Of what real value is evolutionary "knowledge"?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm using him as a posterboy for the angry, venom-spewing evolutionists at large --
obviously, we're discussing evolutionistS -- not one particular nutcase.

Macro-evolution is much clearer. It stops people from continuing to repeat 'evolution is as indisputable as gravity', which in some forms it is. I don't think that you are really disputing those forms, so a different term prevents misunderstanding.

I still would like to know at what point you feel the study of evolution becomes the study of macro-evolution. When it departs from Christian mythos? When it implies men came from apes? When people use it to deny the existance of god at all? Clarification would help stop the endless re-hashing of arguements.



Okay, I'm happy to replace 'confusing' with 'marvellous'. I still feel my point stands. Studying macro-evolution could be considered valuable even if a higher power did in fact create everything, since it might lead to interesting insights into the mind of god. I'm not saying that I necessarily think there is such a being, but assuming that there is I still don't see any reason not to study macro-evolution.



Hmm, one thing that has been confusing me about the assertion that the atheist view is being pushed. How does that benefit anyone? I find it hard to believe in a conspiricy, simply because I can see no benefit in promoting one.

For me, the reason that evolution, and even macro-evolution, should be taught in the classroom is that it really does help in the understanding of biology. Regardless of whether it's true or not, it's a useful way to examine the facts and arrive at conclusions. Other disaplines actually do teach high school students things that we know are false, such as the Bohr atom model. This isn't a bad thing to do, as it provides a frame-work that aids in getting your head around difficult concepts, and still leads you to correct answers. Later on the misperceptions are corrected, after you have gained enough of a feel for chemistry to understand the truer, more complex theories. I don't see why evolution, even one were to assume it was false, should be any different.

I also feel that science class is not the right place to discuss matters of faith. Even assuming that ID or creation is true, I don't see how spending more then an hour on it tops would help students understand science. I don't view it as helpful to force teachers to add to every sentence about evolution 'but maybe this is wrong, and a creator did it'. I just don't know how ID is supposed to be useful science, and not a philosphy or a personal belief, when the extent of it's arguement seems to be 'Macro-evolution may be wrong' and 'A designer did it'. I truly mean no disrespect, but it seems absolutely baffling to me.

Last edited by Speckles on 12 May 2008, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Umm, I want to point out that I was not clear on this point. I personally believe that, on balance, evolution makes sense, and so could be considered an evolutionist, as opposed to a creationist. However, I'd like to think I'm not angry or venom-spewing.

Maybe call them fundamentalist evolutionists? Dawkin-evolutionists?

Last edited by Speckles on 12 May 2008, 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The problem with this thread is that Ragtime considers evolution to go against God and denying his existence because of the contradiction of the literal account of the creation in the Bible, presenting the Bible, especially his interpretation, as something as valid as any scientific theory, which it isn't, and it will never be.

There is something that I agree with Ragtime here, and it is that he has heard and read the best arguments about evolution, he has here and perhaps somewhere else, still he rejects it and will keep rejecting it because of a few reasons, that's fine, I think the best thing for a devoted christian would be to avoid discussing about evolution in threads like this, because of the failed attempt to do so, how would something based on plain faith would do against empirical science?

Trying to understand Ragtime's point of view, he believes that theology is all connected to biology and everything, because God created things and if he is as real as you and me, then why should be seperated things? Then the dislike that I read from creationists here about seperating creationism from science and the separation from church and state for that matter.

Ragtime's arguments have no scientific value, all he says are just based on his beliefs and personal feelings towards one thing, he finds evolution to be very controversial for that reason, it means to deny God. Try to argue with a small child that Santa Claus doesn't exist or that he is not like he thinks he is, for example, would he accept reasonable premises? No. And why not?

Ragtime and parakeet rejection of evolution is probably fear of what that would do to what they firmly believe to know in their point of view and the literal intepretation on how the universe was suppose to be created, even though that is not a problem at all to a lot of christians, few christians believe that would be the end of it, denying there is a God and heaven and all sort of stuff, hence the emotional rejection of it, just as a child would reject a negation about Santa.

His question is what does evolution has to offer? like if it does not offer salvation why should we accept it? That is obviously a question without any scientific value.

It all comes down to this: Evolution is a valid scientific theory, Creationism is no more than a matter of faith, why try to make this a pseudo-scientific theory, would that be to convince themselves even more?

Having said that, I kinda understand where the rejection of evolution comes from, it was actually one of the things that got me thinking and wondering about the Bible and stuff learned in church when I was christian, although I didn't became a christian who believed in evolution, I became agnostic and skeptical about religion in general.

I just think that trying to present a faith based belief to do a fight against a valid scientific theory is lame, the same with other issues from other denominations on different aspects (blood transfusions from JWs as an example).

I can't help to think about parents refusing medical treatment to their kids based on the premise that with praying should be enough, we have heard some results of it, I see the danger with such situations, so that could be taken as an answer to the question of what evolution has to offer? Simple as more accuracy about nature and things than just following blindly some norms without proper tests and measurements.

But he is not a posterboy, he is an individual who is better known as an atheist than an evolutionary biologist and who has arguments for atheism that can stand outside of biology

Certainly.
Yes, I meant deliberate.
Let's say a close family member dies,
and the knowledge of that fact saddens you.
You might likely wish that you did not have that knowledge,
inescapable though it is,
because in the single moment of finding it out, the only way it affects you is in a negative,
non-productive, even pointless way. (In the moment, that is.)
You regret the emotional impact that such knowledge is on you.
Some people in this position go into denial -- they choose to believe
that their family member did not die, and is in fact living well somewhere.
That would be volitional denial, in that at a certain point, they chose to block the memory,
either conciously or subconciously.


But thank you for honestly giving me my due. I don't ask for more than that,
because I don't believe others' agreeing with my logic requires any great leap of faith,
but simply honesty, unless I've simply been unclear in the communication, which
can always be resolved if people ask for clarification with at least a modicum of respect.



Well, for deliberate ignorance to occur,
logically, that ignorance could not be 100%.
You would know the truth was there,
and you'd be conciously avoiding it -- in effect, lying to yourself,
which is as much a sin as lying to someone else.
The Bible doesn't get down to cases with such detail as you ask for,
but I'm comfortable leaving those decisions up to God.
Ultimately, He's the only one who decides who gets into Heaven.
And, being a merciful God, I suspect He may pleasantly surprise
many people entering the afterlife.
However, if you're one of those people who wants a guarantee,
Jesus made it crystal clear that He is the only way. (John 14:6)



No. The judgment of God is according to the decisions you make with the knowledge that you have.
And the severity of that judgment is determined by the degree to which you ignored what you knew.



It's not even evolution that I consider harmful, or even false. And if you check, you'll see that I don't say
evolution is false -- for how could I know? Instead, as true scientists do, I stick with what I know.
I say there is a very considerable lack of evidence. And I'm referring to macroevolution.
What I consider harmful should be termed "evolutionism", the militant advancement of the moral principles
many people naturally draw from the theory that we evolved from meaningless non-life.
"Well, people shouldn't draw moral conclusions from evolution", you say?
The reality is that when discussing our origins, most of us consider them to be universally significant to us.
And since the vast majority of us have a sense of right and wrong, those who believe we came from meaningless
non-life tend to draw moral lines based on that,
i.e. that survival of the fittest is literally right.


It's an analogy, and like all analogies, it's imperfect. And the ant could still sting you!
But not if you were in a higher dimension.

But he would be able to see you.
And that plays into my point that we cannot see God.
Also, if he got his ant buddies together -- as ants typically function as a group -- then he might be able to sting you or worse,
whereas we cannot forcibly influence God in any way, either minor or major. He is completely above us, all-supreme,
and the most natural and elegant way to be that is to exist in a higher dimension.

Of course. But there is virtually no evidence towards the existence of God, whereas there is for evolution.



I don't call it survival of the fittest. You are being stupid. Ergo, you are pissing me off something fierce.

I thought you said you had a scientific conception of what God might be rather than just vague metaphysical speculation fueled by a couple of buzzwords lifted from 11 dimensional supergravity.

Really though, you give credence to string theory and not evolution?

I am answerable only to humanity. Let God come before me if he is so determined to have me believe in him, or else your argument is invalid, right here, right now!

...........No angels, no hallellujah choruses, no bearded face in the sky. Your argument is invalid.

I do not care what you say about your pseudoscientific higher dimensions. If God truly existed in such a manner, then why would he be concerned with us?

The answer is, if God exists, he would have nothing to do with us. And if he doesn't, you are a deluded idiot.

so if we've only worked through 10-11 dimensions with math and science... and god hasn't come into any of those equations... how does math ect back up your theory, exactly?

Was Eistein pseudoscientific?



Well, He made us.
Wouldn't you be curious about how autonomous beings you created decided to run their lives??


I don't see why that's a given.


If He does, you are a deluded idiot. Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Einstein only put forth 4 dimensions, if I remember correctly.

Where is the evidence god created us? There is evidence we evolved, not evidence we were created.

Wait and see what?

Last edited by Kalister1 on 12 May 2008, 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It doesn't back up my theory, just the part that twoshots was challenging. Namely, the relations between the various dimensions.
And "God" per se hasn't come into any equations -- not by the name, of course. But unknowns appear in physics theories all the time. How about the strong forces that bind nuclei? How about the true source and cause of gravity? No one knows these things, and if we ever discover them, there are hundreds more such unknown which seem to be right in front of our faces, but are yet unseen forces at play in the physical universe.

That's one more than most people were prepared to accept.

And do you really think Einstein would still believe in only four dimensions if he were alive today?

Most people accepted it after it was proven, just like evolution has been time and again. Einstein's THEORY of relativity is only about a hundred years old, while Darwin's THEORY of evolution is almost 150. Darwin's has withstood even more time than Einstein's, and with much less debate in intellectual circles.

Probably. He wasn't even accepting of quantum mechanics. I think string theory would cause him to renounce physics all together.

I'm not denying 4 dimensions of relative space-time, but rather, your theory that God inhabits even higher dimensions. If he does, he would not bother with us.