Why Evolution?

[IzzyPop]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm guessing it comes from: "Monkies are gross! I ain't no monkey!"

 

[keith99]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

It has been said that those most opposed to Evolution seem to be the most direct decendents of apes.

Make of that what you will.

I for one do not care about my distant ancestors. I am what I am and if anything it makes it more impressive if I got to where I am in spite of where I came from.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

I'd like to think that having already been forced to abandon geocentricism and evil spirits causing diseases, they've decided to draw their latest line in the sand at evolution.

However, I sadly know the answer is not so simple -- it never is.

 

[Chalnoth]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

Probably because they don't know enough about the rest of science to understand just how much it contradicts their beliefs.

 

[Valkhorn]

I think it's because evolution is not an easy subject to grasp and requires careful study. Most creationists aren't willing to put forth a lot of study about things they are really against.

 

[Chalnoth]

I think it's because evolution is not an easy subject to grasp and requires careful study. Most creationists aren't willing to put forth a lot of study about things they are really against.

Clearly that's why they're not aware that their objections are baseless. But I don't think that's why they single out evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

Basically, it is the desire to feel special, and not to be related to dirty, souless apes. Afterall, there are other ways to interpret scripture that do not conflict with reality.

 

[Willtor]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

It isn't about evolution. You can see this in the arguments (both on the forum and in the creationist literature). Every argument is lashing out against a perceived threat called "evolution" but I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution. Even the ostensibly informed creationist arguments against "evolution" are against abiogenesis, geology, genetics, physics, or are simply expressions of incredulity. There is a general feeling that evolution has something to do with humans being related to other apes but it isn't about that or the Church would not have basically accepted evolution by the early 20th century.

I suspect the cause is the fear and disdain expressed by many preachers in the pulpits and on the radio. For them it isn't really about evolution, either. It isn't really even about science (or there wouldn't be a "Creation Science" movement). "Evolution" has become a catch-all word to describe all of the evil (real or perceived) that threatens people. From my own experience, one of the elders at my former Church would sometimes preach and talk about opposition from the "unbelieving evolutionists." Now, rationally, one could ask what about the "unbelieving non-evolutionists," or the "believing evolutionists," but the fact was that he probably hadn't given the actual idea of evolution a lot of thought. For him, "unbelieving evolutionist" was a scapegoat for certain problems that he perceived.

It's easy to take it personally when one values the understanding that comes through evolution (or science in general). But try not to take it hard. It isn't about what you think it's about.

 

[Washington]

It isn't about evolution. You can see this in the arguments (both on the forum and in the creationist literature). Every argument is lashing out against a perceived threat called "evolution" but I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution. Even the ostensibly informed creationist arguments against "evolution" are against abiogenesis, geology, genetics, physics, or are simply expressions of incredulity.

Then you have clearly missed a very important fact of evolution, which is understandable because creationists love to promote the "abiogenesis only" lie about evolution. Evolutionary theory has never said abiogenesis is essential. Both abiogenesis and special creation can be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Evolution only addresses the change/diversity following the appearance of first life, however it arose.

There is a general feeling that evolution has something to do with humans being related to other apes but it isn't about that or the Church would not have basically accepted evolution by the early 20th century.

Perhaps so, but it IS a reason many Christians do reject evolution.

 

[Markus6]

Dawkins said evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist". Without a natural explanation for human origins holding a miraculous one is pretty natural. A miraculous explanation effectively proves the existence of God and makes a historic/scientific interpretation of Genesis just about viable (if you squint).

The transition from that world view to one including evolution as a natural explanation of human origins (whether as a theist or atheist) is a big one. Some still haven't made it - and many atheists, insinuating that evolution logically leads to atheism haven't helped because they've made the transition bigger and polarised the issue.

 

[flicka]

It isn't about evolution. You can see this in the arguments (both on the forum and in the creationist literature). Every argument is lashing out against a perceived threat called "evolution" but I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution. Even the ostensibly informed creationist arguments against "evolution" are against abiogenesis, geology, genetics, physics, or are simply expressions of incredulity. There is a general feeling that evolution has something to do with humans being related to other apes but it isn't about that or the Church would not have basically accepted evolution by the early 20th century.

I suspect the cause is the fear and disdain expressed by many preachers in the pulpits and on the radio. For them it isn't really about evolution, either. It isn't really even about science (or there wouldn't be a "Creation Science" movement). "Evolution" has become a catch-all word to describe all of the evil (real or perceived) that threatens people. From my own experience, one of the elders at my former Church would sometimes preach and talk about opposition from the "unbelieving evolutionists." Now, rationally, one could ask what about the "unbelieving non-evolutionists," or the "believing evolutionists," but the fact was that he probably hadn't given the actual idea of evolution a lot of thought. For him, "unbelieving evolutionist" was a scapegoat for certain problems that he perceived.

It's easy to take it personally when one values the understanding that comes through evolution (or science in general). But try not to take it hard. It isn't about what you think it's about.

I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview. And the underlying need to there to be an "us" and "them", something to set the "us" apart as special while vilifying the "them" and setting the stage for elaborate conspiracy theories and justifications (IE: "evolutionists enjoy sinning and just don't want to be accountable to God", etc.).

For many it's not even an intellectual issue, they just know what they have been taught and adopt it as their own. Repeating the key phrases in conversation and debates is a sure giveaway of someone who is just toeing the party line so to speak.

 

[Washington]

I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview.

I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?


The subject of IzzyPop's questions was the singling out of evolution for treatment.

" What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?"​

So obviously any reference to this issue---the singled out treatment on evolution---would necessarily be about evolution. How can you address the singled out treatment on X if you say such a treatment is not about X?
I think your thinking, and that of Willtor, may have gone astray here.

 

[IzzyPop]

I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?


The subject of IzzyPop's questions was the singling out of evolution for treatment.

" What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?"​

So obviously any reference to this issue---the singled out treatment on evolution---would necessarily be about evolution. How can you address the singled out treatment on X if you say such a treatment is not about X?
I think your thinking, and that of Willtor, may have gone astray here.

I think you are splitting hairs here. If I can presume to speak for the authors of the posts you are referencing, I think they are pointing out the whys of disputing evolution as opposed to the actual disputing, which is the main point of my query.

We have all been around enough to see the failed arguments against the TOE multiple times. My question is what is the opponent gaining in their denial of reality. The only thing I can see is they are allowed to keep the warm, fuzzy 'specialness' that comes along with the belief that a mighty power actually give two shakes about what happens to us on a personal level. Kind of like cosmic name dropping: "So I was talking to God the other day..."

I can see the draw and allure of that stance. Personally, and at risk of derailing my own thread, that is my biggest struggle with atheism. The universe is so big and vast that Earth itself has little significance, much less the human race, and I am just one very small part of that. I wish that I could believe that someone upstairs has my best interests at heart, but I cannot make that leap. And for the people that have, I can attest to how scary the alternative is.

 

[Split Rock]

I would have asked Willtor the following as well, but he has enough on his plate as it is. Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?


The subject of IzzyPop's questions was the singling out of evolution for treatment.

" What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?"​

So obviously any reference to this issue---the singled out treatment on evolution---would necessarily be about evolution. How can you address the singled out treatment on X if you say such a treatment is not about X?
I think your thinking, and that of Willtor, may have gone astray here.

I think you are right. Back to the original question. The reason evolution is singled out more often than atronomy, geology, or linguistics is the emotional appeal of the anti-evolution argument. "I am not a monkey," has much more emotional appeal than "Starlight is not millions of years old," or "the Grand canyon is not millions of years old," or "All human languages originated at the Tower of Babel." People do not like thinking of themselves as "apes," even if biological they clearly are. Creationists can build on that to attack evolution, and then to other forms of science from there.

 

[Washington]

I think you are splitting hairs here. If I can presume to speak for the authors of the posts you are referencing, I think they are pointing out the whys of disputing evolution as opposed to the actual disputing, which is the main point of my query.

Just to clarify.

Considering Willtor's original direct reply to your OP questions--- "It isn't about evolution"---I can only assume his "it" refers to the singled-out treatment your talking about. "It" = singled-out treatment of evolution. But he then goes on to say he's never seen such treatment. "I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution"

Flicka then agrees with Willtro, "I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview." From this it is apparent her "this" is the same as Willtor's "it." And because Willtor's "it" = singled-out treatment of evolution, I fail to see how she can say the "singled-out treatment of evolution" is not about evolution.

To single out anything implies some particular/special character of it is at the root of such singling out. Why else single it out? So there must be something unique to evolution that has prompted the action, and therefore evolution cannot be dismissed as not having anything to do with "singling it out for treatment." Her remark simply makes no sense.
Now she may have something else in mind, as you suggest, but going by what she said, she made a logical mess of it.

And this is why I asked her at the outset, "Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?

 

[Willtor]

Then you have clearly missed a very important fact of evolution, which is understandable because creationists love to promote the "abiogenesis only" lie about evolution. Evolutionary theory has never said abiogenesis is essential. Both abiogenesis and special creation can be accommodated by evolutionary theory. Evolution only addresses the change/diversity following the appearance of first life, however it arose.

I wouldn't say I've missed that point. Merely, "anti-evolution" arguments rarely actually target the theory of evolution and frequently direct themselves towards abiogenesis, geology, etc.

Perhaps so, but it IS a reason many Christians do reject evolution.

I'm not sure that it is. I mean, yes, on the surface that's what it sounds like. But just as Split Rock says, is that really so much more anti-resurrection than star light being millions or billions of years old? I can't see how. But the appeal can be made far more emotionally. How many creationists have come through here irate about (verbatim) "goo-to-you" ideas? The Bible says that God formed the man from the dirt. I can't believe that anybody who takes that seriously (and applied serious consideration to it) would have a problem with anything that was actually "goo-to-you" in essence.

Flicka says it comes from a need to establish an us and them mentality. This sounds reasonable to me. It's a very human thing to do. If it weren't for George McCready Price, it would be something else - but it would still be something.

 

[Willtor]

Just to clarify.

Considering Willtor's original direct reply to your OP questions--- "It isn't about evolution"---I can only assume his "it" refers to the singled-out treatment your talking about. "It" = singled-out treatment of evolution. But he then goes on to say he's never seen such treatment. "I've never read an argument that is actually against evolution"

Flicka then agrees with Willtro, "I have to agree with this. It's NOT about evolution at all, it's about a worldview." From this it is apparent her "this" is the same as Willtor's "it." And because Willtor's "it" = singled-out treatment of evolution, I fail to see how she can say the "singled-out treatment of evolution" is not about evolution.

To single out anything implies some particular/special character of it is at the root of such singling out. Why else single it out? So there must be something unique to evolution that has prompted the action, and therefore evolution cannot be dismissed as not having anything to do with "singling it out for treatment." Her remark simply makes no sense.
Now she may have something else in mind, as you suggest, but going by what she said, she made a logical mess of it.

And this is why I asked her at the outset, "Exactly what are you referring to by "this"?

"It" - is the basis for attacks (ostensibly against evolution). The singled-out treatment of evolution is not about evolution. There's a difference in semantics. When you talk about evolution, you mean "a change in the frequency in alleles within a population." When most creationists talk about evolution they don't mean that. We're all using the same word but it means something very different. That's why I said that when one reads most creationist anti-evolution arguments one is surprised to find how little they have to do with "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population." Evolutionists and creationists aren't speaking the same language.

 

[consol]

What is it about evolution that gives so many religious individuals fits? Almost any science disputes what is mentioned in the Bible, so why single out evolution for such treatment? Is it because evolution demonstrates that we are not super special?

It's quite understandable why evolution would give creationists a problem,
evolution goes against everything creationists believe in and stand for,
but they are up against something that will not be beaten even if every person on this planet agreed with them,
the only ones who would suffer if that idea took hold would be people themselves,
evolution does not require anyone to believe in it, evolution just is, and it doesn't care either way,
whereas religion most definitely requires that people believe in it,
if people stopped believing in religion, it would die and not even be missed,
other than by priests and the hundreds of thousands of other people who make money from it, all over the world,
I should think religion is the biggest employer next to the armed forces,
and just like arms manufacturers, armaments and religion are the first priority of governments everywhere,
one to fight or stop wars, the other to keep people quiet,
and for thousands of years both have worked equally well.

 

[Washington]

I wouldn't say I've missed that point. Merely, "anti-evolution" arguments orrely actually target the theory of evolution and frequently direct themselves towards abiogenesis, geology, etc.

I invite you to look at AiG's "Get Answers" web page and click on the links to the various topics it deems relevant to the creationist position:

Archeology
Anthropology
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Cloning
Created Kinds
Design Features
Dinosaurs
Flood
Fossils
Genetics
Geology
Information Theory
Mutations
Natural Selection
Plate Tectonics
Science
Speciation
Thermodynamics and Order
‘Vestigial’ Organs
​

source​

And these are just the topics. Within each are numerous articles.

HERE is another site that goes into the "Recent Problems in Evolution."

So obviously creationists are quite concerned with more than just abiogenesis, which they shouldn't be concerned with at all because it isn't a factor in evolutionary theory. All of which prompts one to ask "why?" Why do creationists focus on arguing against abiogenesis when evolution doesn't require it? Are these people simply stupid? (a possibility) or are they being deceptive on purpose; creating a straw man in order to sling mud at evolution? (far more likely). And I believe it's the same reason some creationists like to connect evolution with atheism and even a Nazism, and other social ills.

"It" - is the basis for attacks (ostensibly against evolution).

I don't see any "ostensibly" to it. It IS an attack on evolution. Evolution is exactly what the OP is about: "Why Evolution." To marginalize it is hardly fair.

The singled-out treatment of evolution is not about evolution. There's a difference in semantics. When you talk about evolution, you mean "a change in the frequency in alleles within a population." When most creationists talk about evolution they don't mean that.

Oh, I have no doubt that only a few attacking creationists understand what evolution is all about---and those that do usually ignore the evidence---but never the less, most who attack evolution do so by addressing the evidence that under-girds evolution.

We're all using the same word but it means something very different. That's why I said that when one reads most creationist anti-evolution arguments one is surprised to find how little they have to do with "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population."

See my links above. Creationists DO try to take on evolution on its terms, it just happens that they aren't any good at it. They don't attack its definition as such, but rather the evidence that supports it. And this is where any good attack should be made; on the evidnce. To show that "a change in the frequency in alleles within a population over time" does not result in the diversity of life we see, creationists attack everything they feel is relevant to the such a claim. This is why age is such a prominent issue in their attacks.

Evolutionists and creationists aren't speaking the same language.

Sure they are. It's just that creationists often focus on issues that science has long taken as fact or have found to be supported by current scientific evidence. How creationists consider evolution is exactly how evolutionists consider it: an explanation of the diversity of life. Evolutionists assert this explanation. Creationists deny it. Both are talking about the very same thing, even those creationists that get lost in their attacks..