The theory of evolution.

Post Reply New Topic

Creationists think it includes abiogenesis, planet formation, star formation and the Big Bang. Creationists commonly think that these things are included in the theory of evolution.

But they usually believe the whole shebang was activated by some sentient "god" or "gods."

Yes they do, and that's another helping of things they're wrong about.

i've seen a number of people claim that evolution, at least in contrast to creation is an uncontrolled random process, where that doesn't really seem to be the case. (this is what i perceive)


it's true that evolution is not intelligent and there is no goal in mind, but at the same time it's not wholly unpredictable.

We can predict which mutations will survive and which will fail. They happen randomly, though, but we don't notice the ones which have no effect. The ones that survive seem logical in retrospect, but other logical adaptations don't happen. Hence, mass extinctions.

in retrospect, evolution seems so perfect, one migh think it was planned by a supernatural being - you know, how always exactly those darwin finches survived who had the fittest beaks...

snark aside, creationism is basically a strong anthropic principle, justified through myth, and evolution is basically a weak anthropic principle.

Personally I only listen to erudite creationists. Why people choose the ignorant ones to quote seems suspicious to me.

I'm sure one could easily interview people on the street who believe in the theory of evolution, but not really know a much if anything about it, in order to portray evolutionists as idiots.

Why resort to that type of agenda?

That was already done in Ken Ham's documentary.

I figured it had been. That tactic can be applied to many issues.

There is no choice. All creationists are ignorant. Prove me wrong.

There are times when creationists attempt to mesh the creation myth with evolution.

Yep...this gives credence to evolution, a fine complement to the preponderance of the evidence for evolution's existence, and a corresponding lack of evidence for the existence of the creation myth.

My feeling: as long as it doesn't harm somebody, believe in "creationism" all you want. Just don't commit atrocities of any type in the name of that ideology.

There's no way to prove an evaluation. I could present someone I evaluate as knowledgeable, but that wouldn't keep you from evaluating them as ignorant. However I'm sure there are plenty of people who learned all about the theory of evolution, but dismissed it. Just as I know there are many atheists who learned all about theology but dismiss the existence of god.

Provide me with a person who rejects the theory of evolution and doesn't make basic errors while they do so.

Any points brought up by those who reject would automatically be evaluated as flawed by those who accept.

No more excuses. In your opinion, who is the least-ignorant creationist? Who should people be responding to? Who are these erudite creationists you hold up as great examples?

I have no such an opinion. I'm not interested in the subject enough to know who's supposed to be the all-star in their field. But I do know there are those who have been well educated in the theory of evolution who reject it. I interpret ignorance as lack of knowledge, rather than how accepting a person is of what they're knowledgeable of. I didn't say their level of knowledge makes them correct, I just said they are the ones I'd prefer to listen to when it came to perceived flaws in the theory of evolution.