Anti-Evolution material and it's underlying deception

[dmvprof2]

One of the things that strikes me about the ongoing discussions about evolution is the nature of the material made available to people who refuse to believe in evolution. What strikes me about it is that it is always outside of the scientific community and that it is almost always deceitful and fallacious.

From Kirk Cameron, to Ken Hamm, and even Michael Behe and the Discovery institute and their Wedge Document. These people produce volumes of fallacious arguments and pseudo-scientific material that so many people use to reject of one of the most scrutinized and solid scientific theories that exists. This material is cut and pasted and linked to so often that people see to think that this material can substitute their own thought and consideration of the evidence.

What strikes me most about the authors of this material is that deceit is their only possible motivation. That since they are lacking any real arguments within the scientific community, they have set out to bypass science and go directly to their flock in hopes of discrediting scientists and science in general. As if this is their only avenue because of the corruption of the scientific method that has caused scientists to refute their case against evolution.

There couldn't be a more disappointing turn of events for Christianity. Instead of embracing beliefs that withstand scientific scrutiny, these people seem to have decided to simply abandon scientific scrutiny.

 

[arunma]

One of the things that strikes me about the ongoing discussions about evolution is the nature of the material made available to people who refuse to believe in evolution. What strikes me about it is that it is always outside of the scientific community and that it is almost always deceitful and fallacious.

From Kirk Cameron, to Ken Hamm, and even Michael Behe and the Discovery institute and their Wedge Document. These people produce volumes of fallacious arguments and pseudo-scientific material that so many people use to reject of one of the most scrutinized and solid scientific theories that exists. This material is cut and pasted and linked to so often that people see to think that this material can substitute their own thought and consideration of the evidence.

If I may make a correction here, actually Michael Behe and the people at the Discovery Institute are scientists who hold university professorships and publish in standard refereed journals. Of course their respective universities and journals likely don't approve of their ID work. But it wouldn't be correct to say that all creationist work comes from non-scientists.

 

[acropolis]

The pseudo-science and deception repeated so often by people out to make a buck is tragic. It's also tragic how easy it seems to get people pay money for this deception. Seems there's a lot of money to be made peddling lies.

It made me happy that Kent Hovind was convicted for his greed and lack of ethics. He was arrested a few days after I let myself get talked into sitting through three hours of his pseudoscience ramblings. Three hours of my life I'll never get back. The sad part was knowing someone in that bible study paid money for those DVDs.

 

[Blackness]

I am reading a book called "Scientists Confront Creationism and Intelligent Design", it is a good book so far. Creation "science" is like water, it comes in many forms but it all the same stuff.

 

[Douger]

Evolution is not scientific fact either, and to pass it off as such is deception as well.
It's a cute theory and I sometimes find myself intrigued by it's timeliness, assumptions, anecdotes, etc. but you scratch the surface and it's nothing but implausible rubbish.

 

[Blackness]

Evolution is not scientific fact either, and to pass it off as such is deception as well. It's a cute theory and I sometimes find myself intrigued by it's timeliness, assumptions, anecdotes, etc. but you scratch the surface and it's nothing but implausible rubbish

Do you have any sources to back up your claims or are you just posting your opinion? I highly doubt you would continue to be so ignorant towards Evolution if you actually did any research on it.

 

[[serious]]

He's probably making the mistake to assume that evolution is the same as random chance. Both creation and evolution are alternatives to chance development. Creation explains it by citing a supernatural origin where as evolution cites selection pressures on populations.

 

[Naraoia]

Evolution is not scientific fact either, and to pass it off as such is deception as well.

Evolution (as in, populations' genetic make-up changes over time) is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory, but a strongly evidenced theory (like the ToE or general relativity) is about the surest you can get in science.

It's a cute theory

Cute? It's a wonderful theory, simple in its principles, insightful and well-evidenced. But cute, I'm afraid no. You have a very strange notion of cute if you think something based on natural selection falls under this label

and I sometimes find myself intrigued by it's timeliness, assumptions, anecdotes, etc.

Assumptions such as?

but you scratch the surface and it's nothing but implausible rubbish.

If you did more than scratch the surface you might find it's anything but.

 

[cutterfl]

Do you have any sources to back up your claims or are you just posting your opinion? I highly doubt you would continue to be so ignorant towards Evolution if you actually did any research on it.

Do you want a complete list or just a few sources? Well evolution is wrong and couldnt happen, I am totally convinced of that. By evolution I mean common descent, not the several theories tied up in that word. evolution of species occurs naturally, common descent did not and can not. The only evidence for it is essentially classification, which is an artificial arrangement of species according to chosen features, such as teeth for mammals. Choose other features and classification changes, these changes have in fact taken place many times. The other proofs of CD have fallen away. Vestigial organs are all but gone, best known in humans is the appendix, strange monkeys dont have one. The almost 200 vestigial organs in humans have found to have uses. Evolution doesnt show transitional forms between species, but merely juxtaposed groupings. Further it does not explain at all how life made major jumps that begger the imagination, such as the formation of life, the formation of complex cells, and the formation of metazoans (multicelled creatures). It is further interesting that each of these jumps occurs with both a compartilization of functions AND novel forms of reproduction and did so not once, but multiple times in multiple species, but all with similar changes. THis is far better explained as the work of design. To accept common descent is to accept that all life came from a single magic bacteria. The EVIDENCE points to a creator.

 

[cutterfl]

Evolution (as in, populations' genetic make-up changes over time) is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory, but a strongly evidenced theory (like the ToE or general relativity) is about the surest you can get in science.
quote]

see relativity has predictions that have been proven true. Most of common descent's predictions have and are falling by the way side. Even most of the original proof has. Explaining this would take pages (210 pages so far), but embryology ala aggasiz and haeckel is gone. vestigial organs, gone(200 gone in humans, 10 left...."leg" bones in a whale that hold their penis in, umm my legs arent connected by muscle to my penis...just like animals with real tails dont have their connected to tissue to hold their anus shut ala our coccyx). vestigial genes, going, junk isnt proving such junk. transitional fossils are a joke, (take an ape with apeish brain size and ratios of leg to arm and say it walked), take an extinct reptile with smaller jaw bones and call it mammal-like reptile. Take a bird (with a wishbone, feathers and perching abilities) with teeth and call it the ancestor of birds. Take a 4 legged mammal with less differentiated teeth and call it the ancestor of whale.....wait genetics says its now in the wrong family, so we find another whale ancestor to fit the bill.....so you may need to scratch your theory a little harder.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

Evolutionists also push half-truths. Never have I seen one of them online fully explain what evolution is to other people, explaining it to other people, at least not without an insult. And where's the evidence for earth being billions of years old? There isn't any. Saying we found "old rocks" and calling people who don't believe it idiots isn't proof.

 

[Naraoia]

Evolutionists also push half-truths.

Who, and what?

Never have I seen one of them online fully explain what evolution is to other people, explaining it to other people, at least not without an insult.

Fully explain? That's a bit complicated. If it weren't there wouldn't be a huge and flourishing field of science devoted to evolution. But ask your questions and I'm willing to answer them to the best of my ability.

In the meantime, you can browse around this for a starter.

And where's the evidence for earth being billions of years old?

All over the world. See for example here.

There isn't any.

Having read the paper linked above, you might want to reconsider that claim.

Saying we found "old rocks" and calling people who don't believe it idiots isn't proof.

Fortunately we have much better evidence than that.

 

[Danyc]

Vestigial organs are all but gone, best known in humans is the appendix, strange monkeys dont have one. The almost 200 vestigial organs in humans have found to have uses. Evolution doesnt show transitional forms between species, but merely juxtaposed groupings.

Then you do not understand the definition of vestigial.

Vestigial organs and features do not have to be useless, that can have them and do. Educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

 

[Washington]

If I may make a correction here, actually Michael Behe and the people at the Discovery Institute are scientists who hold university professorships and publish in standard refereed journals. Of course their respective universities and journals likely don't approve of their ID work. But it wouldn't be correct to say that all creationist work comes from non-scientists.

I believe the thrust of dmvprof2's remark was not that there are no genuine scientists who are creationists, but that there is no accepted (peer reviewed) science going on in the area of creationism. And when one considers

it wouldn't be correct to say that all creationist work comes from non-scientists.

one might be pressed to wonder why none of these scientists have presented acceptable science in support of creationism. Of course, those of us who understand evolution and the self-imposed beliefs of creationists it is no wonder. The lack of scientific evidence for creationism is quite understandable.

 

[Baggins]

see relativity has predictions that have been proven true.

So has evolution. An example of this would be that genetic evidence would show a twin nested hierarchy, that has, so far been shown to be true.

Most of common descent's predictions have and are falling by the way side.

Unevidenced rhetoric

Even most of the original proof has.

Unevidenced rhetoric

Explaining this would take pages (210 pages so far), but embryology ala aggasiz and haeckel is gone.

Haekel's work is not gone. His original drawings have been shown to be over-egged but his basic work was sound and is still accepted:

Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.

from wikipedia

Just his conclusions are no longer fully accepted, but that is what science does it approaches truth ever closer, it is not dogma

vestigial organs, gone(200 gone in humans, 10 left...."leg" bones in a whale that hold their penis in, umm my legs arent connected by muscle to my penis...just like animals with real tails dont have their connected to tissue to hold their anus shut ala our coccyx). vestigial genes, going,

You don't appear to understand the definition of what a vestigial organ is:

Vestigiality describes homologous characters of organisms which have lost all or most of their original function in a species through evolution.

from wikipedia

junk isnt proving such junk.

As scientists are discovering, or am I missing the great strides that creationists are making in this area

transitional fossils are a joke,

s is your understanding of palaeontology, obviously

(take an ape with apeish brain size and ratios of leg to arm and say it walked),

All apes walk, and you can tell whether they walked upright or not from studying their skeletons, if you are clever.

take an extinct reptile with smaller jaw bones and call it mammal-like reptile.

You actually take a series of animals than are in transition from being reptile to mammal and show how reptilian jaw articulation becomes mammalian jaw articulation and how the left over - vestigial - bones become mammalian ear bones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Take a bird (with a wishbone, feathers and perching abilities) with teeth and call it the ancestor of birds.

There are lots of transitionals between dinosaurs and birds not just one you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Take a 4 legged mammal with less differentiated teeth and call it the ancestor of whale.

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakicetus

This is the ancestor of whales

.

so you may need to scratch your theory a little harder.

You may need to learn what the evidence for evolution actually is, you appear confused and poorly informed.

 

[Baggins]

Evolutionists also push half-truths. Never have I seen one of them online fully explain what evolution is to other people, explaining it to other people, at least not without an insult.

It's your lucky day then:

The fact of evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population over time.

The theory of evolution explains how this occurs and the changes it brings about. That is a little more complicated to summarise in a sound bite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

And where's the evidence for earth being billions of years old?

This comes from radiometric dating of igneous rocks ( and sedimentary rocks with new techniques ) and minerals.

To deny that this is accurate you would have to disprove the whole of nuclear physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

There isn't any.

every rock on earth can be dated, so there is a huge amount of evidence for the age of the earth and the relative ages for the rocks on it.

Saying we found "old rocks" and calling people who don't believe it idiots isn't proof.

I whole heartedly agree, that is why geologists radiometrically date rocks and have done for decades now. This appears to have passed you by, but it is not too late to read the links and learn something new.

 

[TheKingOfImmortality]

no comment

 

[uberd00b]

The OP is right. I have found in nearly a decade of following this debate that the creationist proponents are without fail both ignorant/dishonest[sup]*[/sup] and simply incorrect every single time they try and argue for their position.

[sup]*[/sup]It's hard to tell whether they're deliberately lying or are passing on lies they've been taught. But even if they are simply ignorant they will often repeat bogus arguments after they have been corrected, which pushes them straight into dishonesty. It's impossible to be a Christian and be a creationist.

 

[KET20]

One of the things that strikes me about the ongoing discussions about evolution is the nature of the material made available to people who refuse to believe in evolution. What strikes me about it is that it is always outside of the scientific community and that it is almost always deceitful and fallacious.

From Kirk Cameron, to Ken Hamm, and even Michael Behe and the Discovery institute and their Wedge Document. These people produce volumes of fallacious arguments and pseudo-scientific material that so many people use to reject of one of the most scrutinized and solid scientific theories that exists. This material is cut and pasted and linked to so often that people see to think that this material can substitute their own thought and consideration of the evidence.

What strikes me most about the authors of this material is that deceit is their only possible motivation. That since they are lacking any real arguments within the scientific community, they have set out to bypass science and go directly to their flock in hopes of discrediting scientists and science in general. As if this is their only avenue because of the corruption of the scientific method that has caused scientists to refute their case against evolution.

There couldn't be a more disappointing turn of events for Christianity. Instead of embracing beliefs that withstand scientific scrutiny, these people seem to have decided to simply abandon scientific scrutiny.

Boggles the mind, does it not?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Evolutionists also push half-truths. Never have I seen one of them online fully explain what evolution is to other people, explaining it to other people, at least not without an insult. And where's the evidence for earth being billions of years old? There isn't any. Saying we found "old rocks" and calling people who don't believe it idiots isn't proof.

Spend three years doing a palaeontology, biology or geology degree, follow this up with a masters degree and if you are really clever perhaps a PhD.

Then you will understand evolution.

When you say evolution has never be explained properly, you are wrong, there are a myriad of books, documentaries and university courses covering the subject matter in great detail.

I have to admit my first real learning experience of evolution was from two sources; Survival Specials (UK TV 1970s) and the legendary Life on Earth (David Attenborough BBC 1970s)

Here’s a link to his books, it’s an excellent starting point for anyone who want to increase their knowledge base of evolution.

Books by David Attenborough