Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[tas8831]

"For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying."
How do we know that evolution is really happening?

"As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution."
Evolution Resources from the National Academies

"...we can't go back and see how life actually originated. But we have much solid evidence demonstrating that all the life forms we've studied on this planet arose from a single common ancestor, changing and diversifying over billions of years. Contrary to Behe's claim, the genetic evidence for common ancestry, up to and including humans, is overwhelming."
The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

"How can doctors deny evolution?
We assumed such beliefs would be unusual among doctors. After all, evolution is the foundational principle of biology, which, in turn, is the basic science that backs medicine. "
Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?

Hmmm.... Evolution, as such, IS a fact - even the more educated and sensible creationists admit that. But this is different in character than you implication - that evolutionists are hoodwinking the public.

In response to this:

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.​

You replied:

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.​

 

[pat34lee]

You replied:

And yet...
Somehow evolutionists manage to get the idea out that
evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.​

And then I proved it.

Second quote:
They call evolution a "known phenomena", and go on to say,
"evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution."

In other words, evolution through mutation is dogma that cannot
be questioned on penalty of scientific heresy. The old Catholic
system had nothing on today's Darwinists.

Fourth quote:
"evolution is the foundational principle of biology"

Which is a fabrication. Biology stands on it's own. If anything, true
biology rejects evolution in favor of heredity and stasis of species.
DNA doesn't work to improve the species. It works to maintain the
status quo and prevent degeneration of the genes through mutation
and sickness.

 

[pitabread]

In other words, evolution through mutation is dogma that cannot
be questioned on penalty of scientific heresy.

Uh, no. You been taking lessons from Cathy Newman?

Which is a fabrication. Biology stands on it's own.

It's a reality. Evolution is a foundational part of modern biology. If you disregard that, you're denying the current reality of the situation.

 

[pitabread]

Anything that can actually happen is possible.
It may not be likely, but it cannot be discounted.

We can tend to discount or at least not seriously acknowledge that without adequate supporting evidence. That's why I still don't get where you are going with this conspiracy theory talk.

 

[pat34lee]

Uh, no. You been taking lessons from Cathy Newman?

"Does our culture, like many others, have an unpardonable heresy? Every culture constructs an idol unto itself, punishing heresy by excommunication. We can discover the sacred idol of any culture by finding its taboo question.
In Medieval Europe, the peasant was forbidden to question the truth of the Church. Under Communism, comrades doubting the Party were thrown in gulag labor camps. Now, citizens must recite principles of Darwinism through compulsory schooling.

We must refuse to bow to our culture’s false idols. Science will not benefit from canonizing Darwin or making evolution an article of secular faith. We must reject intellectual excommunication as a valid form of dealing with criticism: the most important question for any society to ask is the one that is forbidden."
Confessions of a Skeptic | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

It's a reality. Evolution is a foundational part of modern biology. If you disregard that, you're denying the current reality of the situation.

What part or parts of modern biology cannot be understood without
bringing evolution into it, and why are they necessary? The science of
biology is current. It does not care what could have happened millions
of years ago or what may happen in the distant future.

 

[pat34lee]

We can tend to discount or at least not seriously acknowledge that without adequate supporting evidence. That's why I still don't get where you are going with this conspiracy theory talk.

Side issue, don't worry about it too much.

 

[pitabread]

What part or parts of modern biology cannot be understood without bringing evolution into it, and why are they necessary?

The field of genomics is integrated heavily with biological evolution. It informs many of the methods used for things like genomic comparisons, identification and annotation of functional regions of genomes, etc.

Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

The science of biology is current. It does not care what could have happened millions of years ago or what may happen in the distant future.

Processes that occurred in the past are responsible for the state of the present. Understanding how those processes occurred allows to understand the present.

 

[pat34lee]

The field of genomics is integrated heavily with biological evolution. It informs many of the methods used for things like genomic comparisons, identification and annotation of functional regions of genomes, etc.

Comparative genomics - Wikipedia

Processes that occurred in the past are responsible for the state of the present. Understanding how those processes occurred allows to understand the present.

Genomics is not biology, and if anything, evolutionary theory has
crippled the study of DNA for decades. After all, why bother doing
deep studies into leftover junk? Maybe because it was never junk.

Genetics and heredity are vital for biology, not so much evolution.
It may be helpful to know a cow's direct kin, similar breeds, etc.
What they evolved from, not so much for any practical purposes.

 

[pitabread]

Genomics is not biology, and if anything, evolutionary theory has
crippled the study of DNA for decades. After all, why bother doing
deep studies into leftover junk? Maybe because it was never junk.

Genetics and heredity are vital for biology, not so much evolution.
It may be helpful to know a cow's direct kin, similar breeds, etc.
What they evolved from, not so much for any practical purposes.

1) Genomes are the full DNA sequences that inhabit each and every cell. By definition, they are biological. So I'm not sure why you stated "genomics is not biology". That doesn't make any sense.

2) Evolutionary theory has in no way crippled the study of DNA. It provides the explanation as to why DNA sequences are the way they are. There are no scientific alternatives on the table at the moment.

3) Comparative genomics make use of genomes outside of single species. In fact, one of the challenges in selecting genomes for comparison is having adequate evolutionary distances to distinguish conserved genetic regions from normal individual variation. Even in closely related species (e.g. humans and chimps) distinguishing types of differences can be problematic since the genomes are so similar, never mind comparing genomes of a single species.

Here's an example of comparative genomics between bovine and human genomes to identify commercially relevant genes regarding milk production: Scientists pinpoint gene linked to fat in cow’s milk

Michel Georges, of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Liege, Belgium, led the study. His team used comparative genomics to locate the gene, called DGAT1. They assembled short DNA sequences from cow chromosome 14 and compared them to the nearly complete corresponding sequence of the human genome. The comparison showed that the cow DGAT1 gene resides in the implicated region on cow chromosome 14.

...

"We've been building these comparative maps for years hoping they would be useful for finding genes for traits," says Womack. "It is gratifying to see that we are beginning to find genes responsible for traits that have economic value."

Documenting evolutionary relationships among mammals reveals something about how genomes have evolved. This is of biological interest to some researchers, but there is also a practical aspect. The sites of chromosome rearrangements, called evolutionary breakpoints, are key landmarks that allow researchers to line up sequences and pull out genes.

"I'm happy to see that this evolutionary history of chromosomes has turned out to be extremely useful," says Womack, noting that many people had told him the work was esoteric and he was wasting his time. "The comparative maps allow us to extrapolate from one genome to another, and we can benefit from the work done in human and mouse with a high-resolution comparative map."
​

 

[Astrophile]

"For scientists, evolution is a fact. We know that life evolved with the same certainty that we know the Earth is roughly spherical, that gravity keeps us on it, and that wasps at a picnic are annoying."
How do we know that evolution is really happening?

"As with all active areas of science, there remain questions about evolution. There are always new questions to ask, new situations to consider, and new ways to study known phenomena. But evolution itself has been so thoroughly tested that biologists are no longer examining whether evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Similarly, biologists no longer debate many of the mechanisms responsible for evolution."
Evolution Resources from the National Academies

"...we can't go back and see how life actually originated. But we have much solid evidence demonstrating that all the life forms we've studied on this planet arose from a single common ancestor, changing and diversifying over billions of years. Contrary to Behe's claim, the genetic evidence for common ancestry, up to and including humans, is overwhelming."
The Problem With Evolution: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

"How can doctors deny evolution?
We assumed such beliefs would be unusual among doctors. After all, evolution is the foundational principle of biology, which, in turn, is the basic science that backs medicine. "
Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?

If one accepts methodological naturalism, that is the principle that 'science is limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena' (Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia), then the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. So far as I know, the only explanation for the facts of biology that does not rely on evolution is spontaneous generation, which was disproved more than a century ago. Even such 'doomed rivals' as Lamarckism, saltationism/macromutationism, orthogenesis, neutralism and epigenetics are still theories of evolution. In this sense evolution has been as thoroughly proved as special relativity or the theory of thermodynamics. If you can think of a scientific hypothesis for the facts of biology that does not require evolution (i.e. descent with modification), I shall be interested to read it.

However, there is no way of proving that living things were not created by a god who created them to give the appearance of having evolved. In that sense evolution has not been proved and can never be proved. The only thing to be said against the idea of supernatural creation by a god is that it is not scientific; it does not make any testable predictions, nor is there any conceivable observation that could disprove it.

Tell me something. Do you reject evolution because you think that the scientific evidence is not convincing? If so, what evidence would convince you of the reality of evolution? Alternatively, do you reject evolution because one cannot prove that living things were not supernaturally created by a god, and you will assume that religious creationism is true since it cannot be disproved. If so, you ought to say, like Todd Wood, that your rejection of evolution is based on your religious faith, and stop pretending that the scientific evidence for evolution is insufficient.

 

[lesliedellow]

The only thing to be said against the idea of supernatural creation by a god is that it is not scientific; it does not make any testable predictions, nor is there any conceivable observation that could disprove it.

Creationists are paying a backhanded complement to science in their desire to have theological doctrines labeled "scientific".

 

[pat34lee]

Creationists are paying a backhanded complement to science in their desire to have theological doctrines labeled "scientific".

Not all, and maybe not even many.
I would be satisfied to have evolution declared
a myth or better yet, an outright hoax.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not all, and maybe not even many.
I would be satisfied to have evolution declared
a myth or better yet, an outright hoax.

Unfortunately it is neither, as an overwhelming majority of Christian biologists will attest to. For heaven sake, you even have a creationist biologist telling you there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and that it is only for religious reasons that he rejects it.

 

[Speedwell]

Unfortunately it is neither, as an overwhelming majority of Christian biologists will attest to. For heaven sake, you even have a creationist biologist telling you there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and that it is only for religious reasons that he rejects it.

Some people like the victimization narrative. "They're out to destroy our beliefs" is more satisfying than "They think our beliefs are vacuous."

 

[pat34lee]

Unfortunately it is neither, as an overwhelming majority of Christian biologists will attest to. For heaven sake, you even have a creationist biologist telling you there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and that it is only for religious reasons that he rejects it.

There are 'Christians' who don't believe in God or Jesus.
Belonging to a group or having a degree doesn't make
one's opinion any more valid than another's. Only the
facts matter, and even they are open to interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

There are 'Christians' who don't believe in God or Jesus.

Those aren't the kind of "Christians" we are talking about. Within the context of this discussion and in accordance with the rules of this forum, a Christian is one who subscribes honestly to the tenets of the Nicene Creed.

 

[pat34lee]

Unfortunately it is neither, as an overwhelming majority of Christian biologists will attest to. For heaven sake, you even have a creationist biologist telling you there are “gobs and gobs” of evidence for evolution, and that it is only for religious reasons that he rejects it.

I didn't reject evolution for religious reasons. Or at least,
not the ones you probably think.

I rejected it because I found that evolution was as much
a system of beliefs as any religion. The same with old
earth geology, astronomy, the big bang, stellar formation...
pretty much all fields dealing with the past, even history
has been corrupted. Ancient history, mostly.

 

[pat34lee]

Those aren't the kind of "Christians" we are talking about. Within the context of this discussion and in accordance with the rules of this forum, a Christian is one who subscribes honestly to the tenets of the Nicene Creed.

And I wouldn't dream of accusing a Christian of less.
That doesn't change the fact that such frauds exist.

 

[lesliedellow]

I didn't reject evolution for religious reasons. Or at least,
not the ones you probably think.

I rejected it because I found that evolution was as much
a system of beliefs as any religion. The same with old
earth geology, astronomy, the big bang, stellar formation...
pretty much all fields dealing with the past, even history
has been corrupted. Ancient history, mostly.

Does that include Palestine, circa 1AD?

 

[pat34lee]

Does that include Palestine, circa 1AD?

Most likely parts of it have been tampered with
and altered. Like the fact that the NT was written
in Hebrew, not Greek, as most people think today.

What is even worse is that the left is working to
rewrite American and European history today.
Give them another generation and nobody will
be left to remember that the Democrats were the
party of slavery, Jim Crow and segregation.