36
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:52 am
@jespah,
OTOH..
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:52 am
@Jasper10,
NOPE, I cannot countenace defiant ignorance. Ive been a college teacher and when someone comes in as a "challenge" to standard science they are either willing to study and lern or they remain defint and drop out.
Like systemic racism, Theres no "two valid sides" to this. Theres facts of science or there are fairy tales .
FORTUNATELY, the number of Creationist scientists is rather low and most all are funded by a religion related group (like the Discovery Institute) and rarely have anything worthy to publish except by their own "in-house" press.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:52 am
@knaivete,
Read up on creationist views /opinions thoroughly to assist in your overall reasonings. You may or may not be convinced by it but then hey at least you have made the effort. You have become a PLAYER rather than a SPECTATOR just relying on what other peoples opinions are. As I have already said See Answers in Genesis & Creation Science web sites for alternative views on loads of stuff.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:55 am
@farmerman,
At least let the kids read up on other alternative views....I'm sure a lot of tricky questions will then come flying your way.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:55 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:

One can sit on one side of the fence with our belief systems and then divide again to justify our views
Are you even aware of what the YECs say about the OEC;s or the Theistic evolutionites say about all the Biblical based Creationists?
The IDers think your all giving them a bad name because they wannna wear a lab coat and sound impressive with detecting ancient enzyme "cascades"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 05:57 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
negative nihilists
Isnt that saying something like "JUMBO SHRIMP?
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 06:01 am
@farmerman,
Well to you maybe....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 06:05 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
you can have your views but I would encourage the "kids" to make up their own minds
"Making up ones mind" about something that denies the scientific method has been tried in public schools of severl states. In all cases courts have found that "making up ones mind" requires the insertion of religious dogma. Therefore, it is in violation of the 1st Amendment , specifically the establishment clause. Thus all cases were found against the CReationists/IDers , including a big one in Louisiana (that went to the Supreme Court and lost)
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 06:14 am
@farmerman,
Are you saying that the creationist scientific methods/arguments are not valid?Well things have move on a bit...let the kids decide.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 06:37 am
@Jasper10,
yep, totally invalid and many times actually fraudulent.
When the C14 on Stegosaurs and Ankylosaurs was conducted any idiot could have seen that this was NOT driven by objective scientific research. The only question that needed to b resolved was "WHERE did the Creationists apply new carbon to the samples ? They applied shellac and submitted the samples to Georgia Tech labs without any QA or description..
The "Human footprints" in the Paluxey River of Texas were known to b fakes since the late 1930;s (These footprints have been resurrected as Creationist evidence merely because the actors who chisled the footprints from dinosaur tracks were now long dead and couldnt mess up a great story of human and dinoosaur tracks being co located.

The ID "wedge document" promised research publications in juried literature by 2002. LLesse, were still waiting. Discovery Intitute has its own "juried" literture (if , of course you start with ID being a valid form of cience then theyll publish you),

Dr S Austen finagled a field trip to the Grnd Canyon to be supported by the Geological Society of America's Rocky Mtn COnference. He showed "evidence of the FLOOD in the rocks of the Grnd Canyon (or s he said).
Menwhile a couple of grad students from Canada disproved his entire Flood BS by showing that Austen was "lumping severa geologic ages into one "Flood deposit" and then the coup de Grace was that they showed clerly the presence of major sand dune deposits within Dr Austens FLOOD HORIZON.

gain, fraud, (or else extreme incompetence)
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 06:54 am
@farmerman,
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 08:31 am
Mumbling about attempting to teach a PIG to sing...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 09:31 am
@Jasper10,
why should I avoid any of those 12 questions?? Dos it make you feel validated if I cannot answer??
What if I CAN answer them. Does that mak you doubt your belief system?

It isnt only the undeucated who doubt evolution. There are hundreds of thousands of (mostly) Evangelical Christain Hucksters out there who make fortunes on the gullibility and the preserved ignorance of their "flocks"
You dont see the big Evangelists living like Mother Theresa do you?? Most have private jets, huge fleets of cars, lavish yatchs , mansions, and lavish life styles all on the faithfuls nickels and dimes .

I sometimes watch some of the "Acorn" programs about the evil ofevolution and even those programs , posing as scientific, are buy trying to rais millions for their leader's lifestyles.


Im quite familiar with "Answers in Genesis" They were the ones who sponsored the phony C14 testing of dinosaur fossils arriving at dates that concluded that dinosaurs lived 40000 years ago. Humans were around in that time and nowhere do we have any indications of human and dinosaur fossils anywhere near being stratigraphically similar.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 10:32 am
@farmerman,
Let people make their own minds up because there are far far too many grey areas/assumptions being made when it comes to evolution ....that much is fact.

Well It says what it says in Mathew 7:21-23 whether we choose to believe it or not.

farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 11:02 am
@Jasper10,
Quote:
there are far far too many grey areas/assumptions being made when it comes to evolution
Sounds like what a Creationist would say. Just because you dont understand anything, dont assume that others are equally as ignorant.

." Evolution is a theory and a fact"--Stephen J Gould
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 11:09 am
@farmerman,
A little light reading

Quote:

Theory and the Fact of Evolution
Biologists often say that "evolution is a fact" (see, for example, Futuyma, 1979; Edwords, 1987), and creationists often say that "evolution is just a theory." To evaluate the truth in these contradictory statements, one needs to examine fact and theory and the context in which the terms are used.

The most basic facts in science are the "brute, sensory facts" from perceptions which are shared and on which we agree. From these sensory facts, scientists build facts and concepts of increasing complexity. When there is solid agreement on the statement of a complexity, scientists may call the statement a fact. Holton reported on Einstein's use of fact:

Among facts, Einstein in various writings included inertial motion, the constancy of light velocity, the equality of gravitational and inertial mass, and the impossibility of constructing perpetual motion machines. Nevertheless in the most primitive form . . . [facts] can be thought of as simple sensory impressions.

[1979]

When biologists say that "evolution is a fact," I think they mean that they accept the following statement so firmly that they consider it to be as true as any basic sensory fact: each species arose from another species that preceded it in time, and higher taxa arose by a continuation of the speciation processes. The term fact as commonly applied to such statements signifies not the kind of content in the statements but, rather, the strength of our acceptance of the statements. So, if we are willing to accept a broad definition of fact, biologists are correct in saying that "evolution is a fact."

But in the context of Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the modern theories of evolution, "evolution is a fact" may tend to block a full view of the major theories and the hundreds of subtheories found in the study of evolution (Lewis, 1980). To consider this possible blockage, one must examine the meaning of theory, a term that is often misused to mean a notion, a deduction, a single idea or postulate, or anything an author is unsure of.

- page 35 -
Futuyma quoted the definition of theory from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a statement of the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed" (Futuyma, 1979). This definition is adequate in that a theory must contain a statement of its basic premises. If one cannot state the basic premises (postulates) of a theory being discussed, one has not even begun to know the theory.

The Oxford definition, however, is inadequate because it is incomplete. A theory is better defined as a quasi-geometric pattern of reasoning containing a few ideas given in postulates and containing lines of reasoning that (1) may use facts to support a postulate or (2) may use postulates and facts to explain other facts or to predict possible new facts. This definition of theory is derived from many sources (including Braithwait, 1953; Suppe, 1974; Holton. 1979). To test this view of theory, I have studied and collected the postulates of more than six hundred theories—about five hundred from biology and the remainder from other disciplines. Over one hundred lists of these postulates, which were taken from recent published papers, were sent to their authors for corrections and comments. From the more than 80 percent who replied, I gathered that my view of theory was acceptable to these authors.

In light of the above definitions of fact and theory, now examine The Origin of Species, look at most textbook discussions of Darwinian evolution, and then review recent research papers on the subdisciplines of biology.

In the first edition of the Origin, "theory of descent with modification" occurs twice in the table of contents, seven times in the concluding chapter, and a number of times in the remainder of the book. "Theory of natural selection" occurs three times in the contents, five times in the final chapter, and many times in the rest of the book. In a few places, Darwin says, "Theory of descent with modification through natural selection" and many times he says "my theory." In almost every place where he used these terms, the discussion that follows refers to the descent theory or to the natural selection theory. A rereading of the Origin with the above terms in mind as one follows Darwin's arguments will convince readers that Darwin gave us two major theories—the kinematic theory of descent with modification and the dynamic theory of natural selection. (A kinematic theory deals with noncausal relations between things and/or events. A dynamic theory deals with mechanisms and causes of things and/or events.)

[Lewis, 1986]

In the present era of overt hypothetico-deductive biology, the descriptions of Darwinian evolution ought to make clear that Darwin gave us two major theories. Most textbook authors treat natural selection well, but they fail to treat the theory of descent with modification as an active theory. If this failure stems from the acceptance of the statement "evolution is a fact," then the statement needs careful qualifications about what is being accepted as fact and what should be accepted as theory.

- page 36 -
The descent theory is active in two ways: some of its postulates are being tested, and it is spawning hundreds of subtheories. (A subtheory is a theory whose postulates are consistent with those of its over-theory and whose postulates make it possible to apply the over-theory in a special limited range.) The study of punctuated equilibrium may require the clarification of two of the descent theory postulates: (1) evolutionary changes were gradual and of long duration (however, see the quotation from Origin in Sonleitner, 1987), and (2) the geologic record is very incomplete.

Most theories in paleontology, comparative anatomy, taxonomy, geographic distribution, and even many in molecular biology are subtheories of the descent theory. These subtheories say nothing about the mechanism of evolution, so they are clearly a part of the descent theory system of theories. (For views of the mechanism system of theories, see, Caplan, 1978; Lewis, 1980; Tuomi, 1981.)

Leaders in the study of evolution were well aware of Darwin's two theories (see, Lewis, 1980, p. 555), but, since the time of Fisher, they chose to concentrate on the mechanism of evolution, thus accounting in part for the neglect of the descent theory in most textbooks. One textbook whose authors contained a leader was, however, very clear: "First, there is the theory of evolution in the strict sense. . . . Second, there is the theory of natural selection" (Simpson, Pittendrigh, and Tiffany, 1957).

To say that "evolution is a fact" and to imply that the theory of descent with modification is complete and finished as a theory would misrepresent evolutionary biology. Since most textbooks today do not explicitly discuss the descent theory as an active theory, a large misrepresentation is being passed on to students. If this stems in part from saying that "evolution is a fact," then care must be taken to make sure exactly what is meant by "evolution is a fact."

To say that "evolution is just a theory" displays a great ignorance of the meaning of theory. It implies that theories are flighty somethings that are of little import. Yet, those who know science properly know that theories are the most powerful intellectual tools for the discovery of knowledge. They know that there are highly tentative theories, very strongly supported theories, and a range of in-between theories. They know that strongly supported theories that have been tested for years will probably remain in established knowledge forever and that theories of this sort might be called facts.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 11:12 am
@farmerman,
Well equally that’s what evolutionist would say isn’t it.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 11:15 am
@Jasper10,
It does involve learning though. Something unneeded or even desired in Cretionist "thinking"

Evolution is a dangerous idea to those whove lazily bought into believing in Alley Oop, Or the Flood Amusement Park as science

0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 11:16 am
@Jasper10,
If you want me to run through the logic again that confirms your foolishness I can if you want me to.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2021 12:23 pm
@Jasper10,
naaah. You havent added anything new to Creationism and what it calls "logic".

Youve failed to actually show that you even understand what you preach, you just blindly accept whats in a collection of tales over 2000 yers old.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 04:58:04