The Demise of Evolution

[Nithavela]

As well as longer life spans, greatly reduced infant mortality rates, the destruction of many deadly types of diseases.
Really, it's just a positives-negatives game. A heads and tails of the coin.

On the one hand, death to us and thousands of other species by our own folly.

On the other hand, slightly extended lifes.

Yeah, seems about equal.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Why doesn't this topic of God just fade away? Simple reason is people look at the creation around them and find it tough to believe all these can happen by themselves.

That's the argument from incredulity right there.

The fact that same old-fashioned boring idea of creation can perpetuate throughout the age must mean something.

It means we can't bear to live with the unexplained until we can explain it, so we'll make up any old tosh to ensure we've got an answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On the one hand, death to us and thousands of other species by our own folly.

On the other hand, slightly extended lifes.

Yeah, seems about equal.

I choose to believe that you are aware the advances that science has created for the world and humanity at large.
Not my fault you choose the see the world through black-tinted lenses.

 

[expos4ever]

Where have all those advanced led us? To self-inflicted extinction.

I think such a conclusion is not supported by an objective considerations of the evidence. First, we are, of course, not extinct. At least not yet.

I have conceded, as any reasonable person would, that science - in particular the application of science in the form of technology - has concomitant risks. Of that, there is no dispute. I think the big two are nuclear weapons and global warming.

But these risks can arguably be managed - we shall see, and I think this is an open question; you appear to imply that our doom is certain.

On the other hand, science has undoubtedly produced huge benefits for humanity:

- medical technology: people are living longer and suffering less;
- dental technology: people used to suffer much more dental pain;
- transportation technology - we can travel almost anywhere in safety and at manageable cost;
- information technology - people have a wealth of information at their fingertips;
- understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe as a whole - findings from cosmology rightly elicit a deep sense of awe.
- etc., etc., etc.

Beware romanticizing the past - if someone really wants to go back to the pre-scientific age, they have not done their history.

For all our problems, life now is far, far better than it has ever been.

 

[Nithavela]

I think such a conclusion is not supported by an objective considerations of the evidence. First, we are, of course, not extinct. At least not yet.

I have conceded, as any reasonable person would, that science - in particular the application of science in the form of technology - has concomitant risks. Of that, there is no dispute. I think the big two are nuclear weapons and global warming.

But these risks can arguably be managed - we shall see, and I think this is an open question; you appear to imply that our doom is certain.

On the other hand, science has undoubtedly produced huge benefits for humanity:

- medical technology: people are living longer and suffering less;
- dental technology: people used to suffer much more dental pain;
- transportation technology - we can travel almost anywhere in safety and at manageable cost;
- information technology - people have a wealth of information at their fingertips;
- understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe as a whole - findings from cosmology rightly elicit a deep sense of awe.
- etc., etc., etc.

Beware romanticizing the past - if someone really wants to go back to the pre-scientific age, they have not done their history.

For all our problems, life now is far, far better than it has ever been.

And ever will be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And ever will be.

How's that glass of water looking, chief?

 

[Nithavela]

How's that glass of water looking, chief?

Full of microplastics and nitrate.

 

[expos4ever]

On the one hand, death to us and thousands of other species by our own folly.

On the other hand, slightly extended lifes.

Yeah, seems about equal.

Here is the problem: unlike the evolution deniers, you at least have a defensible point here - it is true that technology has created problems. But you are not being very even-handed here. In particular, I suggest it is obvious that both average lifespans and measures of quality of life for human beings have improved rather substantially, not "slightly". Yes, we have driven many species into extinction - fair, fair point.

Again, unlike things like evolution and global warming, the argument that technology is a net negative is at least defensible. But the arguments needs to be more robust. And, to be fair, those of us who believe that technology is a net benefit need to spell out our case more substantively.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Full of microplastics and nitrate.

All right, that gave me a chuckle, and I'll give you a 'funny' for possibly the first time I've seen that response.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not really. You're just bad at science, and also bad at trying to combine it with religion.

I rejected evolution as a kid, long before I got religion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What you call "interpreting the evidence differently" I call something else: bearing false witness seasoned with a dose of poisonous rhetoric

It is a fascinating study in the group-level behaviours - a particular group (fundamentalist Christians) who claim to espouse truth-telling are perfectly willing to compromise themselves by engaging in systematic misrepresentation and distortion in order to preserve another belief - that evolution is false.

Let's be real here: there is basically zero dispute among qualified experts that evolution happened and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Creationists cannot, of course, dispute the facts since the case against them is devastating. So what do they do? They engage in systematic misrepresentation. To wit:

- abuse the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. claim that this law does not permit evolution);
- claim that evolution is a random process (only elements are random, others are decidedly not random).
- the fossil record has gaps (while there is a sense in which this is true, it is decidedly not true in the sense that matters).

To complement the telling of falsehoods, they often engage in poisonous rhetoric - vague claims about how evolution is a lie of the devil and that its adherents are misled minions of the prince of darkness.

It seems to me that the creationists are like the proverbial lobster boiled slowly - they appear to have lost the ability to recognize that they are participating in a systematic program of falsehoods and the abuse of the principles of fair and reasonable argument.

I just don't think we got here from there. I look at the elegant design of things and say, "No way Jose" to evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Where have all those advanced led us? To self-inflicted extinction.

True. One field of science makes us, and the earth, sick, then another rushes in to cure us, leaving us dependent and broke. It is said that the devil "hides a pint of poison in a lake of truth". Science is just as sly, hiding a pint of truth in a lake of poison.

 

[d taylor]

Interesting how some creationists treat Satan as a kind of “get out of jail free” card that magically makes the problems with their position disappear.

Can’t mount a legitimate, evidence-based objection to evolution? Claim it is a deception from the devil. Problem solved.

How convenient.

My position has no problems, and i need no argument the Bible has settled this even before it began.

 

[expos4ever]

My position has no problems, and i need no argument the Bible has settled this even before it began.

The evidence, of course, is your problem - a massive agglomeration of well-substantiated findings that collectively present a devastating case in favour of evolution. The first few chapters of Genesis - if read literally - do indeed contradict these findings. How do most Christians (worldwide) resolve this? By interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis as a myth that conveys important truths about man and God.

Not as a science textbook.

A talking snake?

Come on, man.

 

[lasthero]

My position has no problems, and i need no argument the Bible has settled this even before it began.

Well, that’s, like, your opinion, man.

 

[expos4ever]

I just don't think we got here from there.

By contrast, I know the limits of my intellect and defer to the service-proven scientific method and the opinions of experts.

I am wise enough to know when I am not qualified to render a judgement and defer to the experts.

I look at the elegant design of things and say, "No way Jose" to evolution.

I look at my electrical engineering degree and say "no way Jose do I know better than tens of thousands of trained biologists, palaeontologists, and other "ologists".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

By contrast, I know the limits of my intellect and defer to the service-proven scientific method and the opinions of experts.

I am wise enough to know when I am not qualified to render a judgement and defer to the experts.


I look at my electrical engineering degree and say "no way Jose do I know better than tens of thousands of trained biologists, palaeontologists, and other "ologists".

My dentist wanted to pull my wisdom teeth, warning that they would give me trouble (his professional opinion). I declined, and thirty years later they are fine (although one eventually needed a crown). We both laugh about that still.

I and my boss argued with a well known contractor regarding a paving job. We saw a low spot and determined that it wouldn't drain properly and more fill should be added before final paving. He said his crew had determined that it would indeed drain properly. We pressed our argument and he finally relented...we thought. The next day his crew spread a thin layer of fill on the area, not nearly enough in my judgment.

The result of his expertise. There is a huge low spot there that doesn't drain and the asphalt is degrading because of it.

We had some ash trees removed that were infected by the emerald ash borer. The tree expert (that's what they're called) also wanted to remove three very large ash trees that shaded the west side of our apartment building, stating that they would be dead in a year. That was three years ago, and they still look fine.

Don't even get me started our lakes, which have been under the care of experts for decades. They are foul smelling weedy mess.

I have lots of stories like this over forty year of working with 'highly trained experts'.

 

[driewerf]

What you call "interpreting the evidence differently" I call something else: bearing false witness seasoned with a dose of poisonous rhetoric

It is a fascinating study in the group-level behaviours - a particular group (fundamentalist Christians) who claim to espouse truth-telling are perfectly willing to compromise themselves by engaging in systematic misrepresentation and distortion in order to preserve another belief - that evolution is false.

Let's be real here: there is basically zero dispute among qualified experts that evolution happened and the evidence for it is overwhelming. Creationists cannot, of course, dispute the facts since the case against them is devastating. So what do they do? They engage in systematic misrepresentation. To wit:

- abuse the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. claim that this law does not permit evolution);
- claim that evolution is a random process (only elements are random, others are decidedly not random).
- the fossil record has gaps (while there is a sense in which this is true, it is decidedly not true in the sense that matters).

To complement the telling of falsehoods, they often engage in poisonous rhetoric - vague claims about how evolution is a lie of the devil and that its adherents are misled minions of the prince of darkness.

It seems to me that the creationists are like the proverbial lobster boiled slowly - they appear to have lost the ability to recognize that they are participating in a systematic program of falsehoods and the abuse of the principles of fair and reasonable argument.

Yesterday I answered to another creationist, who objected the portrayal of creationists as anti science.
With a little editing, that post fits here very well.

Over the years I have read and listened to material of son and father Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Venomfang X, Conservapedia and many others. I have seen positions denying or in flagrant contradiction with

• cosmology: the age of the Universe
• cosmogeny, the origin of the universe
• the General theory of relativity, including the denial of c as a constant
• astrophysics, including the denial of star formation
• nuclear physics, including the nuclear decay rates
• nuclear physics again, including the impossibility of nuclear fusion
• climatology, including the Milankovitch cycles and the denial of multiple glaciations
• climatology again, I have seen many creationists claim the "the Flood" caused an ice Age
• climatology again, including the phenomenon of desertification
• orogeny, I have seen many creationists claim that all mountains formed during the Flood
• geology, including the bastardisation of all patterns of erosion
• thermodynamics, especially the SLoT
• classical mechanics, including the mechanism behind tides
• anthropology, with the claim that Lucy's knee cap was found miles away from the rest of the skeleton
• anthropology again (and paleontology), with the claim that the paluxy trails include footprints of humans and dinosaurs
• anthroplogy again, with the claim that all humans fossils don't even fill a single coffin
• paleontology, with the claim that a fossil can't be any ancestor of extant species because you can't know whether it reproduced or not
• demographics (and archaeology); the population growth after "the Flood" defies everything that all historians, archaeologists and demographers have ever written

So yes, creationists are basically anti science. If we include their denial of vaccination and climate change (not related to a Creation per se), then the picture is even worse.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I rejected evolution as a kid, long before I got religion.

Not talking about you rejecting evolution, which was never really in question. Also, it's definitely a case of you don't understand evolution in the slightest, and you don't care at all to learn, but you feel the need to talk about evolution and religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My dentist wanted to pull my wisdom teeth, warning that they would give me trouble (his professional opinion). I declined, and thirty years later they are fine (although one eventually needed a crown). We both laugh about that still.

I and my boss argued with a well known contractor regarding a paving job. We saw a low spot and determined that it wouldn't drain properly and more fill should be added before final paving. He said his crew had determined that it would indeed drain properly. We pressed our argument and he finally relented...we thought. The next day his crew spread a thin layer of fill on the area, not nearly enough in my judgment.

The result of his expertise. There is a huge low spot there that doesn't drain and the asphalt is degrading because of it.

We had some ash trees removed that were infected by the emerald ash borer. The tree expert (that's what they're called) also wanted to remove three very large ash trees that shaded the west side of our apartment building, stating that they would be dead in a year. That was three years ago, and they still look fine.

Don't even get me started our lakes, which have been under the care of experts for decades. They are foul smelling weedy mess.

I have lots of stories like this over forty year of working with 'highly trained experts'.

And that's all they are. Stories.