Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

UNCOMMON DESCENT ^ | July 27, 2009 | Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying...

[Ira_Louvin]

“Evolutionists like to make factual claims. One fact that is incontrovertible is that evolution is driven by theological claims—that is a matter of public record. Evolution is a religious theory. What is interesting is that the evolutionist denies any such thing. He may as well be denying the nose on his own face. This is truly a fascinating mythology.”

Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Now who is that has a problem with that facts?

A typical straw man argument, but when that is the best you have

But what I fail to understand is how “it is just too complicated to understand so that proves that God did it” can be considered as science?

[Pistolshot]

Careful, here come the ...”Jesus taught Genesis. Is Jesus a liar?”.....comments.

[FormerRep]

That was one of your finest responses. Well said.

[count-your-change]

Just couldn’t resist the imagery.

[Jaime2099]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels the way he does. The condescending nature of Darwinists is laughable and sad. Many of them truly believe that there is solid proof of species originating from a single species. The reality is, it's just a guessing game and those high ranking evolution scientists know it deep in their hearts that they are blowing smoke with a giant load of hope and faith. They know there is a chance that all species developed through evolution, but the chance is so absurdly small that it makes the word impossible seem positive.

Evolution of species from a single species is the capital city in the land of make believe.

[Jaime2099]

"One of the many billions of things that creationists fail to understand about evolution is that it is simply a way of explaining how different species arose. It is not a religious (or anti-religious) statement. It is not an argument for or against God. It's just biology."

Yes, it is a way of explaining all species' origins, but it is a highly unlikely way of explaining their origin due to its random nature. I don't like science that involves guessing, hoping, and wishing which is what evolution of the species from one species is.

In Genesis the Bible clearly says that God created man in His own image and he put man over the animals. That makes Human Evolution and the Bible 100% incompatible. According to the Bible, man was created and separated as greater than animals, and did not not evolve from another species. If Human Evolution is false, then Evolution itself all falls like a house of cards with very little intact. If Genesis is false, then the Bible falls apart like a house of cards. It is a religious issue, like it or not.

Biology is not only about Evolution. Creation can be and is part of Biology. Creation and Evolution are the two current possible scenario's in Biology for the origin of species. Biology simply studies the origin of species and no one can rule out creation scientifically. To rule out creation as a possibility of the origin of species is unscientific and makes absolutely no sense. Creation in Biology is just as legitimate, if not more, than Evolution in Biology.

[Ira_Louvin]

“no one can rule out creation scientifically”

Which is the very reason that creation is not science. In order to be considered as science it would have to be able to be falsified.

The belief in Biblical creation is a matter of faith.

The acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is based on empirical evidence

[ElectricStrawberry]

OMG!!!! Scientists don’t beleive in God!!!!

Whoduthunkit???????

[ElectricStrawberry]

There is no such thing as a Creation/ID scientist.

[ElectricStrawberry]

“Fair” means that any loon with a computer must be allowed to publish in respectable peer-reviewed journals “science” that says Man walked with dinosaurs...and that the Earth is only 6000 years old.....and that HIV does not cause AIDS.

[GodGunsGuts]

There is no such thing as Evo scientist. They all abuse their credentials to push their evo religion, all the while denying that they are religious. This makes them delusional, in a state of denial, or bald-faced liars. I’m going with a combination of all three, with emphasis on the latter.

PS to MM and BM... I’m including this reply in my cartoon reduction program :o)

[metmom]

Evolution of species from a single species is the capital city in the land of make believe.

They won't believe that the different species we see today could have come off the ark because there isn't enough genetic diversity to prevent serious inbreeding, but they teach that all mammals had a common ancestor so that ALL animal life we see on the planet today, came from one common ancestor without that pesky inbreeding being an issue.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Another rambling loon.....must've missed the first sentence:

How evolution acts to bridge the chasm between two discrete physiological states is a question that's long puzzled scientists.

THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model.

...understanding how evolution makes the leap from one to another phenotype...

THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model.

This study provides a concrete example of a particular scenario to explain developmental evolution.

THAT is what these guys were doing.....and they did it using ONE model. They weren't trying to show how winged insects developed their wings like this POS article wants you to think so they could beat the strawman to death and get you to think this was about anything more than it was. They gave what is called general background verbiage and then provided their specific research, nothing more.

Yeah yeah.....Man lived in the time of dinosaurs and HIV does not cause AIDS.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Yeah yeah.....Man lived in the time of dinosaurs and HIV does not cause AIDS.

Ever notice how the only time anything genuinely truthful or objective comes out of your mouth, you are always parroting the other side? You should think long and hard about that....

[Jaime2099]

Which is the very reason that creation is not science. In order to be considered as science it would have to be able to be falsified.

If it cannot be ruled out then it must be included, Biology is scientifically incomplete without creation. Creation is a possible origin of all species and, if possible, it must be included in Biology. So you believe it cannot be falsified? If so, then you are a creationist. What I said was it cannot be excluded because there is no scientific evidence that the theory is untrue. I never said it cannot be falsified, if it is untrue, then it should be able to falsified using science. To say creation cannot be falsified is to say it is true, or it is to say that Biology is not a science since it studies the origin of species. And, if it is the study of the origin of species, then it must be able to falsify creation scientifically, or include it as a legitimate theory. You cannot scientifically eliminate creation from Biology because it belongs there, not because it is unscientific.

[Ira_Louvin]

Your quote was ““no one can rule out creation scientifically”

If you cannot rule something out, then it cannot be falsified since the act of ruling it out would be falsification.

As far as creation, while the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things –

By your response it is painfully obvious that you do not understand science

[Jaime2099]

"If you cannot rule something out, then it cannot be falsified since the act of ruling it out would be falsification."

So will you go on record saying that we cannot rule out Evolution scientifically? If you say yes, then I guess it's in the same boat as Creation isn't it? The reason creation cannot be ruled out scientifically is because there is no scientific evidence to rule it out; therefor, a scientist who is a legitimate scientist cannot mock those who believe in it and still be a credible scientist. That is science. To mock the theory of creation is to become a philosopher not a scientist. A real scientist would say, it may very well be true, we have no evidence that states otherwise.

"the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things"

By George, I think he's got it! As you can clearly see from your very own description, Evolution and Biology are two completely different things. Biology deals with the origin of species and Evolution is a mere sub theory in Biology that states species evolved from a single species. Biology does not need Evolution in the least, it is merely a theory that may or may not be true. Creation of the species without Evolution is also a sub theory in Biology that states that all species were created as individual species without Evolution. Both are scientific theories, I happen to think that the last one is far more likely since it corrects the horrible randomness of Evolution and does not require millions and billions of years to be accurate.

"By your response it is painfully obvious that you do not understand science"

Wow, somebody's cranky tonight. I understand science, it is you who seem to be lacking in understanding by discrediting the theory of Creation without any scientific evidence to do so. How is that scientific?

[Ira_Louvin]

”So will you go on record saying that we cannot rule out Evolution scientifically?”

Evolution can be falsified simply find fossil of a pre-cambrian rabbit, or a Clovis point embedded in a Velociraptor fossil.

You cannot disprove “God did it” that is why Intelligent Design/Creationism/ cdesign proponentsists are not science.

“Evolution and Biology are two completely different things.”

“During an on-line colloquy about science policy in the Bush administration conducted by The Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, was asked about the Bush administration’s scientific credibility in light of the president’s reported skepticism about evolution. He replied, “Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology,” adding, “Much of the work supported by the National Institutes of Health depends heavily on the concepts of evolution. President Bush has supported the largest increases in the NIH budget in history.”

So again you are shown to be incorrect, I will however give a little credit for at least attempting to set up a straw man to knock down.

There is currently not scientific a Theory for Intelligent Design/Creationism/ cdesign proponentsists since there is zero scientific evidence to support it.

And yes your statements do show that you have a very poor understanding of science.
This is stuff that one would normally learn at the high school level.

[Jaime2099]

"Evolution can be falsified simply find fossil of a pre-cambrian rabbit, or a Clovis point embedded in a Velociraptor fossil. You cannot disprove “God did it” that is why Intelligent Design/Creationism/ cdesign proponentsists are not science."

Creation can be falsified scientifically in theory, I said it cannot be ruled out because there is no scientific evidence to rule it out. To rule it out is to be philosophical not scientific. To falsify creation using science a scientist must: generate matter from nothing randomly, collide particles together and form an intelligent system, produce new species by breeding an existing species over time in a natural setting. If any of those experiments were true, then it would hurt the theory of Creation and could even eliminated it from science altogether legitimately not by the force of judges in a courtroom.

Why did you quote an Evolutionist saying, “Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology,”. Of course he thinks that, he's an Evolutionist. Do really think that is any kind of evidence whatsoever? And you call me unscientific?

"So again you are shown to be incorrect, I will however give a little credit for at least attempting to set up a straw man to knock down."

Great, it only took a few posts and you are already saying straw man. You are most certainly an Evolutionist. There is no straw man in my argument, you just used a quote from an Evolutionist to prove that Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. That is a complete joke.

"And yes your statements do show that you have a very poor understanding of science. This is stuff that one would normally learn at the high school level."

You have disproved nothing I have said. Biology studies the origin of species and Creation is a legitimate theory that can be dis proven with testing. You don't like that idea because you know that all the tests would fail and prove Creation as the proper theory on the origin of all species until scientific evidence can prove otherwise. That is the very definition of science. Cling to your philosophical thinking, but know that it is not the thought process of a true scientist. It is simply a thought of a hopeful philosopher with a head full of dreams and heart full faith in Evolution.

[Ira_Louvin]

I quoted John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology during the George W. Bush administration.

You do realize that Judge John Edward Jones III is a lifelong Republican and an active member of the Lutheran church who was appointed by George W Bush, just like John H Marbuger III? So you are saying that George W. Bush is an evolutionist?

You are using your misunderstanding of science to set up straw man arguments too knock down.

Using the Scientific Method you can never prove anything; you can only disprove, or in other words falsify the theory. This is something that is taught in Jr. High Science class.

With each post you are making it more and more obvious that you do not understand Science, or the Scientific Method. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take some time to understand a topic before you attempt to present an argument against it