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

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[donh]

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

"Uproar", eh? You have severe category problems if you think hijacking a discussion about science into a religious forum goes any signifigant distance toward making evolutionary theory not a science.

[My2Cents]

all the evidence

Like what? The Bible declares that man and woman were specially created by God. What evidence do you have that this wasn't the case? (And don't trot out diagrams proporting to show horse evolution, because I'm asking about mankind.)

[BrandtMichaels]

js1138 - you say it makes no sense to argue science with apologetics. I'd say it makes no sense to argue something while ignoring the data which does not conform to your preconceived opinions.

You both seem pretty agitated - long with PH - that this was moved to the religion forum. That to me appears to be truly childish - does it really matter which 'sandbox' your ideas are presented in if they are true and valid?

[donh]

Since you didn't put this thread here, perhaps you'd have no objection to putting back where it came from?

[My2Cents]

Perhaps you haven't studied it much then.

As a product of the public school system, and four years of college at the University of California, I can assure you that I've studied evolutionary science. I got A's in biology and physical anthropology. It was after I received my degree that I began to realize that most of Darwinist conclusions were a huge loaf of baloney. I understand the "evidence" for evolution better than you assume. I may even understand it better than you.

[Dimensio]

I can not agree that ELS has been thoroughly debunked - applying a little critical thinking shows that the criticism is lacking.

Perhaps you can explain how the criticism is lacking, rather than just saying so.

This is especially true of the talkorigins website - basically just a 'talking points' site for pro-evolutionists.

The talkorigins website does not address the subject of ELS. Did you actualy investigate any of the references offered to you?

[Religion Moderator]

By far, Religion Forum posters are concerned with Truth as compared to observations or measurements which are the touchstone of methodological naturalism, the "official" philosophy of science.

Methodological naturalism does not get an upper hand on the Religion Forum, it gets an even hand.

[Dimensio]

The Bible declares that man and woman were specially created by God. What evidence do you have that this wasn't the case?

What evidence have you that this is the case?

[js1138]

By far, Religion Forum posters are concerned with Truth as compared to observations or measurements which are the touchstone of methodological naturalism, the "official" philosophy of science.

All the more reason why topics dealing with science should never be placed in the religion forum. The arguments against science generate heat and shed no light.

[My2Cents]

you will find literally tens of thousands of volumes and articles of data, experiments etc concerning evolution across numerous scientific disciplines.

As David Berlinski has pointed out,

“The term ‘Darwinism’ conveys the suggestion of a secular ideology, a global system of belief. So it does and so it surely is. Darwin’s theory has been variously used – by Darwinian biologists – to explain the development of a bipedal gait, the tendency to laugh when amused, obesity, anorexia nervosa, business negotiations, a preference for tropical landscapes, the evolutionary roots of political rhetoric, maternal love, infanticide, clan formation, marriage, divorce, certain comical sounds, funeral rites, the formation of regular verb forms, altruism, homosexuality, feminism, greed, romantic love, jealousy, warfare, monogamy, polygamy, adultery, the fact that men are pigs, recursion, sexual display, abstract art, and religious beliefs of every description.”

One of the problems with Darwinism is that it is assumed to be true (and it's assumed to be true because the alternative -- special creation by God -- is unacceptable for materialistic scientists), and based upon this assumption, a variety of conclusions are made about a variety of topics, as Berlinski has listed. The problem is that if the assumption is wrong, then pretty much all of these conclusions are wrong as well, and the great body of scientific literature you appeal to is far from infallible.

[BrandtMichaels]

See post 572.

And yes, I did investigate the websites provided.

[presently no screen name]

It dismisses no deities.

Did I say deities? Please reread my post. I said GOD, The Almighty, The Creator of All yet you do not acknowledge the word "God" in my posts - as if HE DOES NOT EXIST.

You are true to form with your Doctrine of Darwinism - you DISMISS "GOD" and use 'deities'. Evolution alienates God while speaking of HIS CREATION.

Evolution is merely another belief system. A faith based philosophy into 'mans' thinking VS. THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR, The All-Knowing, All-Seeing God.


Kindly refrain from saying I am incorrect. If you don't believe God and His Holy Word, say so. It would appear more truthful than inserting 'deities'. Remember, I didn't author God's HOLY Word and all The Truths within but stand behind HIS Word. Saying I am incorrect is saying what I stand behind is incorrect.

[My2Cents]

OK...circular argument. Brilliant. My faith tells me that an all-powerful God created man and woman in a special act of creation. The Bible also tells me that both man and woman "fell," that sin entered the world, and that mankind has suffered ever since. I think the existence of a sin nature in man is pretty observable, providing pretty solid proof that the account of Genesis is accurate.

Consider the topic of this thread -- that evolution is consistent with Christianity and with conservative philosophy. As a Christian (I assume you're not one), and as a conservative, I can assure you that the premise of the article is false.

[RadioAstronomer]

By far, Religion Forum posters are concerned with Truth

Here is where it gets sticky. "Whose truth" and or "what is truth" comes to mind. Since science does not deal in "truth" just observed evidence, treating science at the same level as a faith based "truth" is disingenuous at best.

This is why science should not be classed as a religion nor a science thread be placed in the religion forum.

[PatrickHenry]

By far, Religion Forum posters are concerned with Truth as compared to observations or measurements which are the touchstone of methodological naturalism, the "official" philosophy of science. Methodological naturalism does not get an upper hand on the Religion Forum, it gets an even hand.

Well said! And that's precisely why a science thread doesn't belong in the religion forum. (Don't bother putting this one back in "news," as it's pretty well run its course anyway.)

And that's also why -- aside from professions of faith -- a totally anti-science poster is sometimes disruptive in a news thread about science. You will note that freepers with a scientific viewpoint rarely go into the religion forum to cause trouble. The disruptive traffic is all one-way. And that's why there are times -- you can spot them -- when someone should be told to get off a thread. Disruptive behavior shouldn't be allowed, regardless of the motivation.

[donh]

You both seem pretty agitated - long with PH - that this was moved to the religion forum. That to me appears to be truly childish - does it really matter which 'sandbox' your ideas are presented in if they are true and valid?

It is the non-participating audience that sparks the annoyance, on my part, at least. Taking it out of the science forum burys it out of site of its hoped for audience.

[presently no screen name]

You have severe category problems if you think hijacking

Kindly prove your statement that I have a severe category problem - along with your 'hijacking' word theory.

[balrog666]

My faith tells me that an all-powerful God created man and woman in a special act of creation.

How is that any different than saying:

My faith tells me that an all-powerful God Invisible, Pink Unicorn created man and woman in a special act of creation.

or even:

My faith tells me that an all-powerful God Flying Spaghetti Monster created man and woman in a special act of creation.

Or perhaps:

My faith tells me that an all-powerful God Dread Cthulhu created man and woman in a special act of creation.

How does one distinguish between such innumerable possibilites without the use of evidence, reason, or the tenets of methodolocial naturalism?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

That's according to your mere mortal understanding - not according to The Almighty!

No. That is according to my mere mortal understanding of what the Almighty said and did.

Why is it man feels he knows more than His Creator?

I could ask you the same thing. I have one understanding of God's word. You have another. Why should either of ourselves declare ourselves wise enough to be certain we are correct?

[RadioAstronomer]

you DISMISS "GOD" and use 'deities'. Evolution alienates God while speaking of HIS CREATION.

Not true. “Deities” is the proper term since there are many different faiths out there that address such. Evolution does not address deities no matter what name(s) you give just one or many.

Evolution does not alienate God as you state. Evolution does not address God either for or against. This is no different than the theory of gravity. God is not addressed. Yet we don't see these types of arguments over the theory of gravity.