Why do you debate about evolution?

me ^ | 2-5-2002 | me

[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?

[general_re]

It's the need to be right. Both sides of the "crevo" Macs versus PC's debate have a hard time admitting that they are not "holding all the cards" and that they cannot explain everything, therefore they take every oppourtunity to condescend to the "foolishness" of the other side of the debate. Most have a REAL axe to grind.

There. Something that's been bugging me for a while now.

You all think the crevo threads get nasty - you should see what happens when the stakes are totally insignificant ;)

[DJtex]

I generally stay out of this debate since it gets so partisan and passionate. Admitting that Evolution is just a Theory, a model, I can only echo Richard Dawkins in his brilliant book River out of Eden where he says, paraphrasing a bit:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection remains as the single scientific theory that more completely explains more functions of Life, in the most succinct format of any major theory of science to date.

Since I'll probably get flamed anyway now, let me share the single greatest insight, of many, that I take from this short, readable, and entertaining book:

Although we think of genetic replication as being full of errors (mutations), the most important feature of genetic DNA is it's "digital-like" accuracy at repeating extremely complex protein design over hundreds, if not thousands of generations.

In other words, it's not like making a copy of a copy of a copy of a video tape, that loses fidelity with every copy. A good design for an eye will be passed down flawlessly to millions of progeny over thousands of years. It's like copying from a floppy-disk to another floppy. We fully expect a 100% accurate copy of 1.44 million bytes from one to the other, and could use the copy to make another copy and another thousands of times with 99.999% perfect success.

Although there are errors, usually fatal, life would not have clawed it's way up from the muck if each "better idea" slowly eroded through poor copying of the complex DNA code that both makes life possible. That's why the primary function and payoff of life is to pass this extremely precious genetic cargo on to the next generation.

Viva life, and Viva the impassioned debate that drives us forward.

[Diamond]

...even though you point to warehouses full of fossils, all neatly dated, they keep claiming there's no evidence.

Neatly dated?

Personally, I think their technical quibbles with evolution are all BS. Pure and simple. Because all they really want is to return to the good old days, the Dark Ages, when everyone believed that creation was a divine miracle -- a magical, incomprehensible, inexplicable event.

The Dark Ages^TM has been a pretty pretty good marketing gimmick, but the modern scientific method was still begun by creationists.

If our origins can be explained, and understood, they're sunk; their fragile worldview instantly collapses.

If Creator-less evolution is true then it really doesn't matter a hill of beans what one's worldview is. Everyone's worldview is just chemical reactions in the brain, and one chemical reaction is just as much a part of nature as any other. Why one would attempt to convince someone else that there is something 'wrong' with his neuro-chemical reactions is beyond me.

And the real world, where people do their own thinking, and run their own lives, and live in freedom, and write Constitutions like the one we have, that world is utterly terrifying to them, so they insist on maintaining their comforting fantasies.

I didn't realize the drafters of the Constitution were evolutionists.

Evolution is a major threat to such people. But then, I believe that unthinking people are a threat to all of us.

I'm no threat to you, PatrickHenry. That's a mighty broad brush yer paintin' with there, friend. But in the grand evolutionary scheme of things, what difference would it make if one group of 'unthinking' people were able to overpower you and kill you, for example? Wouldn't that just be 'natural selection' at work?

Cordially,

[asformeandformyhouse]

I've joined the fray and my first comment can be found here.

I hope you mentioned how STUPID you find each of the participants of that thread. I think they should know the type of close-minded person with which they are discussing.

[asformeandformyhouse]

but they don't show that there actually is a god

A God that can be shown is no God at all.

[MEGoody]

(And to DownWithAllKings

Many intelligent people believe in God for any number of reasons. My question to you is, why do you automatically question the intelligence of someone who does not agree with you on this issue? It comes off as a personal attack thrown out there becuase you do not wish to engage in a serious conversation on the issue. I see this often tactic often. Even when evidence is presented that a creationist has based his/her opinion on, it is simply laughed at and discounted rather than addressed. That tells me there is something to hide on the part of those behaving in such fashion.

[realpatriot71]

As a Mac user I agree. No one's asking you to switch platforms, but, geeez, can you not at least see some merit?

While I'm not computer literate enough to get involved, I have read through those threads and they get UGLY!

[Dales]

Do you believe that everything can be explained by scientific laws, such as the laws of physics, even if we have not fully identified all of the laws and understood all of the interactions?

[CDHart]

I don't, as it is a waste of time. I have found no advantages in beating my head against a wall.

Carolyn

[Rightwing Canuck]

I think the idea of believing in god in pretty stupid and I would like to know why any intelligent person would do it.

Are you American? It's always funny to hear Yanks say that, considering what the men who created the country believed.

Oh, and 'in pretty stupid'? Sometimes it really is too easy.

[RightWhale]

I think the idea of believing in god in pretty stupid

So, uh, is a human any different from a jellyfish as far as consciousness is concerned? Can you explain where consciousness comes from?

[MEGoody]

Go look in the mirror - He made His presence known by making you. Oh, I forgot, you discount the complexity of your body by saying it all occurred by chance. Never mind.

[Dales]

So you are saying that you are not sure if things are a particular way, and that every physical property there is may some day change randomly, inexplicably?

[colorado tanker]

I rarely debate "evolution" because the term is so imprecise the debate often turns to mush.

I have no problem with the notion the Earth is a rather old place. Like William Jennings Bryan I don't believe Genesis is contrary and I refuse to accept the writings of Bishop Ussher, who persecuted my ancestors, as scripture.

I have no problem with the notion that species adapt to their environment, so-called "microevolution."

I accept that life on Earth has changed dramatically over time, with entire species coming and going. My problem is with the theory of natural selection or punctuated equilibrium as the agent of that change. The fossil record of all the mutations Darwin expected would prove his theory isn't there. I have seen ferocious and technical debates about the miniscule evidence produced to support the theory. Natural selection almost certainly is not the agent of that change.

What is the change agent? Is it intelligent design? Is it direct intervention by God? Is it a natural process we don't yet understand? I dunno. Whatever the answer, it won't affect my faith.

Why debate natural selection? Because in the guise of "social Darwinism" natural selection has been applied with disastrous results to human affairs. Social Darwinism is behind the communist/socialist idea that man is perfectable, by force and terror if necessary. The nazi idea that the "aryan race" is superior is based on the notion that the "aryans" are more highly evolved. Ideas of a "criminal class" and eugenics are based on the notion that the human race would be better off by eliminating lesser "evolved" classes. Just today I saw an idiotic article in a British newspaper reporting that so-called "scientists" are fretting about human evolution "stopping" because modern society is saving the sick, the disabled and the poor, who would have died in pre-industrial societies. These ideas are evil, pure and simple, and directly contributed to the carnage of the 20th Century, the bloodiest in human history.