Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?
Attacks on mathematics have generally been milder than those on physics, chemistry, biology, or medicine. It seems strange that one would attack a man-made construct such as mathematics, but it's done in colleges and even here on FR.
Not only that but cannot know.
It does. People get way too exercised over something so common as a quantum instability.
Human beings are social critters; we find safety and comfort within the group. Giving into "impulsive and instinctive behavior" could sometimes lead to strains on the group, endangering all the individuals therein. Learning to restrain oneself -- "self control" -- decreases the stress on the group and increases that group's chance for survival.
And, BTW, if you had read my post, you should have comprehended I'm not a creationist.
That's why I rarely engage in this debate. Both sides, including the "scientists," fight with the fervor of a religious war using stereotypes and black/white thinking. No part of Darwin's theory can be questioned without the "creationist" label being flung. This doesn't occur in other fields of science. Most acknowledge today that much if not most of Freud's theories were wrong, but we still honor him as the father of psychiatry. But no part of Darwin's 150+ year old work can be questioned. It has become enshrined as a religion.
Evolution teaches the origin of life is/was a random event, that happened according to natural events and processes over long indeterminate periods of time. Life began as a chance only. Life changed through survival of the fittest based on outside/unstoppable factors acting on all present life. Random chance processes are what got us to where we are today.
Creation teaches us that God created the universe in 6 days and rested the 7th, and that is why we break down time into weeks.
Creation tells us that man was a special creation, created fully formed, and fully man, and that was not something where apelike creatures became man over time.
Creation teaches us that this first man sinned against God. God announced judgement against man because of this sin, and also announced that He would send a saviour to redeem this man. This saviour was Christ.
Evolution does away with the need of a saviour because it does away with Adam, the first man. If there is no Adam, there was no sin in the Garden of Eden. (Now was there a Garden of Eden). If there was no sin, there is no ned of a saviour.
Evolution is Satanic to the core for these reasons, I believe. It cannot be reconcilled with Scripture.
Then by all means let's commence to a'burnin the "Origin of Species" afore somebody else gets bewitched.
My point is that the truth of 2+2=4 or If p then q, p = true, therefore q= true would still be true even without an observable reality. (Although the usefulness of that truth would be limited.)
Your original post on this thread seemed to "deify" (if I may be allowed a pun) scientific truths as the sum total of all useful knowledge. I was only trying to point out that truth discerned by observation, even when that observation occurs within the framework of the "Scientific Method", is not the end all, be all of knowledge, truth, and fact. I find that all knowledge, with a reasonable basis for the truth of that knowledge, is useful.
I don't.
Not here, anyway.
If anyone truly wants to debate evolution/creationism, I invite them to head over to the talk.origins newsgroup. That's the entire purpose of that newsgroup, and the regulars over there are extremely knowledgeable on the topic (on both sides), and don't waste much time arguing the "little stuff" over and over again. They also have extensive FAQs which help bring newcomers up to speed on which issues have been settled, which are known misconceptions, references to the source material for various parts of the debate, etc. etc.
There's a lot of good discussion there.
*Here*, however, the debate on the evolution/creationism issue is almost entirely amateur night, like watching folks in a coffee shop get into a discussion about magnetic containment versus implosion methods for generating power via nuclear fusion.
I don't debate evolution/creationism here, it's a waste of time. Almost always, people are here for political discussions, and when they fall into an evolution/creationism debate, they vastly overestimate their own level of expertise on the topic.
I avoid debates here, I simply try to correct misconceptions -- I don't mind someone disagreeing with a particular position, but for pete's sake, it would help if they actually *understood* what they were trying to disagree with before they set out to poke holes in it.
Most evolution/creationism debates here are classic examples of the "straw man" attack, where someone ends up kicking the straw out a substitute for his opponent's position, instead of what his opponent's position *actually* is.
I get a lot of "how can evolutionists believe something as stupid as X??" I generally have to explain, "well, it *would* be stupid if evolutionists believed X, but that's not what they're actually saying. Their position is actually Y, which you have misunderstood as X". Unfortunately, the response is almost never a rebuttal to Y, it's some form of "X is stupid and discredited, you evolutionists are atheistic morons who just want to deny God, Darwin was evil, and Stephen Jay Gould is a jerk.". Sigh.
If you're serious about the evolution/creationism debate, go to talk.origins. It's the very best place on the web for it. But it's frankly a major waste of time to do it here, the most strident voices are big on noise and short on an actual understanding of the topic they're trying to engage in. Quoting Philip Johnson and namecalling is no substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about.
You may want to check your premises. If you are referring to your brother as crazy, you are reinforcing lessons that are given in later chapters of the same book Genesis is in.
If I have some one calling me crazy from the word go, chamces are, I am not going to have an open mind about anything else that is said later...
So does that mean that my tax dollars shouldn't go to schools which teach evolution? By the way, unless a man believes in God, I can't see why he should be concerned about "sin".
Here is another of the points of this debate I find passing strange. If the Big Bang theory is proven accurate, and the evidence is piling up, doesn't it prove a moment of creation? And doesn't creation imply the existence of a creator? So why do Darwinist scientists so strongly reject the implications of a created universe?
Freeregards.
He saw a mechanism that was influencing the format of life, and may have not been entirely correct,(who among us is) but he was able to recognize this force as something very special.
I've never heard a respected evolutionist try to discount God's involvement in the process, as it evidently is part of His plan, to provide a dynamic means for Life to adapt and improve through time.
Once man evolved enough begin to express his newly-developed free-will, he made plenty of mistakes, as he continues to do. Our entire civilization continues to this moment, still misbehaving in Paradise.
But if you really try to piece both viewpoints together into one still-imperfect explanation, you can gain an even greater understanding of God's entire body of work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.