Evolution: Religion or Science?

[Harzburgite]

You criticised 'fossil charts', not "using fossils to piece together how animals evolved". Two wholly different things: the first is a simple (and simplifying) way of presenting facts, conclusions and speculations; the second is a complex, time consuming, rigorous suite of processes, subject to internal and external controls, whose results are repeatedly re-assessed in the light of new facts and amended accordingly. That you see these two radically different items as the same is confirmation, were it needed of your almost total ignorance in this area.

You will not see me posting opinions or observations in a mathematical forum, at least until my grasp of maths has undergone a major improvement. A similar ploy in relation to evolution is one I might recommend for you. As I have commented elsewhere, ignorance is a wonderful thing, for it offers the prospect of enlightenment. When it is flaunted as the equivalent of wisdom it becomes decidedly unattractive.

 

Did you know Hitler used Evolution to explain his Master Race? Did you know that some fossils found were hoaxes to either get money or to be used to counter Creationism? There are many that "believe" in macroevoltuion solely because it isn't about God.

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you know how intellectually dishonest it is? Do you care?

[Erasmus00]

I have pointed to the uncertainty of evolutionary theory evident in evolutionist's language,

 

Which betrays that you don't understand how science is written. By your criterion, no scientist is certain about any scientific theory at all.

 

You use a site which is nothing more than the antithsesis of ICR. At the bottom of the Talk.Origins Home Page is a link to Panda's Thumb, a site "dedicated to explaining the theory of evolution, critiquing the claims of the anti-evolution movement, and defending the integrity of science and science education in America and around the world." (Hmm, wonder why they need to defend the integrity of science?)

 

Yes, the page is designed to answer creationists claims. However, I find that the articles on science are well researched and well footnoted. I have never found the references quoted to have been distorted. This is more than I can say for some creationist authors (a good review of Phillip Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial" will point out how distorted his use of references is).

-Will

[Hawkens]

Do you know what a strawman argument is? Do you know how intellectually dishonest it is? Do you care?

Yes I do....and how does it feel having it used against Evolution? I can show you a whole section in this forum where it's against Creationists. So yeah I do care, that's why I used it. :)

Your viewpoint constitutes a danger to society and humanity.

Tell me how is it dangerous? Are the animals depicted from fossils not a artist rendering? Please show me any photos if I'm wrong and I'll revoke that statement. Do they not use these artist renderings to teach people macoevolution? I've seen them in the schools and pretty much all over even in the movies. How can I even bring up the scientific information when it doesn't exist? Where are these fossils to fill in all the hudge gaps that exist? Is there even a real pattern in the fossil record? The whole point of this thread is about Evolution (macro) being considered science or religion. If people who push macroevolution can use this things to teach it then why can't I bring it up? Because it's not scientific? My point exactly.

 

What insults you is I'm a free thinker. I've pulled myself from the corruption of Evolution and see things from a different perspective.

 

I'm not trying to cram something down anyone's throat like you are. Your the danger to society. Your the one offended because I'm not buying your belief. This sure feels like the old bait and switch ploy salesmen use. Use the microevolution to bait a non believer and then sock em with macroevolution. Then use miroevolution facts to defend Evolution as a whole. I wanna be just like you someday.

[Skippy]

:)

I mean really ;)

If this post gets me banned, so be it, but this needs to be said and said as clearly as I know how.

Item 1:Skippy made the claim that "evolutionists have accepted too many unsubstantiated guesses to provide "proof" for their continued adherence to flawed science."

"Can the Darwinian paradigm ever be driven by data after it has become the centerpiece of the dominant, all-encompassing naturalistic world view of Western culture? With evolutionists as cultural gurus, has the intellectual and philosophical investment in the cosmogenic myth become so heavy that evolutionary scientists can no longer be objective about evidence that may even remotely undermine this world view? Are they enslaved by the world view their paradigm has created[/b]? Does funding for evolutionary research and the high status of evolutionists as culture's gurus depend on this world view?"

 

— Robert F. DeHaan, Ph.D. Psychology University of Chicago 1951

[Harzburgite]

"Can the Darwinian paradigm ever be driven by data after it has become the centerpiece of the dominant, all-encompassing naturalistic world view of Western culture?

A definitive yes.

With evolutionists as cultural gurus, has the intellectual and philosophical investment in the cosmogenic myth become so heavy that evolutionary scientists can no longer be objective about evidence that may even remotely undermine this world view?

A definitive no.

Are they enslaved by the world view their paradigm has created[/b]?

A definitive no.

Does funding for evolutionary research and the high status of evolutionists as culture's gurus depend on this world view?

Which high status was that?

 

Is this another debating tactic Skippy? We can trade irrelevant quotations all year: it wont alter the established fact of evolution. I'm at a loss as to what relevance you feel the above quote has. Frankly, I'd have given it more credence if it had come from your own lips - that would have at least accorded relevance as reflecting your thoughts. Here it is merely an appeal to authority. Which trick is next in your repertoire?

[Harzburgite]

Yes I do....and how does it feel having it used against Evolution? I can show you a whole section in this forum where it's against Creationists. So yeah I do care, that's why I used it. :)

I don't give a flying Aardvark's congealed excrement who has used strawman arguments elsewhere. It is irrelevant to the expletive deleted argument. Please desist.

 

Is there even a real pattern in the fossil record?

Ammonites are an interesting creature: a shellfish, akin to the present day Nautilus, and like them multi-chambered. When we look at relatively undisturbed sediments we find those in the lower levels have certain kinds of ammonites that are absent from the upper layers and vice versa. One of the differences between these different types of ammonites is the character of the junction between the chamber partition and the main shell. These patterns or sutures are peculiar to each type of ammonite, but in general they are much more intricate in the later types.

This same distribution of ammonite types and associated suture lines is found everywhere in the world ammonites are found.

This is a single example, out of thousands, of pattern in the fossil record. Independent of the cause of the pattern, do you accept the pattern itself exists?

[Skippy]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in theology or evolution... Anyway, a popular assertion in the Christian creation vs evolution arguments is that evolution is a religion, and those opposing biblical creation are just clinging to a different religion. I thought rather than diverting a bunch of threads off topic, we might as well start a seperate thread to discuss the issue. -Will

A Brief Critique of Evolution

from the Developmental Perspective©

 

Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Psychology U. of Chicago

October 7, 1997

 

Introduction

 

"Evolution, not development, occupies the high theoretical ground in biology and bio-history, indeed, in the scientific community as a whole, and in large sectors of western society as well. The hegemony of evolution was clearly articulated by Theodosius Dobzhansky in his manifesto, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution."1 Evolutionary literature invokes this slogan endlessly, reinforcing the view that evolutionary theory is the indispensable and only possible scientific theory of origins and change in the history of organic life.2 The purpose of this essay is to make a brief evaluation of evolution from the perspective of macro-development in order to determine whether Dobzhansky is right. Is evolution essential for biology and does it shed light on all of biology?

 

What is evolution? The problem with defining the term is that the concept of evolution is subject to so many interpretations it is nearly impossible to find its core meaning. It is not considered a single unitary concept by some authors.3 It has even been called a smorgasbord of concepts.4 The lack of a clear, consistent definition of evolution poses a problem for those who wish to engage in a disciplined, critical discussion of it. What does Dobzhansky mean by "evolution" when he claims that nothing in biology makes sense without it?"...

 

...It does not matter, moreover, to the theory of phylo-development whether the mechanism of evolution is a Darwinian mechanism, such as natural selection, or an alternative evolutionary mechanism. None is adequate to explain macroevolution-the origin and history of major innovations such as phyletic lineages, to be discussed below. They explain, at best, only microevolution, not macroevolution. These terms will be discussed in detail below...

 

...Darwinists tout recent experiments and field studies, called "evolution-made-visible" or "evolution-in-action," conducted along the lines of the studies of Kettlewell's30 peppered moths and Darwin's Galápagos finches,31 as if they validated Darwinian macroevolution. In a recent review of such studies Jonathan Weiner32 remarked that, "Charles Darwin didn't think you could watch evolution in action. But modern biologists," he says, "are getting a good look at the processes such as natural selection and even at the origin of species."33

 

Weiner went further. He extrapolated these studies, and others, into a model of how evolution worked in the entire history of life. He claimed that these microevolution studies, which he called radiations, show how macroevolution operated to produce the major groups of animals-vertebrates, fish, amphibians, insects, human beings. He said,34

 

"The history of these radiations is the history of life, from the explosive radiations of the bizarre fauna of the Cambrian, 540 million years ago, to the radiations of the first jawless vertebrates, the Agnatha, in the Ordovician, 500 million years ago; the radiation of fish in the Devonian; amphibians and insects in the Carboniferous; dinosaurs and mammals beginning in the Triassic; angiosperms and yet more insects in the Cretaceous; and in the Pleistocene, a few million years ago, radiation of herbs and human beings"

 

His extravagant interpretation is made without a shred of supporting evidence, yet his claim is probably widely accepted in the scientific community.

 

Interested in learning something?

[Southtown]

No theory can be proven to the ultimate, since we cannot know anything for 100 %.

Therefore we can only disprove, not prove with 100 % certainty.

...you are pretty prejudiced in your expectations regarding unbelievers. They are all sitting in a great big circle around a campfire waiting for some proof. Then one guy will whip out his 12-string Gibson, and they'll all start singing Kumbaya.

 

But the utter lack of any tangible proof, doesn't weaken their resolve to wait for it. Matter of fact, the guitarist's fingers are itching to start pluckin' them strings. You must just come to the party with them proof things.

This is called a double standard. I dub thee, Theoriologians.

 

I don't know where you get your information, but sin comes from an indo-european root (es) which is the oldest form of "to be." At some point (before passing into old english) es branched out to something more like synn and came to mean something along the lines of a transgression of a religious imperative. Its particularly interesting to me, because the notion that man is inherently evil is apparently not a new one, in that "to be" or to exist became wrapped up in transgressing religion.

-Will

Interesting assessment Will, but I don't think the "Indo-European" root would be quite as relevant as the Old English derivative that was common at the time of translation in the 17th Century. The "Indo-Europeans" did not write the King James Bible.

 

"

Latin, also has an old present participle of 'esse' in the word 'sons', 'sont-', which came to mean "guilty" in Latin. The root meaning would appear to be, "it is true;" that is, "the charge has been proven." The Greek word 'hamartia' is often translated as 'sin' in the New Testament; it means "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target".

" —

http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Sin

 

The interpretation of a word that means "to be" into a word that means "guilt" sounds like Gnosticism, which pre-dates Christianity. Every religion has problems with people trying to distort it. Evidence of a universally "sinful" nature, perhaps?

 

What'll it help for Israel to revert back to God, seeing as it's the end of days? What's the use of going throughout the world bringing many to salvation, seeing as it's the end of days?

The causes/effects are irrelevant in prophesies, B. The book doesn't say why it happens or to what end. The test is simply whether it happens or not.

[Skippy]

No it's not, it's the lack of religious belief. Religious belief requires faith in the supernatural and atheism is a lack of faith in the supernatural.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, not a lack of religious belief.

"A" meaning 'without' and "theism" a derivative of "theos" meaning 'god.'

[Skippy]

It is vanity to say that there is no absolutes.

It is also an oxymoron.

[Erasmus00]

Interesting assessment Will, but I don't think the "Indo-European" root would be quite as relevant as the Old English derivative that was common at the time of translation in the 17th Century. The "Indo-Europeans" did not write the King James Bible.

 

Old English wasn't spoken in 17th century England. What they spoke was closer to modern English then middle or old english. The latin root you quotted "esse" can be traced further back to the Indo-European root es (the root I was talking about). Indo-European is the mother language from which latin (and many others) derives. So, in a sense, you could say the bible was written by "Indo-Europeans." While the esse root you quote from latin is interesting, I would point out that English is not a romance language, and that the same root es, probably passed directly into Old English as something like synne, independant from Latin.

 

I don't know any greek, but I will take your word for it that the greek word hamartia means to miss the mark. However, the English word sin that is used to translate it isn't a literal, but more of an "in the spirit of" translation.

 

The interpretation of a word that means "to be" into a word that means "guilt" sounds like Gnosticism, which pre-dates Christianity. Every religion has problems with people trying to distort it. Evidence of a universally "sinful" nature, perhaps?

 

Such changes happen slowly over time and certainly won't be the result of one religious movement. Notice that the original old root es (from the Indo-European "mother" language) became both "is" (to be) and "sin" in English.

-Will

[eMTee]

This may be straying off topic, but can anyone tell me why the richest, most technically advanced country on the planet, with more Nobel prizes than the rest of the world put together is also home to intransigent, shortsighted, self-deluding religious fundamentalists, who must be offending God by the wanton misuse of their intellect? Is it something in the water?

 

These religous Bible fearing Jesus freaks are a strong reason why this nation is so great (refering to back in the day) This country was formed out of the moral fair and free teachings of the Bible (mostly). That is the reason why we have so many Christian symbols instead of the bulk being any other religion. We are refered to as (to most of the world) a "Christian Nation" although I strongly disagree. To any perfessing Christian (or any other religous person to that) that says that God should not be in government should be a disgrace to any other religous person. because God is the foundation to morality and greatness. Without a sence of God in society, a nation rots and crumbles down to defeat.

 

that was only a side note

[eMTee]

You all may agree that Albert Einstein was the greatest scientist in history, at least many do think that.

 

He must have been an idiot, because he was a creationist and believen in God.

 

so in all reality, you all are more inteligent than him. Would he become atheist today if he knew all the stuff you all know? I don't think so.

[Skippy]

Is this another debating tactic Skippy? We can trade irrelevant quotations all year: it won't alter the established fact of evolution. I'm at a loss as to what relevance you feel the above quote has. Frankly, I'd have given it more credence if it had come from your own lips - that would have at least accorded relevance as reflecting your thoughts. Here it is merely an appeal to authority. Which trick is next in your repertoire?

-I'm no trained debater, so I don't know the answer to that.

-I believe that if you look through the posts here and on other threads you will see that even the individuals arguing 'For' evolution refrain from calling the theory "fact."

-What's wrong with "an appeal to authority?" Isn't that what you have been asking for repeatedly? By your statement, I take it that you agree that PhD Psychologists are predominantly irreligious and/or evolutionists.

-I guess I could have plagiarized Dr. DeHaan's statement and impressed you, but I give credit where credit is due.

-No tricks...none intended at least. I searched for and found a statement from someone who is neither affiliated with the ICR website or another openly religious leaning site. Is that not good enough? If it is a debater's "trick" to use statements from "the other side" to make a point, then I guess I stumbled into something effective.

-Next 'trick' same as first and all others - Truth.

[Skippy]

You all may agree that Albert Einstein was the greatest scientist in history, at least many do think that.

He must have been an idiot, because he was a creationist and believen in God.

so in all reality, you all are more inteligent than him. Would he become atheist today if he knew all the stuff you all know? I don't think so.

Before someone else does it, let me point out the following:

 

"Although he (Einstein) was raised Jewish, he was not a believer in Judaism. He simply admired the beauty of nature and the universe. From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

 

He also said (in an essay reprinted in Living Philosophies, vol. 13 (1931)): "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.""

----- ----- -----

However I'm glad that you posted that because the quotes from arguably the most intelligent man ever, did not say "there is no God," just that he did not believe in a personal God. BUT, more importantly for this thread was his use of the word "religious," especially in that it had nothing to do with God or gods - but in his devotion to a cause (knowledge).

[Harzburgite]

Without a sence of God in society, a nation rots and crumbles down to defeat.

I have nothing against God. I have nothing against Christianity. I have a great deal against that minority of Christians who follow a literal interpretation of the Bible, with all that entails. (I'm also moderately offended by sloppy spelling: it makes life difficult for those who have English as a second language.)

[Boerseun]

Sheesh, people - this thread isn't about God or what Einstein said of Him/Her.

 

Can we revert back to whether the 'blind' belief evolutionists have in evolution will make it count as a religion?