Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[Jaguarbhzrd]

The above are sciences. The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

I hate to break it to you, but 99% of all scientists understand that evolution is science, so I hope you will forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt, and some 80 proof alchohol.

[stultorum]

Another good example of how not to be personal would be:

Right: "You did not understand me."

Wrong: "You do not understand."

The first case implies ineffective communication, while the second case implies the person who received the message is a complete moron.

[donh]

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

Unless you ask a scientist.

[King Prout]

I prefer: "Alas, it seems I failed to express my point to you clearly enough."
It *denotes* poor communication, but quietly implies the recipient is a moron.

[stultorum]

""Alas, it seems I failed to express my point to you clearly enough."

With emphasis on "clearly enough," or it will denote that you failed in communicating your thoughts.

Do you mind if I plagiarize it?

[King Prout]

it isn't mine. it is a family traditional, and an old english theme. do with it as you will.

[Dimensio]

No tests have been made which obviate a Creator creating, which is the primary impetus of the philosophy of Darwinism.

I now understand the cause for your misconceptions. You are fundamentally incorrect about what the theory of evolution states.

[Dimensio]

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science.

You are incorrect. The vast majority of biologists do in fact consider the theory of evolution to be science.

It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

Please support your claim with evidence.

[presently no screen name]

GOOD POST! Fundamentally correct on the philosophy of darwinism.

[presently no screen name]

evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science

EXACTLY! It's faith based in 'man's belief that is in direct opposition to what The Creator of all says in His Word.

It's not a good position to be in. This thread w/the 'what difference does it make' God can be God and the evolutionists can still can be right demonstrates their need to erase the obvious link that Darwin's philosophy and God's Word are in total opposition.

Hence, the uproar about being on the religion forum; they need the disconnect to be considered 'science'.

[Thatcherite]

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking Coyoteman to do the same? See my original post #232 and Coyoteman's post #212. No Coyoteman, I am not asking you to back up your claim. I not only believe your claim is valid but I have seen enough to validate it myself.

OK, just let me know if you change your mind, and you require Coyote's claim to be backed up. Just for going on with you can start with this list, a tiny sample of the vast amount of creationist misrepresentation. There's nothing odd about asking for claims to be backed up with evidence. Rational people do it all the time.

I also believe that those wishing me to back up my claim have studied the subject enough to know that my claim is equally valid.

I have studied the subject, and I am unaware of evolutionary scientists who "do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want." Any scientist caught doing this is finished, no second chances. Kindly cite some examples please, (how about 5 in the last 50 years) or withdraw the claim. Come on, if evolutionary scientists' twisting of data and fraud is as common as you claim this should be easy for you to achieve.

[Thatcherite]

I note that you didn't answer King Prout's second question...

Or is it only permitted to True Believers to aggressively and profligately call all who accept the validity of the SToE liars and morons in a general, broad-brush manner.

It does seem that general broad brush statements that categorise all biologists/scientists whether Christian or not as liars and fools are permitted. Likewise similar insults against non-Christians as a group appear to be permitted.

Supposing, as a hypothetical example, someone were to post along the lines that "CHRISTIANITY is a LIE", "ALL Christians are FOOLS trying to destroy America and the Western World". Would such statements be permitted or are blanket insults applied to particular groups only permitted when they come from Christian fundamentalists and are directed at those who disagree with certain tenets of Christian fundamentalism?

[Virginia-American]

- All the fossil records show species coming in to being with NO transitions. There are NO froggits- NO "proof" that two frogs gave birth to a part frog part rabbit...OR ANY OTHER SPECIES TRANSMUTATING! Every species appears fully as what it is, NOT in some transitional phase.

Not so. You're just ignoring the reptile-to-mammal sequence, and the eohippus-to-horse sequence, both of which are quite smooth. And there are a lot more than those.

Who would expect a part-frog and part-rabbit? Certainly no biologist! In fact, the absence of fossils of that sort is yet more evidence of standard biology, since the ToE says there shouldn't be any such thing. And, of course, the discovery of fossils like Tiktaalik, which was found by using the ToE, is even more evidence that Darwin was basically right.

Using creationism or ID, has anyone ever predicted the existence of a fossil? No! Until creationism or ID can do so, they're not nearly as useful as normal science

Using ID or creationism, has anyone ever predicted a DNA sequence? No!

[highlander_UW]

You've really got to be kidding. So I'm supposed to take the word of Michael Shermer as to what is "good theology"? Let's see what his credentials are, shall we?

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society.

Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School. He worked as a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College, California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College. Since his creation of the Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, and the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech, he has appeared on such shows as 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Sally, Lezza, Unsolved Mysteries, and more as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims. source: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/meet_michael_shermer.html

Well, maybe it's his experience on Sally or Lezza that qualifies him in theology...although for what sort of religion I can only speculate...but it isn't Christianity.

[Virginia-American]

... It may have CHANGED since then (which doesn't give much credence to the MYTH of evolution!) ...

So, when was the last time you heard a myth changing?

[Virginia-American]

Me: It happens [every group of people has liars in it], but it's much more common for anti-evolution activists to lie than for scientists to lie.

Find some examples [of scientists recently falsifying data, or misinterpreting it because of preconceptions] or withdraw the claim.

You: In the first sentence you agree with me and in the second you still want proof?

I said every subset of people will have liars and frauds in it. I also said that that is much more common among anti-evolution activists than it is among scientists. Where's the contradiction?

Where's the evidence?

[Oztrich Boy]

You may think He is a practical joker based on your assumptions of what happened in time past

No. it would be based on a natural world bearing the evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years.

Either that is a reflection of reality, or you are worshipping Loki.

[wideawake]

Well said, indeed.

[Dimensio]

Fundamentally correct on the philosophy of darwinism.

That is incorrect. The theory of evolution makes no statements regarding a "Creator" at all.

[Elsie]

(thus committing incest),

The prohibition against this came much later...