Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Hans Blaster]

how does fertilization take place on it's own?

What a weird question. You were asking about if eggs needed to have parental involvement and we gave you examples where animals lay eggs and never return. No one said anything about them not being fertilized.

 

[Astrid]

it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?

Pretty good example of how rejecting evolution is
a result of a lack of the most basic understanding of
biology- multiplied by misinformation.

There are a great many organisms that produce offspring
with no male- female fertilization.
This includes some lizards with no males in the
population.

There is a saying about what it is to reject something
one knows nothing about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?

You're moving the goalposts. You asked: "where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?"

Protect and nurture -- which happens long after fertilization.

 

[TLK Valentine]

how does fertilization take place on its own?

Ask a (fully formed) bacterium how it manages...

 

[Astrid]

Ask a (fully formed) bacterium how it manages...

Bacteria eggs huh?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Bacteria eggs huh?

Exactly. They seem to do just fine without fertilization...

 

[stevil]

where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

When you go from the above to the below

it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?

This is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts"
You should at the very least acknowledge that people have pointed out there are many instances where animals today lay eggs and do not protect and nurture them.

Also you should acknowledge that eggs is a hereditary feature (if your parents are the type of animal that lays eggs then you are the type of animal that lays eggs) and that animals were laying eggs long before the chicken appeared on earth.

I understand though that you are not interested in science and probably didn't bother with the link I provided regarding the evolution of the egg. I understand that your real reason to doubt all of this stuff is not because of science (evidence based) but is because of your interpretation of the bible. In that case it is pointless me going to efforts to educate you on science.

 

[Astrid]

When you go from the above to the below



This is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts"
You should at the very least acknowledge that people have pointed out there are many instances where animals today lay eggs and do not protect and nurture them.

Also you should acknowledge that eggs is a hereditary feature (if your parents are the type of animal that lays eggs then you are the type of animal that lays eggs) and that animals were laying eggs long before the chicken appeared on earth.

I understand though that you are not interested in science and probably didn't bother with the link I provided regarding the evolution of the egg. I understand that your real reason to doubt all of this stuff is not because of science (evidence based) but is because of your interpretation of the bible. In that case it is pointless me going to efforts to educate you on science.

Lets see a response b4 wasting any more words

 

[Astrid]

Exactly. They seem to do just fine without fertilization...

They dont do eggs

 

[TLK Valentine]

They dont do eggs

That's the point -- no eggs; nothing to fertilize.
And yet they thrive.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Lets see a response b4 wasting any more words

Indeed -- most people who suddenly shift goalposts are very aware of it.

You'd think a response would merit at least a "well, I suppose that answers my question, but what about..."

Without something like that... yeah, you've got a deliberate goalpost shift.

 

[Astrid]

Indeed -- most people who suddenly shift goalposts are very aware of it.

You'd think a response would merit at least a "well, I suppose that answers my question, but what about..."

Without something like that... yeah, you've got a deliberate goalpost shift.

Such is mostly self deception ( that the shifty one is always
right ) but it fools nobody else

Its a lot like the ever charming inability to ever apologize

Both are very emotionally immature behaviours

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

How are eggs blindly formed in the first place .... and how are they capable of surviving.

Where are the transitions (on the macro level)?

It's a very good question- & you can tell by the reactions

The same problem is brought into focus in the case of the origin of Eukaryotes; how do you accidentally/ incrementally evolve a nucleus within a cell membrane when they are interdependent?

The current favored explanation is endosymbiosis, which by the chicken-egg analogy- would mean that an egg came along one day and accidentally engulfed an unsuspecting chicken, and it was just so...

True or not - a Darwinian explanation for a key event in the evolution of life has been pretty much abandoned.

i.e. today it's not so much a question of whether Darwinism falls short as an explanation for 'the origin of species'. But rather how far short is it going to keep falling?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Without reading the 81-page discussion here are my thoughts on why some people in general reject evolution.

1. Misunderstanding of the theory - the subject is often not included in science curricula, or if it is, teachers avoid teaching it to avoid controversy with parents. Thus people are not as educated on evolution as they should be and end up learning of it from propagandists (like Answers in Genesis).
2. Claim: "Science, generally, threatens religion" - this is the "conflicting worlds" model, where one must choose either science or religion. Personally, I think the two occupy entirely different worlds ("separate worlds").
3. Claim: "Evolution, specifically, threatens religion" - evolution may be thought to violate religious tenets on the age of the earth or the creation account. However, most world religions, including most versions of Christianity, are flexible enough to interpret their creation stories non-literally.
4. Claim: "Evolution degrades our humanity" - not only is Earth revealed by Copernicus to be not at the center of anything, but now Darwin has revealed that we are animals.
5. Claim: "Evolution = ethical nihilism and moral degradation" - this is the logical train: evolution implies there is no god; belief in the theory of evolution thus leads to atheism; in atheism there can be no morality and meaning; without morality and meaning, civil society has no basis; if civil society has no basis, we end up living immorally.
6. Claim: "Evolution is about mutual struggle, not aid" - a common misconception about evolution is that every creature is inherently selfish and that nature is just violent. In reality, the animals that acquire habits of mutual aid are the fittest; this is especially visible with insect(-like creatures), such as bees and ants, and also among apes, wolves, etc., and even with humans.

Well I think each point could easily make for an 81-page debate here!

But for the record, I was raised atheist by atheist parents, taught Darwinian evolution in school, and believed it for about 30 years thereafter. My skepticism of evolution lead to my becoming a theist- not the other way around. From my perspective science overwhelmingly supports theism.

But then I changed my mind once, so the only thing I can prove here is that my opinion is entirely unreliable

What specifically changed your mind?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

@Guy Threepwood That's some interesting personal information, thank you for sharing.

Well, my only basis for rejecting evolution was my faith. Once I lost that faith, I had no particular basis for not believing in evolution. I then educated myself on it through various books (The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, Evolution by Donald Prothero, and the more technical book The Red Queen by Matthew Ridley), and accepted it as I have other uncontroversial scientific theories.

I read 'Origin of Species' also- have it here on my desk for reference. I also really enjoyed Darwin's 'Voyage of the Beagle'- he got into some pretty interesting adventures..

On the other side Stephen Meyers 'signature in the Cell' and 'Darwin's Doubt'. Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' are pretty good at delivering the counter arguments..

People say some fairly unpleasant things about authors on both sides, but I think it's a case of good, intelligent people being able to disagree, I think we all want to know the truth ultimately whatever that is?

 

[Bradskii]

...taught Darwinian evolution in school...

And they didn't tell you that it was a random process?

 

[Bradskii]

I would not nearly say that. Things evolve toward the purpose of successful self propagation.

Red Alert...

Yikes, please don't use terms like 'evolve towards' and 'purpose' when you talk about evolution around here, T.E. People have a tendency to take things literally.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a very good question- & you can tell by the reactions

The same problem is brought into focus in the case of the origin of Eukaryotes; how do you accidentally/ incrementally evolve a nucleus within a cell membrane when they are interdependent?

The current favored explanation is endosymbiosis, which by the chicken-egg analogy- would mean that an egg came along one day and accidentally engulfed an unsuspecting chicken, and it was just so...

True or not - a Darwinian explanation for a key event in the evolution of life has been pretty much abandoned.

i.e. today it's not so much a question of whether Darwinism falls short as an explanation for 'the origin of species'. But rather how far short is it going to keep falling?

Endosymbiosis isn't Darwinian in origin. It wasn't Darwin's idea. It post-dates Darwin's masterwork by a century.

 

[Bradskii]

Apologies but I don't see the issue.

People think there's a teleology associated with evolution. That it is (or has been) purposely leading somewhere.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Endosymbiosis isn't Darwinian in origin. It wasn't Darwin's idea. It post-dates Darwin's masterwork by a century.

That would be the point; Darwinian processes are already acknowledged to be inadequate in accounting for the 'origin of species'- it's just a matter of how inadequate, what can it do?

Empirically it can certainly take flight from birds, take sight from fish, destroy the ability of a bacteria to digest certain compounds etc. 150 years on, it's not entirely clear it can do anything but corrupt.