Evolution - implications

[Elendur]

As I understand it, the theory of evolution (e.g., swampy slime transforming into bacteria) is merely a theory...

To state that something scientific is "merely a theory" is kind of stating "that mineral is merely a diamond".

A theory is the best there is (though I'm not meaning that a diamond is the best there is). What you're thinking of is probably the term hypothesis.

Secondly, the theory of evolution promotes racism, in that one group of people may be deemed as less evolved and worthy of death. This went on in Nazi Germany.

Evolution does not promote racism more than gravity does.

Thirdly, if you are an atheist who believes wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution, you probably are not very happy. After all, how can you be happy knowing that you will soon be obliterated from the face of reality, never to be heard from again?

Is that the only thing one can be happy about in life? Not for me.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

As I understand it, the theory of evolution (e.g., swampy slime transforming into bacteria)

That's not the theory. At minimum the theory is that populations change with respect to their heritable characteristics over the course of generations.

is merely a theory and not a scientific fact.

A bit of scientific terminology here. Theory is an overarching explaination for a number of related facts, cf theory of gravity, theory of evolution, electromagnetic theory, germ theory of disease. A fact is an observation. Evolution is observed so it's a fact. The theory of evolution explains what we observe about the diversity of life and how it changes.

I know that there are some hardcore atheists that will vehemently proclaim that the theory of evolution is absolute fact, but they are wrong.

You'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who believes in any absolutes but there's nothing about the theory of evolution that says anything about your religious persuasion so this is simply a non-sequitur.

Wishing or saying that something is true, does not make it true.

Atheists often use the fossil record as their main source of proof for the theory of evolution (e.g., bacteria transforming into fish). But the fossil record does not show a smooth transition from one species to the next. It's choppy at best, and there appears to be huge gaps between some species. In fact, when I look at the fossil record, it looks like the species were created separately.

The fossil record is highly consistent with evolutionary change over millions of years. In fact there isn't a better scientific explanation for the patterns of succession seen in the fossil record. As good as it is, it's not fossils which are the best evidence for common descent but genetics.

The Cambrian Explosion occurred around 542 million years ago. During this time period, almost all of the major animal phyla that exist today appeared suddenly. This was indicated in the fossil record. And as time went on, the vast variety of animals that suddenly appeared became less and less, as if there was a pruning process. The fossil record shows this as well. To me, when I look at the fossil record, it implies that living things were created suddenly rather than having evolved slowly from something.

As you say, the record is patchy, especially 600 million years ago. This is simply a god of the gaps argument. There is nothing about the Cambrian that is inconsistent with evolution.

What are the philosophical results of believing in the false doctrine of evolution (e.g., fish transforming into monkeys)?

That sounds more like the doctrines of Harry Potter. Better to look at the science than your own imagined strawmen.

Well, for starters, the theory of evolution (e.g., monkeys transforming into human beings) takes away the specialness of human beings; it takes away the divineness of human beings, leaving them without human rights, to be trampled underfoot by a dictator.

Why? Isn't god the ultimate dictator who shows that human life is a meaningless game where you jump through hoops for his amusement or get punished?

Secondly, the theory of evolution promotes racism, in that one group of people may be deemed as less evolved and worthy of death. This went on in Nazi Germany.

Considering the Nazi government banned Darwin's works from libraries and the racial persecution was based on the seperate creation of races I think you have things barse ackwards.

Thirdly, if you are an atheist who believes wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution, you probably are not very happy. After all, how can you be happy knowing that you will soon be obliterated from the face of reality, never to be heard from again?

Delerious. It's a comfort, however there's nothing about accepting scientific findings like evolution that prevents you from believing in a god (or several if your a Hindu.) so this another non-sequitur.

 

[CabVet]

It's more than that though.

It's like a person that never read the Bible disagreeing that Jesus is the son of God because he believes [the Koran] says otherwise.

As I'm fond of pointing out, I may not know much about evolution, but I don't have to; since I believe evolution's antithesis: a literal Genesis 1.

And that is why I said that your opinion is misinformed, not unjustified.

Put another way, people here, despite what they might say to the contrary, know exactly why I believe what I do.

Put yet another way, I'm not disagreeing just to disagree -- I have a Reason to disbelieve.

And as long as you say the reason is Biblical, I am 100% behind you. But you lose me every time you repeat lies propagated by Ham, Hovind and the like to support your beliefs.

 

[CabVet]

As I understand it, the theory of evolution (e.g., swampy slime transforming into bacteria) is merely a theory and not a scientific fact.

You just showed you do not understand evolution, not one bit, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

As I understand it, the theory of evolution (e.g., swampy slime transforming into bacteria) is merely a theory and not a scientific fact. I know that there are some hardcore atheists

Denying the legitimacy of theistic evolutionists, are we?

 

[quatona]

Well, for starters, the theory of evolution (e.g., monkeys transforming into human beings) takes away the specialness of human beings; it takes away the divineness of human beings, leaving them without human rights, to be trampled underfoot by a dictator.

Yeah right - before evolution theory came up it was unheard of that peoples rights were trampled underfoot by a dictator.

Secondly, the theory of evolution promotes racism, in that one group of people may be deemed as less evolved and worthy of death.

Yes right - racism, chauvinism and genocide were unheard of until evolution theory entered the scene.

This went on in Nazi Germany.

The fact that some people did X under reference to Y doesn´t mean Y implies X. (Or else we would have to conclude that burning witches follows necessarily from theism)
It takes more than that to show how Social Darwinism and other such ideas follow from evolution theory (i.e. to show that Hitler´s logic was correct).

Thirdly, if you are an atheist who believes wholeheartedly in the theory of evolution, you probably are not very happy.

You are digressing. Atheism and evolution theory are two completely different animals.

After all, how can you be happy knowing that you will soon be obliterated from the face of reality, never to be heard from again?

Well, that´s neither part of nor implied by evolution theory, to begin with.

Personally, I am perfectly happy with knowing that I will die - probably because I never even expected otherwise.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution does not promote racism more than gravity does.

Except that gravity supports belief in momentum, Evolution leaves a gaping hole where people's morality should be.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes right - racism, chauvinism and genocide were unheard of until evolution theory entered the scene.

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

Yes, they did. Consider Ham's curse, which was very convenient in justifying the enslavement of Africans.

 

[Elendur]

Except that gravity supports belief in momentum,

That doesn't make any sense.

Evolution leaves a gaping hole where people's morality should be.

You know what, that's true for most things if you try to apply something that way.

Evolution isn't about morality. Therefore you shouldn't use it for morality.
The same for gravity.
The same for complex analysis.
The same for basic chemistry.

And the list goes on.

 

[quatona]

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

1. Yes, of course they did. Plus they tried to justify it by referring to the alleged opinion of an allegedly existing objective God.
2. You have been missing my point: The fact that people try to justify X as if it were on Y doesn´t help demonstrating that X indeed is an implication of X.
3. The advantage of attempts to justify something as if it were based on knowledge over attempts to justify something as if it were based on a divine command is: The logic of the first can be scrutinized.

Bottom line: "Evolution justifies genocide because Hitler said so" is a an appeal to authority - and your choice of authority is remarkable, to put it mildly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

Of course they did -- they justified it by knowing that they were God's chosen people... so that anything they did to God's UNchosen people was not only perfectly acceptable, but in many cases, condoned or even commanded by God himself... look it up in the Bible yourself.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

Nonsense. They simply believed that different races were different creational ranks in the ladder of creation as in this picture from 1857

In fact Agassiz who was the most ardent scientific opponent of Darwin in the US was appalled by the suggestion that whites and negros shared common ancestry when they were clearly separate creations.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I'm sorry you think that way.

You have no idea how faith operates, do you?

Not really. I'm not a fan.

Because I wasn't there, and Genesis 1 cannot be recreated in a laboratory.

The universe ran under a somewhat different set of conditions back then.

Still there's evidence to examine, you could work it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

... look it up in the Bible yourself.

While you're giving out that advice, how about you looking up why David wasn't allowed to build a house for the LORD?

1 Chronicles 22:6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the LORD God of Israel.
1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:
1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not really. I'm not a fan.

One thing I really admire about you, Hispid, is your honesty.

 

[TLK Valentine]

While you're giving out that advice, how about you looking up why David wasn't allowed to build a house for the LORD?

1 Chronicles 22:6 Then he called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build an house for the LORD God of Israel.
1 Chronicles 22:7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God:
1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of the LORD came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

Indeed -- God frowns on any slaughter He doesn't order Himself -- He's jealous like that, amirite?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- God frowns on any slaughter He doesn't order Himself -- He's jealous like that, amirite?

Yes.

But your word choice indicates a poor understanding of the situation.

How can you justify calling it "slaughter," when they had plenty of advance warning to vacate the area and let the Israelites have their homeland back?

These guys were squatters on land that wasn't theirs, and they had at least 430 years advance warning.

And not only were they living in hostile territory that belonged to them, they were living under kill-or-be-killed conditions.

God imposed martial law, and knew in His foreknowledge that anyone left standing would later become a thorn in their side; which is exactly what happened when Solomon died and the kingdom went into disarray because of foreigners.

I have a feeling you guys have been watching too many Hellywood war movies.

Consider this:

A is given land, but goes down to Egypt to live, and B moves in and sets up shop in A's land.

A eventually leaves Egypt and goes back home, but is forewarned that B is now squatting on A's land, and will kill them on-sight.

A moves in under martial law and begins reclaiming its land.

It would be a very foolish thing for A then, after reclaiming their territory, to attempt to live in harmony with the invaders (B); as partisans would form raiding parties and strike back.

In any event, I don't expect you to fully-understand this, as your word choices give you away.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Except that before evolution people didn't try to justify racism as if it was based on knowledge, which they didn't really have.

Of course they did. They justified it in all sorts of ways. For instance, the first use of "master race" in English comes from 1855 (i.e. before Darwin):

For these great ends hath Heaven’s supreme command
Brought the black savage from his native land,
Trains for each purpose his barbarian mind,
By slavery tamed, enlightened, and refined;
Instructs him, from a master-race, to draw
Wise modes of polity and forms of law,
Imbues his soul with faith, his heart with love,
Shapes all his life by dictates from above,
And, to a grateful world, resolves at last
The puzzling question of all ages past,
Revealing to the Christian’s gladdened eyes
How Gospel light may dawn from Libya’s skies,
Disperse the mists that darken and deprave,
And shine with power to civilize and save.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes.

But your word choice indicates a poor understanding of the situation.

How can you justify calling it "slaughter," when they had plenty of advance warning to vacate the area and let the Israelites have their homeland back?

Advance warning from whom?

And in the interest of being honest, it wasn't so much a warning to vacate as it was being offered terms of surrender.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

So the "warning" they received was actually a choice -- slavery or death (for the males) and rape (for the females.

These guys were squatters on land that wasn't theirs, and they had at least 430 years advance warning.

Ah, but the land was theirs -- the Israelites gave it up it fair and square.

Remember, the Israelites abandoned their land to escape a drought, and entered Egypt when one of their own (Joseph) ruled it. They had no reason nor intention to return -- why should they? They had been given the land of Goshen.

Of course, things went south for the Israelites after that, but they have nobody to blame but themselves -- they overstayed their welcome.

Long story short -- the Israelites traded up in real estate, then wanted to renege on the deal when it went down the tubes.

And not only were they living in hostile territory that belonged to them, they were living under kill-or-be-killed conditions.

Kill or be killed by the Israelites -- who wanted to steal back the land they abandoned.

God imposed martial law, and knew in His foreknowledge that anyone left standing would later become a thorn in their side; which is exactly what happened when Solomon died and the kingdom went into disarray because of foreigners.

Indeed -- kill them all so that you don't have to deal with them later.

That's God for you -- as bloodthirsty as His followers.

I have a feeling you guys have been watching too many Hellywood war movies.

Consider this:

A is given land, but goes down to Egypt to live, and B moves in and sets up shop in A's land.

After A abandons it. You do know what "abandon" means, don't you?

A eventually leaves Egypt and goes back home, but is forewarned that B is now squatting on A's land, and will kill them on-sight.

A's former land, that is. I'd kill an intruder in my home as well.

A moves in under martial law and begins reclaiming its land.

Not their land anymore -- and who told B that martial law was in force?

It would be a very foolish thing for A then, after reclaiming their territory, to attempt to live in harmony with the invaders (B); as partisans would form raiding parties and strike back.

Got it backwards, AV -- Remember, A's people are only the descendants of the original inhabitants (the ones who abandoned the land); not a single one of them had ever set foot on this land before.

That means A are the invaders now.

In any event, I don't expect you to fully-understand this, as your word choices give you away.

Justify slaughter any way you want -- if we read the Bible as a history book, we must always remember that history books are written by the winners, who are under no obligation to paint themselves in a negative light -- so of course God is going to bless every act of war.