Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[inquiring mind]

Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

It's an interesting question, but it appears the thread was derailed after 2 posts. Did anyone ever answer the question? I didn't read all 159 posts.

Ha, I plumb forgot the OP. I'll have to go back through them myself, but I think it was one of those questions that I really didn't expect a direct answer to... and just try to enjoy the comments (once I get past all the 'you're ignorant and don't know anything about science' ones), wherever they go.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ha, I plumb forgot the OP. I'll have to go back through them myself, but I think it was one of those questions that I really didn't expect a direct answer to... and just try to enjoy the comments (once I get past all the 'you're ignorant and don't know anything about science' ones), wherever they go.

I see. If there's no interest in the question, then I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[inquiring mind]

I see. If there's no interest in the question, then I guess it doesn't matter.

Well, maybe I've got too used to to the 'smoke bombs' and 'you don't know what you're talking about' barage... it's just evolution 101 standard tactics I guess. Usually people get around to something meaningful, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, maybe I've got too used to to the 'smoke bombs' and 'you don't know what you're talking about' barage...

That's too bad. So did you have your own answer to the OP?

 

[inquiring mind]

That's too bad. So did you have your own answer to the OP?

I argue against macro evolution all the time... what's your take on it? I'd be interested.

 

[Resha Caner]

I argue against macro evolution all the time... what's your take on it? I'd be interested.

OK, but that doesn't answer the "why" in the OP.

There are lots of reasons people argue about it. Sometimes they just like to argue. Sometimes they like proving they are (supposedly) smarter than everyone else. Sometimes they don't understand what the other side is saying.

Sometimes it's about community or dignity. There was someone who used to post in this forum a lot (Paradoxum) who talked about how she missed what she lost when she lost her faith. It's sad she lost her faith, but at least she had an appreciation that there is something to lose. It seems many atheists think Christians don't have anything worth losing. When I see someone from one side who can appreciate the other side, I respect their arguments much more. I have a book by a secular author arguing for the importance to society of holding things sacred. Very interesting.

So, for some, it's very personal. The idea of evolving from something lower on the tree of life strikes at their dignity - their identity. I'm willing to examine those things. I'm willing to admit that at one time the arguments about DNA similarity between chimps and humans caught my attention. But when I examined why it caught my attention, it's effectiveness fell away. It's an argument from human arrogance that has nothing to do with God.

Everything I've listed so far is similar in it's lack of relevance to what people think they're arguing about - God. That doesn't necessarily make those reasons wrong. They're just not my reasons.

 

[Yttrium]

The simple fact is that a great many people are ignorant about even the basics of biologic evolution. There's nothing unusual or wrong with that. We're all ignorant about a great many things. People often have misconceptions and misinformation. When forming an opinion, it's valuable to discuss it and compare knowledge and ideas with others. Those who are against the theory of evolution can come here and complain about it, and others can explain and/or defend it. Everyone involved, including lurkers, can learn about the various points of view.

Personally, I enjoy learning about what people believe about the subject, and how they came to their beliefs. I see a good variety of personalities here, with different approaches to the topic.

Of course, the discussion here will have absolutely no effect on the field of evolutionary biology, or any other science for that matter. But it does provide a lot of good mental and writing exercise.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course, the discussion here will have absolutely no effect on the field of evolutionary biology, or any other science for that matter.

Yes and no. Some interesting studies have been done on the anxiety biologists (and biology teachers) have when asked to discuss creationism. So, they're aware of the public debate. National Geographic published an article a few years ago alluding to the tribalism it's caused on both sides. What effect that's had on research is hard to say. Would evolution get more funding than it does were it not for the debate? Do biologists pull some punches or ponder their phrasing before they publish? We'll never know.

Maybe the conclusion would be exactly the same. I'm pretty sure the word "evolution" is here to stay. One conclusion I've drawn from my discussions here and with biologists outside this forum is that even if my hypotheses were studied they would just be absorbed into the evolutionary corpus and explained as proper adjustments made to accommodate new information.

 

[inquiring mind]

OK, but that doesn't answer the "why" in the OP.

True, but in all fairness, I asked the question "why," whether it be taken as a rhetorical question because of the 'so called' evidence, or one actually expecting informative answers, I hoped to learn from it. And, you did provide some good reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally, I enjoy learning about what people believe about the subject, and how they came to their beliefs.

IOW, know thy enemy?

I see a good variety of personalities here, with different approaches to the topic.

What goes through your mind when you see someone doing the best he can to defend his beliefs; and everything he says/explains just: 1) brings up more questions, and 2) gets ridiculed?

Yes, I'm sure you're interested in how people defend their faith; but are you equally interested/appalled at the inquisitors?

 

[Yttrium]

IOW, know thy enemy?

No. I'm not an adversarial kind of person.

What goes through your mind when you see someone doing the best he can to defend his beliefs; and everything he says/explains just: 1) brings up more questions, and 2) gets ridiculed?

If the individual is honestly expressing an opinion, whether I agree with it or not, then it bothers me.

Yes, I'm sure you're interested in how people defend their faith; but are you equally interested/appalled at the inquisitors?

I can be, depending on the situation. At a similar site, I routinely defended Christians and Christian positions from certain aggressive atheists, and corrected broken logic wherever I found it. I'm still learning the ropes here. I've seen a few tactics from certain non-Christians here that bother me, such as demanding evidence in certain situations when they know they're not going to get it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I'm not an adversarial kind of person.



If the individual is honestly expressing an opinion, whether I agree with it or not, then it bothers me.



I can be, depending on the situation. At a similar site, I routinely defended Christians and Christian positions from certain aggressive atheists, and corrected broken logic wherever I found it. I'm still learning the ropes here. I've seen a few tactics from certain non-Christians here that bother me, such as demanding evidence in certain situations when they know they're not going to get it.

For the record, I'm glad you're here.

 

[Belk]

Evolution (as a whole, including macro, common descent, etc.) has the law, science, academia, and even some religious affiliations on its side, fully supportive, and even protective… which makes it pretty much factual by most standards... doesn’t it?

It seems to me you have switched the cause and effect here. It is factual, therefore it has the law, science, and others on its side. Much the same way those who believe the earth is round have those same perks.

 

[Astrophile]

Now you're headed into the 'smoke & mirror' category. What part of "I’m not disputing adult rights" are you not getting? I simply asked if something is entirely factual just because it has support from science, law, and others?

Not necessarily. Theistic religions have support from the law, much of academia, and even some scientific organisations, but that doesn't mean that they are entirely factual.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not necessarily. Theistic religions have support from the law, much of academia, and even some scientific organisations, but that doesn't mean that they are entirely factual.

You are correct, and that helps make my point, but God’s word is the truth and stands on its own authority, regardless of how it’s interpreted.

 

[pitabread]

God’s word is the truth and stands on its own authority, regardless of how it’s interpreted.

That's not demonstrable though.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's not demonstrable though.

Well, it’s true that we will believe the Bible only as the Holy Spirit permits, and that dependent on our belief in Jesus Christ. Remember though that Jesus stood up to Satan with quotes from the scriptures, which obviously demonstrated the authority of God behind them. Jesus taught from the Bible, and even referenced the stories about Adam & Eve, and Noah, which are often ridiculed as fables by unbelievers. And, yet, in all this time and with much effort, not one critic has proven one lie from God’s word. That alone should make the Bible’s truth demonstrable.

 

[pitabread]

Remember though that Jesus stood up to Satan with quotes from the scriptures, which obviously demonstrated the authority of God behind them. Jesus taught from the Bible, and even referenced the stories about Adam & Eve, and Noah, which are often ridiculed as fables by unbelievers.

All of this is in the Bible in the first place though. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular.

It's like quoting from Lord of the Rings trilogy to demonstrate that the events depicted within happened as depicted in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

And, yet, in all this time and with much effort, not one critic has proven one lie from God’s word. That alone should make the Bible’s truth demonstrable.

That's not how the burden of proof works. You don't just assert something is true until proven otherwise. The onus is on the person claiming something is true to demonstrate it as such.

 

[inquiring mind]

All of this is in the Bible in the first place though. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular.

It's like quoting from Lord of the Rings trilogy to demonstrate that the events depicted within happened as depicted in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.



That's not how the burden of proof works. You don't just assert something is true until proven otherwise. The onus is on the person claiming something is true to demonstrate it as such.

As I said, you will believe the Bible only as the Holy Spirit permits, and that being dependent on your belief in Jesus Christ. You will see the truth only by faith.

 

[pitabread]

As I said, you will believe the Bible only as the Holy Spirit permits, and that being dependent on your belief in Jesus Christ. You will see the truth only by faith.

Translation: Believe and then you'll believe.