Damage Done by Creationism

Cuddles222 said:

Originally Posted by Cuddles222

Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.
​

I know what a scientific theory is, and Natural Evolution, so far, lacks evidence to confirm it as a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how many in the academic community claim differently. The truth is the truth. It remains a philosophy. I see Theistic Evolution more believable than Natural Evolution. Trillions upon trillions of years could be added to the Natural Evolutionary time-table and it still wouldn't be enough to fill in the thousands of gaps (steps) where only divine intervention could be concluded as having filled.

Click to expand...

Scientifically, I'm not sure how "Natural" evolution differs from "Theistic" evolution. As a "Theistic Evolutionist" myself, I view evolution as a very natural and naturally explained phenomenon and set of mechanisms. I think pitting "natural" and "theistic" against each other in this sense doesn't serve much particular good.

A philosophical antithesis to Theistic evolution would be Atheistic evolution, as to the role or lack of role in the natural processes by the Divine is unrelated to any of the science involved and is entirely a matter of theological-philosophical leanings. By extension also to all other fields of scientific inquiry. E.g. Sexual reproduction is easily explained as being entirely natural process and mechanisms, though whether or not there is Divine activity present (e.g. the bequeathing of a human soul ) remains entirely in the realm of the theological-philosophical.

Not really trying to argue, just point out that the use of the word "natural" here probably isn't the most favorable of word choices.

-CryptoLutheran

Tomas de Torquemada said:

So... your arguement is the rape of the sabine women caused central asian nomads to migrate to western europe.

Thats some serious magical thinking. There is no karma. And there is no reason for future enemies to show mercy to you if you show mercy to others now.

Also, on MAD. MAD worked against the idea of a unilateral first strike. That is why the arms race occured; if there ever was a sufficient disparity in power, a unilateral first strike became the optimum solution.

EDIT:

Wait, are you argueing if the romans hadn't raped the sabine women, the barbarians would have said "Oh, I guess we don't need to flee demographic pressures on us from the east. Those romans are so nice!"

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. There's really no need to delve into historical case studies. Civilization existed for nearly two millennia with the collective mentality that it was alright to conquer weaker groups if it was within your power. Clearly things are much different now between European nations than they where in 117 BC. Why is that?

Why doesn't the U.S., Russia, or China simply conquer (in the sense of Julius Creaser, not George Bush) any one of the myriad of smaller nations it has the power to? Any one of these nations has within its power to enslave the entire country of Kenya. One of the reasons they don't is that there would be a global outrage and a possible retaliation from a coalition of other nations. When Iraq decided to invade Kuwait, the world stepped in to stop Iraq. Moreover, our politics, international relations, philosophies, and emphasis on the value of human life have been much refined since the days of Julius Creaser. It took millennia of bloodshed before getting to the point of the Geneva Convention, war-crimes tribunals, and the universal declaration of human rites.
Globalization is a testament to our decision to work together within a global community instead of taking by force what we want while anxiously waiting for our turn to be victimized. Britain realized that they were losing more manpower and resources imperializing Africa and Asia than reaping in reward. As a result of our decision to cooperate, the standard of living for the average person has gone way up since the height of the Roman Empire- relatively speaking of course. Again, the decision to cooperate and abstain from rape and pillage is a pragmatic one.

Historically speaking, this is all a VERY recent development. Just 70 years ago, Germany tried to conquer Europe. The U.S. was founded on the blood of Native Americans not too long before that- relative to world history. From the perspective of the average emperor of 100bc, it may have been the optimal course of action to pillage neighboring peoples, but said emperor didn't have the benefit of another 2000 years of intellectual insight and history to draw on to realize that there are better ways to function in a diverse world.

beastmaster said:

You're missing the point. There's really no need to delve into historical case studies. Civilization existed for nearly two millennia with the collective mentality that it was alright to conquer weaker groups if it was within your power. Clearly things are much different now between European nations than they where in 117 BC. Why is that?

Why doesn't the U.S., Russia, or China simply conquer (in the sense of Julius Creaser, not George Bush) any one of the myriad of smaller nations it has the power to? Any one of these nations has within its power to enslave the entire country of Kenya. One of the reasons they don't is that there would be a global outrage and a possible retaliation from a coalition of other nations. When Iraq decided to invade Kuwait, the world stepped in to stop Iraq. Moreover, our politics, international relations, philosophies, and emphasis on the value of human life have been much refined since the days of Julius Creaser. It took millennia of bloodshed before getting to the point of the Geneva Convention, war-crimes tribunals, and the universal declaration of human rites.
Globalization is a testament to our decision to work together within a global community instead of taking by force what we want while anxiously waiting for our turn to be victimized. Britain realized that they were losing more manpower and resources imperializing Africa and Asia than reaping in reward. As a result of our decision to cooperate, the standard of living for the average person has gone way up since the height of the Roman Empire- relatively speaking of course. Again, the decision to cooperate and abstain from rape and pillage is a pragmatic one.

Historically speaking, this is all a VERY recent development. Just 70 years ago, Germany tried to conquer Europe. The U.S. was founded on the blood of Native Americans not too long before that- relative to world history. From the perspective of the average emperor of 100bc, it may have been the optimal course of action to pillage neighboring peoples, but said emperor didn't have the benefit of another 2000 years of intellectual insight and history to draw on to realize that there are better ways to function in a diverse world.

Click to expand...

Are you even talking about evolution anymore?

Historically speaking, this is all a VERY recent development. Just 70 years ago, Germany tried to conquer Europe. The U.S. was founded on the blood of Native Americans not too long before that- relative to world history. From the perspective of the average emperor of 100bc, it may have been the optimal course of action to pillage neighboring peoples, but said emperor didn't have the benefit of another 2000 years of intellectual insight and history to draw on to realize that there are better ways to function in a diverse world.

Click to expand...

About 1 in 200 of all men living today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan.

Tomas de Torquemada said:

Are you even talking about evolution anymore?





About 1 in 200 of all men living today are direct descendants of Genghis Khan.

Click to expand...

You argue that rape and pillage (aside from polygamy) is a more efficient way of propagating genetic material than cooperation. My counter argument is that if every group participated in a perpetual cycle of war and retaliation then it would ultimately end in ruin for all parties involved. Cooperation clearly seems a better direction for the human race as a whole. I partially agree with you on the topic of polygamy. What I don’t understand is your emphasis on one ethnicity's desire to out-breed another. After all, one of the implications of evolution is to propagate the species as a whole.

We've developed complex minds which interfere with the process of natural selection.

Evolution would be more about each independent entity looking to propagate its own genetics. From the perspective of one actor, it would make sense to neutralize threats while maximizing reproductive chances. So I do agree with the idea that violence is more evolutionarily efficient than cooperation.

Lux Aeterna said:

Evolution would be more about each independent entity looking to propagate its own genetics. From the perspective of one actor, it would make sense to neutralize threats while maximizing reproductive chances. So I do agree with the idea that violence is more evolutionarily efficient than cooperation.

Click to expand...

From an individual perspective, yes. I'm more focused on population genetics. Maybe there was a slight error of equivocation somewhere down the line.

ThinkFreeDom said:

What has random chance got to do with it?

It is this simple. Societies which allow indiscriminate killing don't last very long, so indiscriminate killing becomes taboo, or the society dies. Therefore all surviving societies have a taboo against indiscriminate killing. That is social evolution.

As for Darwinian Natural Selection it works like this: if you have no innate compunction about killing anyone who gets in your way, you will be killed or ostracized by your society, preventing you from passing on your aggresive, murderous traits. This is the reason why only a tiny minority of people today murder others.

Click to expand...

Danyc said:

And in which age are you directing your inquiry? 3,000 B.C.? The Dark Ages? Right at this very moment?

Obviously we are not all born with the same sense of right and wrong. Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species. A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.

Natural selection in another form.

Click to expand...

Anyway, whats inspired this whole tangent was the above idea that morality can be explained via evolution, since rape and slavery are both genetically optimum actions against weaker ethnys.

Tomas de Torquemada said:

Anyway, whats inspired this whole tangent was the above idea that morality can be explained via evolution, since rape and slavery are both genetically optimum actions against weaker ethnys.

Click to expand...

Natural selection is just a biological and social process. The process itself has no moral attributes. The only reason you're asking this question is because natural selection has brought our societies (well, most of them) to the point at which you do in fact feel the need to question the morality of rape and slavery.

Sure, rape and slavery may have been genetically optimum and/or socially beneficial for us when we were more primitive, but we have evolved past a certain point where we don't care what is 'genetically optimum'. We care about other things, like looking after our fellow man.

ThinkFreeDom said:

That is fine, but you have to let people make their own decisions and not try and force your beliefs onto others, or stand by and allow others to do that without objecting.

Click to expand...

But, evolutionists do force their opinions on others. Honestly, they throw a fit and resort to insults and name calling whenever someone tries to pose any other ideas. This makes me think that they don't have much confidence in their idea.

The theory of Evolution is simply not true!
We did not come from a hot boiling soup 4.6 Billion years ago which is what the text books teach. I could go on.

Dr William Lane Craig vs Dr Peter Atkins highlight - YouTube

AdamKane said:

But, evolutionists do force their opinions on others. Honestly, they throw a fit and resort to insults and name calling whenever someone tries to pose any other ideas. This makes me think that they don't have much confidence in their idea.

Click to expand...

The reaction would be the same if the creationists were instead promoting astrology, or a flat earth. And lobbying to get these disciplines taught in science classrooms. We see creationism equally as absurd and unsupported by evidence as tarot reading and alchemy. They all deserve insult when seriously suggested in this day and age.

ThinkFreeDom-

Evolution teaches that after the meteor impact which wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, this planet has been free of extinction level events. This has enabled creatures which began as furry little rodents to evolve into the myriadal species of mammals we know of today. There's only one problem with that theory. Science itself has already identified at least 5 other ELE's which have occurred since then. the evolutionary apologists themselves have tried 'dancing around' these events, but with little success:

1. 35 million years ago- Chesapeake Bay, USA- meteor impact crater measuring 53 miles in diameter. When asked if this could be considered as an ELE, an evolutionary apologist claimed, "It only made a big splash." 'Big splashes' don't leave impact craters which are 53 miles across.

2. 10 million years ago- Tajikistan, Russian Republic- meteor impact crater measuring 33 miles in diameter. Evolutionary apologists pretend this one never happened.

3. 2 million years ago to 640,000 years ago- Yellowstone National Park, USA- three different supervolcanic eruptions. These have all occurred within the time when evolutionists claim mankind was already forming.

4. 70,000 years ago- Mt. Toba, Sumatra- supervolcanic eruption of such intensity that even secularists admit that it brought mankind to the brink of extinction. They say that a few (a maximum of 30) women survived in Africa in order to keep our specie alive there.

And what do all of these events have in common, admitted to by all scientists? Following the destruction cause by the initial impact or eruption, which would have been enormous and widespread in-and-of itself, dust and gas would have been ejected to the very top of our atmosphere. This would have formed a shell completely surrounding this planet, and shutting out the sun's heat for decades. For all intents and purposes, this planet would have become a gigantic walk-in freezer, and would have remained that way until the dust and gas finally dissipated decades later.

With a constant temperature this cold, plants would have died or gone into dormancy, and the animals that lived by feeding on those plants would have died of hunger and hypothermia. This death spiral would have continued up the ladder, affecting every species of animal that lived either on land or in shallow regions of the water. This would have included those species which evolutionists claim to have been our ancestors.

When asked how mankind survived events such as these, the answer of the evolutionists has been, "If some hadn't survived, then they couldn't have evolved to become us. So some of them must have lived." That's called a circular argument. You cannot claim that animals survived an event simply to promote a theory, especially when that event is seen by all serious scientists as being lethal to animals.

Quite frankly, it makes more sense to argue that this planet is the petrie dish for an extraterrestrial specie then that it promoted uninterrupted evolution for any length of time. Too many things have happened to this planet, and continue to happen to it. A planet with as much 'life' as this planet has will kill off all 'hitchhikers' on a regular basis, and we are among the hitchhikers.

I myself believe in Intelligent Design. God has been active since the time that the universe began, and continues to take a hands-on approach yet today. At certain times in this planet's history, he has created certain species of flora and fauna which contributed to the planet's growth. Those animals and plants which continued to benefit that growth he has either kept or created anew; those which have outlived their usefulness he has eliminated.

I know what a scientific theory is, and Natural Evolution, so far, lacks evidence to confirm it as a scientific theory.

Click to expand...

This is simply wrong. What do you mean by "Natural Evolution" (as opposed to some other kind of evolution)? We have a comprehensive fossil record which is cross-confirmed by the study phylogenetics, morphology- molecular vestiges, anatomical vestiges, etc.

A scientific theory has two features (among others)- a model for understanding some aspect of the natural world and the ability to make testable predictions. Basically, scientists ask "If the theory of evolution were true, we would expect to find/see…." So far all of our findings affirm the theory of evolution (see above).

It doesn't matter how many in the academic community claim differently

Click to expand...

Where else would you get your scientific information other than the scientific community? You rely on the scientific community/scientific method for your technological and medical needs, but when it comes to evolution you reject them because they contradict your religious presuppositions.

The truth is the truth.It remains a philosophy

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated assertion. You have yet to demonstrate this and all of the available evidence seems to contradict it.

I see Theistic Evolution more believable than Natural Evolution.

Click to expand...

This is what Richard Dawkins refers to an argument from personal incredulity (argument from ignorance).

Trillions upon trillions of years could be added to the Natural Evolutionary time-table and it still wouldn't be enough to fill in the thousands of gaps (steps) where only divine intervention could be concluded as having filled.

Click to expand...

Like, for example, a "god of the gaps" (pun fully intended)?

I think the only thing that bothers me about creationists is their ignorance of what evolutionary biology and natural selection actually are. Like this post:

Faulty said:

Personally, I object to my children being taught the fairy tale that is evolution in school.

You really expect someone to sit down with a small child and teach them as such? "Son, in the beginning there was nothing. Then nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded into everything. Then there was goo, and that goo oozed onto a rock, that came out of the nothing, and contracted and extraordinary complex DNA programming which was just laying around minding it's own business. After this, the goo became something less gooey because it's DNA replicated itself, but actually 'oopsed' and replicated itself perfectly, but with millions of changes, into something with a fin, and the less gooey thing liked its fin, and gritted where it's teeth would be a billion years later, and chose it's offspring to have more fin-like DNA." etc, etc, etc

And that's more reasonable than "All that you see had an origin and a designer, and that designer is the all-powerful God, who created you in His image and likeness"? No, I don't have enough blind faith to be an evolutionist in any way.

Just because a bunch of people run around handing out degrees in their fairy tale, and peer reviewing each others papers as ground-breaking fairy tale news, and writing books about how they think goo became kangaroos, even though they've never actually seen it happen (because they guess, and revise their guesses as they go), doesn't mean that I have to willfully subscribe to their nonsense. Talk about the blind leading the blind, sheesh.

And then somehow, you chaps made your way into the classroom and called your fairy tale "science". Thanks, but no thanks.

Click to expand...

Faulty, if evolution was actually defined as you define it above, I wouldn't believe it either because what you're saying is a total fairy tale.

My frustration with ignorance does not just end with creationists. It goes on to people who don't understand climate science, or macroeconomics, or this or that. I get very frustrated with non-Christians who are ignorant of Christianity too.

That being said, I'm ignorant on about 99% of all topics. So I prefer to put my faith in those that have devoted their entire lives to the topic. If I am wanting to know something about climate science, I will defer to a climatologist. If I want to know something about evolutionary biology, I will defer to an evolutionary biologist. If I want to know something about Roman history, I will defer to a Roman historian. If I want to know something about the Bible, I will defer to a Biblical scholar or theologian.

This seems entirely logical to me because it is safe to say that those that have devoted their lives to a subject will know more than a layman. This doesn't mean the authority is infallible, but at least they can give you some information on the subject that probably goes beyond what you know.

I think the only thing that bothers me about creationists is their ignorance of what evolutionary biology and natural selection actually are.

Click to expand...

Painting with rather a broad brush here, I think. In fact, many creationists do understand what natural selection and evolutionary biology are. You may not have encountered them but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Selah.

ThinkFreeDom said:

I am interested in how Christians who believe in theistic evolution feel about the Creationist/Intelligent Design element of the faith.

Excessively literalistic interpretations of Genesis inevitably pit faith against science, in regard to scientific questions. This is a battle that faith can't win and the result is lost credibility, especially among the more educated sections of the population who would be an asset to Christianity.

Moreover the attempt to force Creationism into science classes has aroused the anger of some of the world's most eloquent scientists. I am thinking of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Surely your faith would be better off without such powerful detractors? Would it not be a better strategy to keep faith and science separate? To say nothing of faith and politics.

In addition these groups often present Christianity and science as mutually exclusive. Do you really want young Christians to have to make that choice?

The ID movement and the vocal anti-evolutionary stance of some sections of Evangelical Christianity seems to me to be a terrible miscalculation, that is damaging to all of Christianity. The press focuses on this radical fringe, making it loom much larger than it really is.

Do mainstream Christians see this? If they do why don't they do more to make the more reasonable voice of Christianity heard?

Click to expand...

Sean FairCloth campaigns for the seperation of church and state, and his connected with Richard Dawkins. He gives a twenty eight minute speech to a small crowd on the subject. Very interesting.

Is America a Christian Nation? or One Nation Under the Constitution? by Sean Faircloth - YouTube