Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Cearbhall]

So let's try this in reverse: Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

There are thousands of kids in my city who finish high school and can barely read. It doesn't shock me that they may not have comprehended something like evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The 'Argument from Incredulity' - how refreshing; nice to see the old favourites still in use

An oldie but still a goodie.

 

[morse86]

Where did the physical laws come from? The law of thermodynamics? Where did it come from?

Do you think everything came from nothing and that it magically formed these physical laws?

It doesn't make any sense. This isn't science, it's pseudo science. Just add millions of years.

 

[Dirk1540]

Really???
I thought faith was that step you take when you venture beyond the evidence.
If faith is all about evidence, then you may as well just stick with scientific inquiry.

You need both, evidence plus faith. IMO Christianity requires faith whereas other religions require 'Blind' faith. Because I have evidence of A, B, C and D, i use that as my foundation to know that I am not committing intellectual suicide to take E, F, G, and H on faith. How much of an evidence to faith ratio do you need? This of course differs with everyone and it's why 2 Biblical/Archaeological/ANE historical gurus can know the same amount of data but come to different conclusions...how much evidence gets you to a point that you say to yourself 'This is beyond coincidental?' What is your evidence to faith tipping point?

Complicate it all with the argument people can have on whether or not that 'Evidence' of A, B, C, and D is actually legitimate evidence. Complicate it more with knowing that future discoveries may or may not vindicate current objections. Complicate it more with personal experiences as being a piece of 'Evidence' that has no weight in a data based argument...this is why I like that Blaise Pascal quote "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough obscurity for those who don't want to believe."

 

[Gottservant]

I think the question is not so much "why are you not --", so much as "in what way would you anticipate no one would care or know---" for example "that actually, either way "no further interpretation of the word behind "evolution" (either way)"... was ____ (?)

 

[stevevw]

The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design. What is seen as a transitional can also be seen as natural variation with a species. What supporters of Darwinian evolution say proves evolution which is gradual changes through mutations and natural selection happens but it is limited to within species. So they turn that ability into evolution being able to make big scale changes beyond species. Whereas those who believe Darwinian evolution is false say it doesn't have the ability to make those big changes and there is no evidence. So believers in evolution will look for things that support the theory and only see things that support the theory. Those who dont support the theory will say that there is plenty of evidence that evolution isnt acknowledging that contradict evolution. So its a constant battle of interpretations.

 

[durangodawood]

You need both, evidence plus faith. IMO Christianity requires faith whereas other religions require 'Blind' faith. Because I have evidence of A, B, C and D, i use that as my foundation to know that I am not committing intellectual suicide to take E, F, G, and H on faith. How much of an evidence to faith ratio do you need? This of course differs with everyone and it's why 2 Biblical/Archaeological/ANE historical gurus can know the same amount of data but come to different conclusions...how much evidence gets you to a point that you say to yourself 'This is beyond coincidental?' What is your evidence to faith tipping point?

Complicate it all with the argument people can have on whether or not that 'Evidence' of A, B, C, and D is actually legitimate evidence. Complicate it more with knowing that future discoveries may or may not vindicate current objections. Complicate it more with personal experiences as being a piece of 'Evidence' that has no weight in a data based argument...this is why I like that Blaise Pascal quote "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe, and enough obscurity for those who don't want to believe."

OK. So we need evidence AND faith.
But if faith is based on evidence, as we've just been told, then its really just about evidence and..... more evidence.
Faith must be based on something else besides evidence.

(As for archaeology, no amount of verification of biblical places can provide reasonable evidence for supernatural events. It just verifies that the Bible authors/editors were making stories about their own history. You know, I've seen the actual 4 mountains named in the Navajo creation myth.)

 

[freezerman2000]

.

 

[Jimmy D]

The trouble with a much of the evidence is that its open for interpretation. What may seem like common decent can be also seem as common design. What is seen as a transitional can also be seen as natural variation with a species. What supporters of Darwinian evolution say proves evolution which is gradual changes through mutations and natural selection happens but it is limited to within species. So they turn that ability into evolution being able to make big scale changes beyond species. Whereas those who believe Darwinian evolution is false say it doesn't have the ability to make those big changes and there is no evidence. So believers in evolution will look for things that support the theory and only see things that support the theory. Those who dont support the theory will say that there is plenty of evidence that evolution isnt acknowledging that contradict evolution. So its a constant battle of interpretations.

You're wrong. The only people who think the evidence is open to that kind of interpretation are the same people who can't accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs, it is nothing to do with science or evidence.

Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.

You only have to read through the threads on this forum to realize that Creationist arguments are so weak they're laughable and they have to resort to repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum despite being shown it's wrong.

If you want to credit your particular version of God with creation, go for it, but please stop imagining that with nothing more than a casual interest in science and firm religious beliefs you can overturn a century established scientific research and endeavor.

 

[crjmurray]

You're wrong. The only people who think the evidence is open to that kind of interpretation are the same people who can't accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs, it is nothing to do with science or evidence.

Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.

You only have to read through the threads on this forum to realize that Creationist arguments are so weak they're laughable and they have to resort to repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum despite being shown it's wrong.

If you want to credit your particular version of God with creation, go for it, but please stop imagining that with nothing more than a casual interest in science and firm religious beliefs you can overturn a century established scientific research and endeavor.

Oh no......don't mention Ayala

 

[Gottservant]

Faith is actually the only word left, when the only thing you can say is "I would rather not call death".

 

[Smidlee]

Francisco Ayala says it better than I could.....

The overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution. Those who know professionally the evidence for evolution cannot deny it. Scientists agree that the evolutionary origin of animals and plants is a scientific conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is compelling and all-encompassing because it comes from all biological disciplines including those that did not exist in Darwin's time. In the second half of the nineteenth century, Darwin and other biologists obtained convincing evidence from a variety of disciplines, which had reached early maturity during the nineteenth century: anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, and paleontology. Since Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution has become much stronger and more comprehensive, coming not only from traditional sources but also from recent disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology. ... Because the evidence is so overwhelming, ... evidence for evolution no longer engages the interest of biologists except when explaining evolution to the public or arguing with those who refuse to accept evolution. Although not sought and no longer needed, the evidence for the fact of evolution continues to accumulate.

I love quotes.
Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley says it better than I could.....

"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."

Another one from a top chemist Professor Tours ...

"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard. I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you."

 

[freezerman2000]

Problem is,it was the publishers of the book,not Smalley him self that said that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley#cite_note-8 there is no link in wiki about this either..when it took place. Tuskegee University's 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents' Recognition Program

 

[Smidlee]

Problem is,it was the publishers of the book,not Smalley him self that said that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Smalley#cite_note-8 there is no link in wiki about this either..when it took place. Tuskegee University's 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents' Recognition Program

Got the quote from here:
http://www.montanasnews.tv/articles.php?mode=view&id=3262

 

[freezerman2000]

So who said it? The publishers or Mr Smalley?
Even Nobel winners can be wrong at times..the prize does not make the winner infallible.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Even Nobel winners can be wrong at times..the prize does not make the winner infallible.

Just remind them that Obama is a Nobel winner.... that should send them into a loop...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I imagine that those who don't believe the theory of evolution either don't understand it, don't understand how science works or they engage in conspiracy theories.

 

[Jimmy D]

I love quotes.
Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley says it better than I could.....

"Evolution has just been dealt its death blow. After reading “Origins of Life”, with my background in chemistry and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred. The new book, “Who Was Adam?”, is the silver bullet that puts the evolutionary model to death."

Another one from a top chemist Professor Tours ...

"I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard. I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you."

Thanks for proving my point.

As I said, the only stumbling block for accepting the realities of biology is religious bias, I notice Richard Smalley's a Creationist, that's a coincidence! I wouldn't necessarily ask a chemist or physicist about biology anyway. I wonder how many biologists are crying into their pillows about their wasted lives now he's dealt his devastating 'death blow' to the TOE.

I've never heard of Professor Tours but a quick google has led me to Dr Jim Tour, is that the fellow? I found this quote from the 'acclaimed scientist':

“I’ve asked people to explain it to me, and I still don’t understand it. I hear their explanations, and I don’t understand how macroevolution occurs.… And I understand better than most people how molecules come together, what they can and cannot do.”

A similar quote to yours (may even be paraphrasing yours) but still telling, by his own admission he doesn't understand it - A devastating blow to the TOE I must say. I'm sure he's good a his day job but he's hardly a man to rely on for an unbiased appraisal of the TOE is he? A creationist who begins his day six days a week at 3:30 AM with two hours of Bible reading.

So, if you love quotes can you show me any from any actual biologists dismissing the TOE who don't hold non scientific views that would influence their thinking?

I repeat, the only people who don't accept evidence for the TOE are the same people who can't accept anything that contradicts their religious beliefs, it is nothing to do with science or evidence. If you don't like it fair enough but let's not pretend that there's any scientific reasoning behind it.

 

[Smidlee]

Thanks for proving my point.

As I said, the only stumbling block for accepting the realities of biology is religious bias, I notice Richard Smalley's a Creationist, that's a coincidence! I wouldn't necessarily ask a chemist or physicist about biology anyway. I wonder how many biologists are crying into their pillows about their wasted lives now he's dealt his devastating 'death blow' to the TOE.

Everyone has a religious bias including evolutionist. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since living systems runs on both chemistry and physics so biologist can not totally ignore them.
Tours has created nano-machines and knows just how tough it is to build them.

(All around this forum I see people treat "peer-review" as the word of God instead of scriptures even though it was been shown a few years now that peer-review is broken.)

 

[Jimmy D]

Everyone has a religious bias including evolutionist. Evolution is based on the religious idea of the principle of continuity. Since living systems runs on both chemistry and physics so biologist can not totally ignore them.
Tours has created nano-machines and knows just how tough it is to build them.

I've just been having a look at what he was doing with nano-machines - they're fascinating things. He's obviously got no interest in trying to understand the TOE though, as his quote implies, but he's still prepared to be a 'rent-a-mouth' 'scientist' for creation websites. Anyway, it's neither here nor there, it's just one man's opinion, not scientific research or evidence.

I agree everyone could have a religious bias one way or the other, the problem is when you let that bias get in the way of thinking rationally. As has been oft repeated on here many, many scientists are Christians.

Here's another quote for you from Francis Collins (sorry crjmurray!):

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.


All arguments against Common Descent boil down to not being prepared to believe it (because it conflicts with religious views), or not understanding it, nothing more, nothing less, however you try to dress it up.