Evolution conflict and division

[o_mlly]

My point would be there is an unreasonable jump from any evidence to a Macro evolution conclusion

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

Evolutionary theory influenced the development of eugenics, which aimed to improve human populations through selective breeding based on perceived genetic superiority. Many were unwilling and tragically sterilized as a result. Evolutionary theory also influenced Nazi ideology. They used eugenics to claim Aryan racial superiority justifying the holocaust. Fortunately both eugenics and racial superiority have been since debunked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

Not everyone who is an 'evo', as you call them, protests. Think about those folks at more mainstream science organizations like that of Francis Collins' Biologos group. Then there is the selection of various Catholic voices at the Thomistic Institute who advocate a more philosophically inclined consideration of the theory of evolution as well.

I'm not arguing this. I'm just offering a friendly suggestion, mainly because I don't think this Creation/Evolution tension needs to be one big continuous verbal brawl and overexpenditure of our time as Christians, haggling with one another about it.

Evolutionary theory influenced the development of eugenics, which aimed to improve human populations through selective breeding based on perceived genetic superiority. Many were unwilling and tragically sterilized as a result. Evolutionary theory also influenced Nazi ideology. They used eugenics to claim Aryan racial superiority justifying the holocaust. Fortunately both eugenics and racial superiority have been since debunked.

Actually, looking at this influence you've cited from a historical viewpoint (as in, from within the field of History via Historians), it was the Evolutionary ideology of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and others similar to them like Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, which influenced the political and social errors of eugenicists and Nazis. It wasn't simply evolutionists who contributed to this influence in a sweeping, generalizing way.

Eugenics and Scientific Racism

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

www.genome.gov

Again, I'm not arguing. I'm jut offering some historical info for further consideration. Not that I think you need to change your mind on the Theory of Evolution over and against traditional Creationism.

 

[o_mlly]

Not everyone who is, as you call them, an 'evo' protests. Think about those folks at organizations like Francis Collins and his Biologos group.

I'm not arguing this. I'm just offering a friendly suggestion.

Yes, there are evo supporter that are civil. However, unfortunately they are not posting in this thread. I wasn't making a global claim, only a particular one. Thanks for your suggestion.

Actually, looking at this influence you've cited from a historical viewpoint (as in, from withi In the field of Historians), it was the Evolutionary ideology of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and other similar to them, who influenced the political and social errors of eugenicists and Nazis. It wasn't simply evolutionists in a sweeping, generalizing way.

Root cause? The evolution theory gave the fundamental knowledge of heredity and provided eugenicists with "scientific" evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, there are evo supporter that are civil. However, unfortunately they are not posting in this thread. I wasn't making a global claim, only a particular one. Thanks for your suggestion.

You're welcome.

Root cause? The evolution theory gave the fundamental knowledge of heredity and provided eugenicists with "scientific" evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

To answer that, I think we have to apply philosophical and historical discernment to see that eugenics was essentially an ideological misappropriation of the Theory of Evolutionary, one that wasn't born out with further biological and genetic evidences.

Eugenics and Scientific Racism

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

www.genome.gov

 

[o_mlly]

To answer that, I think we have to apply philosophical and historical discernment to see that eugenics was essentially an ideological misappropriation of the Theory of Evolutionary, one that wasn't born out with further biological and genetic evidences.

Fortunately, that is the case now. However, many thousands were sterilized in the 1930's and 1940's when that was not the case in the US and millions more sterilized or murdered in Europe. And even today, many bioethicists worry that both genomic screening and genetic counseling as an extension of eugenics will be used to justify infanticide.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fortunately, that is the case now. However, many thousands were sterilized in the 1930's and 1940's when that was not the case in the US and millions more sterilized or murdered in Europe. And even today, many bioethicists worry that both genomic screening and genetic counseling as an extension of eugenics will be used to justify infanticide.

Yes, as a philosopher, I understand your point of concern in regard to genomic screening and other related mis-applications. But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims." If anything, such mis-appropriation by corporations for the sake of cafeteria style customization of human selection in the future isn't mainstream science but rather a form of Transhumanism. It's a technological and ideological choice, and from a Christian point of view, one that constitutes an ethical error that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prescribe.

One point from the past regarding the misappropriation of social ideology wedded to the Theory of Evolution can be seen in the fact that Darwin's "bulldog" spokesman, T.H. Huxley, didn't think we can or should derive ethics from the Theory of Evolution, but Herbert Spencer did think we could (as cited by Malcolm A. Jeeves and R.J. Berry, 1998, p. 25). So, we see two philosophical operative sets of method at play, which as you've already pointed too is why some of today's Bio-ethicists are also concerned about the more transhumanist application of genetics to everyday life and corporate business.

Reference

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey and assessment. (1998).

 

[River Jordan]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

My question though is why are you asking? Do you not already know? If not, why go to a religious forum to get educated in a field of science?

My suggestion is to go to a library, get/read some books on evolutionary biology, and then if you're still interested start reading some journal articles. Or if it's an option for you take a course at a nearby university.

Or if you don't want to do any of that, Yale actually has a site where you can watch a series of lectures on evolutionary biology for free: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, as a philosopher, I understand your point of concern in regard to genomic screening and other related mis-applications. But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims." If anything, such mis-appropriation by corporations for the sake of cafeteria style customization of human selection in the future isn't mainstream science but rather a form of Transhumanism. It's a technological and ideological choice, and from a Christian point of view, one that constitutes an ethical error that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prescribe.

One point from the past regarding the misappropriation of social ideology wedded to the Theory of Evolution can be seen in the fact that Darwin's "bulldog" spokesman, T.H. Huxley, didn't think we can or should derive ethics from the Theory of Evolution, but Herbert Spencer did think we could (as cited by Malcolm A. Jeeves and R.J. Berry, 1998, p. 25). So, we see two philosophical operative sets of method at play, which as you've already pointed too is why some of today's Bio-ethicists are also concerned about the more transhumanist application of genetics to everyday life and corporate business.

Reference

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey and assessment. (1998).

It's also the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. It's no different than someone saying they don't believe Christianity because some Southern Baptists were behind Jim Crow in the old south.

 

[o_mlly]

But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims."

In and of itself, the TOE does not direct the horrible actions taken in the USA or in Germany. My point is that the TOE gave the patina of science to these evil undertakings.

My question though is why are you asking?

Because I can read and think critically. I suggest you try it.

 

[Platte]

I don't think the creationists here fully appreciate how, after seeing your above opinion, the reaction from just about every scientist would be something like "So?" Kind of the same reaction you'd get after showing geographers some of the flat earth threads in here.

Of course the reality is 99.99% of scientists will never even know about your opinion in the first place. I guess I'm mostly wondering if you think your opinions on this matter are noteworthy?

So

 

[o_mlly]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

Denis Noble has the answer:

Denis Noble: “I Think Neo-Darwinism Is Dead”

I respect Denis Noble and in disagreeing with him I do not mean to slight his deep insights into how biology works.

scienceandculture.com

​

This comment is reminiscent of a 2014 comment by a paper in Nature which said that many evolutionary scientists will suppress criticisms of neo-Darwinism because of fear of lending credence to intelligent design:​

Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.​

In other words, sometimes scientists don’t want to admit problems with their models — here, the existence of purpose — not because of the state of the evidence but simply because they fear lending credence to intelligent design.​

 

[Platte]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

The answer is actually quite simple.

They have no alternative thought on the matter.

That bottleneck of the mind leads to fury

 

[Amo2]

Yes. I'll point out that the platypus has a well established position in taxonomic cladistics. It fits in precisely where the theory of evolution suggests that it ought to be in its nested hierarchy. As a monotreme. Do you have any other questions about platypuses?
View attachment 371563

There is no confusion about whether they should be classified as birds or reptiles.

Wow. Evolutionists actually drew pictures, and created graphs, and placed animals into categories and classifications with cool scientific sounding names according to their own understanding of how things no one ever observed or observers happened. It must therefore be true. Never mind how many times they have been and do prove themselves wrong over and over again, that is just the evolution of the evolutionary theory in action. Perfectly natural, and nothing at all compared to the incomprehensible number of positive changes and or mutations which have taken place from some kind of suggested simple life form which no one has ever observed either, unto the extremely complex systems of life we observe everywhere around us today.

Never mind hard to explain complications of supposed development, complexities of seemingly obvious design, or very negative statistical probabilities concerning the chances such complex design and functionality could just happen, they have drawn pictures people, and made names and classifications and so on and so forth. I mean come on. Evolution has to be true. What do you think, these guys just imagined this stuff, and then built a system to support it?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

What is the theory of evolution, but the denial of the eternal power of the Godhead declared in the fourth commandment of God, in favor of their own imaginary declared tree of evolutionary life. Their intellectual "scientifically so called" idol, denying God's stated time frame and power revealed in the creation, and replacing it with imaginary events created, promoted, and sustained by themselves. As the real purveyors of truth, in the place of God and His word or claims to the contrary. Bowing before imaginary evolutions of creeping things, four footed beasts, and birds unto corruptible man. Oh excuse me, dinosaurs into birds. NOT!

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

The claims of evolution deny the creative power of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ altogether. Declaring death, suffering, and even mass extinction level events to be an actual cause of our existence over lang expanses of time, instead of being the result of sin from which we are to be saved. No perfect and good world from the beginning as scripture relates concerning each day of creation, ruined by sin. Rather formlessness, emptiness, and slow development of life among a whole lot of death and extinctions of what once was unto what now is. As to be perfectly acceptable to and among those also who deny God altogether. More than acceptable actually, but rather providing them an excellent instrument of such a denial.

Jas 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Is there an evolutionist on these boards, that will answer a question for me that no evolutionist has ever answered for me, though I have asked many to do so many times? If the scriptural accounts of the creation and flood are not just so many fairy tales themselves, then can you please explain what the scriptures do actually mean in accordance with your theory of evolution? How is what scripture states, actually what you propose? What is the actual time frame of the days of creation, and how is evolution addressed and or explained at all anywhere in scripture either by symbolism or allegory? Since you apparently know what it doers not mean, concerning what it simply states, do you know what it really does mean? Or is it just fairy tale altogether, to you?

 

[Amo2]

Even YECs acknowledge the existence of the tree of life these days. This dead horse has been beating into the ground. The Cambrian bunny has never been found. The order of life, be it in genetics, anatomy, the fossil record and more, commonly known as the tree of life, exists and is well established and understood.

There have of course been many things throughout history that a whole lot of people considered well established and understood, which we now know to be completely false. More than just a few of them, in relation to failed theories connected to the theory of evolution itself. People can perfectly understand "sciences so called" as they may be taught, while they may at the same time be completely wrong about what they are taught. As has happened throughout history many times, and as already mentioned, many times concerning the theory of evolution itself already. Understanding the claims of a theory even very well, has nothing to do with whether a theory is right or wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wow. Evolutionists actually drew pictures, and created graphs, and placed animals into categories and classifications with cool scientific sounding names according to their own understanding of how things no one ever observed or observers happened. It must therefore be true.

This just demonstrates a lack of understanding. Cladistics are also based on things like DNA sequencing and mapping out similarity and differences of genomes (something that people have no control over), as well as things like order of fossils in the fossil record (also something that people have no control over), among other fields.

Again, ID advocates have no explanation for why, or even how, God would create life in a way in which evolution appears to be true (if not for the option of God using evolution).

Why would the platypus for example, have DNA more similar to other monotremes rather than ducks or reptiles?

-According to evolution, it's because they're related, and that's how God did it, through common descent.

-According to creationists it's just "well God just did it that way and they can't possibly be related".

Why would the platypus be located in the fossil record alongside mammals and not earlier in the fossil record alongside earlier reptiles?

-Again, evolution explains that, they descended from reptiles and thus wouldn't be found in strata as deep as reptiles are.

-The creationist explanation? Well, God just did it that way. For whatever random reason God decided to create reptiles first and then later mammals.

What mechanisms did God use to create life?

-Again, evolution offers mechanisms, things like mutations and natural selection.

-The creationist explanation? Who knows, maybe God just snapped his fingers and they just appeared out of thin air.


The theory of evolution, particularly as held by Christians, offers an explanation for why or how God created life.

Creationists don't have a mechanism. They simply repeat "God did it". And that's their explanation. They cannot fathom the idea that God might have just used evolution. And they subsequently offer no counter mechanisms or reasoning of their own.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Like you cannot seperate the observer from what is being observed and measured. You cannot seperate evolution and God.

Process theology anyone?

 

[Job 33:6]

There have of course been many things throughout history that a whole lot of people considered well established and understood, which we now know to be completely false.

This isn't a counter argument, it's just a logical fallacy of personal incredulity.