Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.
I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.
In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.
In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.
If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.
By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.
Addendum
Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.
I know this is asking a lot (mostly because no matter how you respond it won't make a difference to the creationist folks), but could you give salient examples of things a properly prepared creationist should know that you do?
My motives are selfish because I will learn, but perhaps other selfish people, like me, are reading. Thank you.
I will post one but really its fancy talk about something they cannot explain, the bunch is only one amazing aspect of the mantis. the eye is beyond evolution understanding, suggestions?
How Mantis Shrimp Evolved Many Shapes with Same Powerful Punch
The team took careful measurements and calculated each specimen’s ability to transmit muscular force and motion to the part of the claw that swings out to smash or spear their prey -- a mechanical property known as kinematic transmission.When the researchers mapped their measurements onto the mantis shrimp family tree, they discovered that certain parts of the claw were more strongly associated with changes in strike mechanics than others -- enabling the other parts to evolve relatively independently without compromising the mantis shrimp’s award-winning wallop.“This research sheds new light on how these amazing movements evolved,” Anderson said. It suggests that mantis shrimp claws were able to evolve so many shapes because their mechanical properties are more affected by changes in some parts than others -- a pattern the researchers call “mechanical sensitivity.”The results appear in the Feb. 25 issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (IOS-1149748).
Sure, I'd be happy to.
First a disclaimer: this is strictly from my own experience and I'm not a professional biologist, just an enthusiastic amateur. Anyone looking for a more comprehensive understanding of biology would likely need to broaden this list quite a bit.
What I found helped me the most, was the following:
In terms of learning this, I have a thread I started with various educational sources for biology and evolution: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution
- Basic understanding of cellular biology, including different functions of cells and cellular reproduction.
- Basic understanding of physiology of biological organisms.
- Understanding of genetics including DNA/RNA organization, transcription, translation, gene expression, mutation, etc.
- Understanding of population genetics and evolutionary mechanisms, including how different mechanisms impact gene pools.
- Understanding of reproductive methodologies (esp. in regards to the genetics involved).
- General understanding of different ecological niches and different types of organisms that inhabit them. I think one is especially relevant in learning about the different types of bio-forms that exist and how species can occupy different ecological niches.
- Understanding of how populations of organisms interact relative to each other (e.g. predator-prey relationships, symbiosis, parasitism).
- Familiarity with species concepts and modes of speciation (e.g. allopatric, sympatric).
- Basic understanding of phylogenetics and how phylogenetic trees are constructed.
- Basic understanding of paleontological concepts and the history of life on Earth.
In university I took a course very similar to the Genetics and Evolution course in that list. I also was concurrently reading through the 3rd Edition textbook Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J Futyama.
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.
I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.
In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.
In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.
If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.
By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.
Addendum
Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.
What if an angel of the Lord, visited you one night and told you you were wrong about evolution?
I would have a lot of questions for them.
On a related note, I do experience hypnopompic hallucinations on a semi-regular basis. So if such an experience really did happen, I'd chalk it up to that. (This is also why I think a lot people's nighttime experiences with angels, demons, ghosts, aliens, etc., are likely just similar types of hallucinations.)
It would be a lot better for said angel to visit me during the day when I was fully lucid.
Which, in your opinion, would get an evolutionist to respect a creationist more? one who knows evolution inside-out, but denies it? or one who doesn't know a thing about evolution, and denies it?I just know the basics of evolution, nothing I feel the need to prove or disprove
Which, in your opinion, would get an evolutionist to respect a creationist more? one who knows evolution inside-out, but denies it? or one who doesn't know a thing about evolution, and denies it?
Sorry about my post not really fitting the OP. I think your OP is reasonable. There needs to be an equal understanding on things like what science teaches about evolution for it to be a good discussion. I just know the basics of evolution, nothing I feel the need to prove or disprove
So either way, evolution is being rejected for religious reasons ... right?I know this wasn't directed at me, but definitely the former. Todd Wood is a prime example. His knowledge of evolution allows him to at least be honest* about the science of it (e.g. The truth about evolution), even though he rejects it for religious reasons. I can at least respect him for his position.
The latter is just a position based on ignorance.
If so, why do you care if they're knowledgeable or not; if it's their religion that's keeping them from embracing it?
What if this "angel of the Lord" didn't know the answers to your questions.I would have specific questions for them, including what the biological markers were to indicate design in an organism versus naturally evolved features (morphological, genetic, whatever). I would also ask for the patterns of discontinuity between organisms to delineate lineages back to the originally created organisms. And if there weren't such patterns evident, I would be asking why the heck not.
What if this "angel of the Lord" didn't know the answers to your questions.
But he says, "I'm not here to discuss this. Come with me."
And he takes you back in time and shows you all the kinds in Genesis 1 coming into existence at once?
Fair enough.You specifically asked what would garner respect.
I certainly am.pitabread said:Also, for creationists that claim to reject evolution but don't understand it, are they really rejecting it?
And I disagree; since I think that a viable reason for rejecting evolution (or anything) is believing its antithesis.pitabread said:As I said in the OP, I find creationists mostly are arguing against strawmen versions of evolution based on misconceptions. In that context, creationists aren't actually rejecting the real science.
What would you be looking for that's different?I would ask them to bring some professional biologists along for the ride to do DNA sampling.
Or failing that, I'd take along a notebook and supplies to collect my own samples for later study.
If you tell me there's a horse outside my window, and I say it's a cow, and you know for a fact it is a horse, but I say I think it's a cow because I heard it MOO (we'll say my hearing is bad); in my opinion, I have a valid reason for believing you're wrong, even though, in reality, I'm the one that's wrong.
Any attempts to concatenate the DNA found in that tiger, with the DNA found in Adam's house cat would yield negative results.
Any attempts to concatenate the DNA found in that tiger, with the DNA found in Adam's house cat would yield negative results.
What would you be looking for that's different?
On a much lighter note, pita, did you see that OP from Split Rock about two creationists (Dad & I) taking a commercial flight?I don't think this analogy really applies in this instance.
A more appropriate analogy would be me saying there is a horse outside your window and then you tell me that's impossible because horses don't exist. And when I ask you to just come at the horse, you refuse to do so.
That is how I feel most discussions with creationists about evolution unfold.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?