.

You're kidding, right? For marine fossils, there is literally an earth-full of them. And there are NO fossils of, for example, cetaceans, in the deeper layers such as the Cambrian.

As for your statement about fossils and randomness, I think you just proved the ID point. It couldn't have happened randomly. Which means, since evolution is based on random happenings, it can't be an evolutionary process.

Complete strawman. Evolution isn't random, it is a process of cause and effect. The only part that can be described as random are point mutations, and these are just one part of the entire process. You failed to understand my point entirely. WHY is the fossil record in the order which we see? Please answer that question.

As for evolution being taught in Christian colleges, I think you will find that it is Organic Evolution being taught, which is the study of changes in gene pools, not the study of one species changing into another. Again, after you get your biology degree, come back with real facts and we'll talk.

LOL!! Does this:

3429 Comparative Chordate Anatomy: Structural, functional, and evolutionary relationships of the chordates, particularly vertebrates.

Or this:

5366. Vertebrate Origins and Evolution (GEOL 5366).

Sound like just 'changes in gene pools'? They ARE studies of one species changing into another.

The fact that Dembski's precious study center got shut down at Baylor is awfully strong evidence that the good scientists who are his professional colleagues there do NOT want to be seen as promoting dogma over science. And creationism is dogma, not science.

Yes, and you bore me too. So? At least I'm providing sound references and sources for my claims. You have yet to provide anything but opinion. I'd very much like to have a real debate on the subject. Please provide some SOUND evidence which contradicts evolution, ok?

ANITA · Apr 24, 2002

IS SURE SEEMS STRANGE THAT ALL THOSE "SCIENTIST" WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION, AND ALL THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING SPENT TO DO SO, AND YET, NOT ONE BIT OF DEMONSTRATABLE, OBSERVABLE OR REPEATABLE EVIDENCE EXISTS CONCLUSIVELY. IF THERE IS ANY REAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, OR MISSING LINKS, OR THE BIG BANG ETC, ETC, ETC, WHY THEN IT WOULD WOULD THEN BECOME ACADEMIC, YET IT'S NOT.
THEORIES ARE ALL THAT EXISTS. NOT ONE INTERMEDIATE SPECIES, ZIPPO, NADA...SEEMS LIKE "THEY" MIGHT CONSIDER WHAT WE CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN TELLING THEM ALL ALONG, BUT WAIT, THEN IT WOULD BE RELIGION, LOL. AND THEY SAY THEIR THEORIES ARE "SCIENCE". BLESS EM LORD, HELP THEM SEE THE TRUTH THEY SEEK SO DILIGENTLY.

seebs · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by ANITA
IS SURE SEEMS STRANGE THAT ALL THOSE "SCIENTIST" WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION, AND ALL THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING SPENT TO DO SO, AND YET, NOT ONE BIT OF DEMONSTRATABLE, OBSERVABLE OR REPEATABLE EVIDENCE EXISTS CONCLUSIVELY. IF THERE IS ANY REAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, OR MISSING LINKS, OR THE BIG BANG ETC, ETC, ETC, WHY THEN IT WOULD WOULD THEN BECOME ACADEMIC, YET IT'S NOT.
THEORIES ARE ALL THAT EXISTS. NOT ONE INTERMEDIATE SPECIES, ZIPPO, NADA...SEEMS LIKE "THEY" MIGHT CONSIDER WHAT WE CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN TELLING THEM ALL ALONG, BUT WAIT, THEN IT WOULD BE RELIGION, LOL. AND THEY SAY THEIR THEORIES ARE "SCIENCE". BLESS EM LORD, HELP THEM SEE THE TRUTH THEY SEEK SO DILIGENTLY.

First off, this isn't a big consumer of "taxpayer money"; in fact, research in these fields has led to a lot of useful real-world results.

Secondly, though, a lot of the things you say are simply factually incorrect. Intermediate fossils have been found, although not many. Speciation has been observed repeatedly in the last twenty years, although it hasn't been very exciting yet.

And remember, in the last two thousand years, no one has found a single bit of sustainable evidence for young-earth creation, except for a very literal reading of the Bible.

brt28006 · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by 2infinity
Anita has quite often demonstrated the parallel between evolution and Satan. Well, I steeled myself and checked out the church of satan website (can you beleive that such evil is allowed on the internet!), and guess what I found. In the basic tenents of satanism there are statements which can be attributed to evolution!

Evolution is a part of many religions, not just Satanism.

As for it being allowed on the internet... I cannot even begin to say how shocked I was by you asking what you did. I am extremely glad its allowed on the internet, in easy access for people to read and dispel the various misconceptions they might have had about that particular religion.

I don't care much for many of their beliefs myself, however. Sure, Druidism views humans as being animals... but its a good animal, rather than some primal beast as described by Satanists. But hey, people have a dark side, and I can see at least a bit of merit in what the Church of Satan believes. To be honest, I was unaware that they were referring to the "dark power" and negativity in the world as "Satan". I had been thinking all along they were worshipping the devil of the Bible.

seebs · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by brt28006
As for it being allowed on the internet... I cannot even begin to say how shocked I was by you asking what you did. I am extremely glad its allowed on the internet, in easy access for people to read and dispel the various misconceptions they might have had about that particular religion.

I'm a big believer in free speech. Haven't Christians been persecuted enough to see that persecution is not, in general, a good thing? If you want these people banned, because you think they're wrong, what happens when an atheist wants you banned, because he thinks you're wrong?

brt28006 · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by seebs

I'm a big believer in free speech. Haven't Christians been persecuted enough to see that persecution is not, in general, a good thing? If you want these people banned, because you think they're wrong, what happens when an atheist wants you banned, because he thinks you're wrong?

Wait, were you saying that I was supporting censorship?
I agree with you completely on free speach.

seebs · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by brt28006

Wait, were you saying that I was supporting censorship?
I agree with you completely on free speach.

No, I was agreeing with you. I think these people are kooks, and probably dangerous kooks, but I know also that there are a lot of people who think *I'm* a dangerous kook, for my beliefs, and would be happier if they could shut me up.

I don't believe that humanity can produce perfect judgement, so we can't simply say "oh, let's just shut up the people who are wrong". So, we have to use a rule we *can* implement, with fallible humans to do the work - and the only one that's safe is to let everyone talk.

Can't see how my beliefs could be dangerous? Just imagine how threatened those people would feel by my belief that humans are special, and that we can communicate in some way with an omnipotent being that I can't provide any kind of documentary evidence for, or that "right" and "wrong" are meaningful concepts. These ideas, too, are "dangerous" to some people...

p.s.: "speech". Two e's, no a's.

brt28006 · Apr 24, 2002

Ah, I see. You also make some good points about the relativity of just who is "dangerous".

Originally posted by seebs

p.s.: "speech". Two e's, no a's.

Agh I did it again.
I'm so used to MS Word autocorrecting that.

ANITA · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by seebs

First off, this isn't a big consumer of "taxpayer money"; in fact, research in these fields has led to a lot of useful real-world results.

Secondly, though, a lot of the things you say are simply factually incorrect. Intermediate fossils have been found, although not many. Speciation has been observed repeatedly in the last twenty years, although it hasn't been very exciting yet.

And remember, in the last two thousand years, no one has found a single bit of sustainable evidence for young-earth creation, except for a very literal reading of the Bible.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO TELL ME JUST ONE INTERMEDIATE SPECIES. "MICRO-EVOLUTION" (WHICH REALLY SHOULD JUST BE CALLED VARIATION OF KIND, IS OBVIOUS, BUT NEVER HAVE THEY FOUND AN INTERSPECIES LINKING ONE SPECIES TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ONE. IF YOU KNOW ONE, PLEASE..TELL ME!

TheBear · Apr 24, 2002

What is defined as 'conclusive' evidence?

I would like to use the police detective analogy again.

Let's say that police detectives respond to a call that someone heard a gunshot in the building, and a few minutes later, heard the sound of screeching tires. The detectives search the building and find a person, slumped over dead, with their hands tied behind their back, and gunpowder residue in the back of their head. The detectives interview all people who were in the building around the time of the incident, and all cooberate the same theme.....they heard what sounded like a gunshot, and they all heard the sound of screeching tires. No one actually saw anything.

Back at the scene of the incident, detectives work meticulously to uncover any evidence or clues to the crime. However, the perpetrator was extremely carefull not to leave any evidence, wearing latex gloves, recovering the spent shell, cleaning up any footprints, etc. Consequently, the detectives did not find any gun, fingerprints, footprints, spent shells or other conclusive evidence.

So the question is: Did a murder occur? If you say yes, how can you say so without all the conclusive evidence that points to the exact murderer?

Now, for all the evolution nay-sayers, think about this before you try to dismiss evolution just because all the conclusive evidence has not been uncovered, yet.

John

Ray K · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by ANITA
IS SURE SEEMS STRANGE THAT ALL THOSE "SCIENTIST" WHO ARE TRYING TO PROVE EVOLUTION, AND ALL THAT TAXPAYERS MONEY BEING SPENT TO DO SO, AND YET, NOT ONE BIT OF DEMONSTRATABLE, OBSERVABLE OR REPEATABLE EVIDENCE EXISTS CONCLUSIVELY. IF THERE IS ANY REAL EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION, OR MISSING LINKS, OR THE BIG BANG ETC, ETC, ETC, WHY THEN IT WOULD WOULD THEN BECOME ACADEMIC, YET IT'S NOT.

BUT IF YOU GO READ THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD CALLED "EVIDENCES FOR EVOLUTION", YOU WILL SEE SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATABLE, OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE EVIDENCE. AND IT IS 'ACADEMIC'. ARE BAYLOR AND SMU NOT ACADEMIC?

Ray K · Apr 24, 2002

Originally posted by ANITA

I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO TELL ME JUST ONE INTERMEDIATE SPECIES. "MICRO-EVOLUTION" (WHICH REALLY SHOULD JUST BE CALLED VARIATION OF KIND, IS OBVIOUS, BUT NEVER HAVE THEY FOUND AN INTERSPECIES LINKING ONE SPECIES TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ONE. IF YOU KNOW ONE, PLEASE..TELL ME!

ARCHAEOPTERYX IS A CLEAR INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN BIRDS AND REPTILES. IF THE FEATHERS WERE NOT VISIBLE IN THE SLATE, IT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS A REPTILE BECAUSE IT HAS FRONT CLAWS, SHARP TEETH AND A LONG TAIL.

Evolution: an evil plot, or sound science?

Active Member

It means 'yellow dog'

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Member

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

It means 'yellow dog'

Active Member

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Active Member

Active Member

NON-WOKED

Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum

Similar threads