Over at one of my favorite sites, The List Universe, James Frater has posted a pro-evolution article, Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution, which instigated me to make my own list of misconceptions from the other perspective. I apologize in advance for the many links, and some statements that I have not backed up with references. However, just take this as a primer, not the end-all. Enjoy.
1. The reality of natural selection proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!
One of the consistent errors  of those who misunderstand evolution and scientific reasoning is to conclude that, since natural selection seems a reality, evolution itself is a reality. What they fail to recognize is that (a) proving one of the supposed mechanisms of evolution does not prove evolution, and (b) natural selection fits into the creationist model also, so proving that natural selection happens doesn’t obviate the other major contender, creation science.
A related problem is that evolution’s definition is ambiguous and plastic, and can mean different things in different contexts – and this is not a strength, but a weakness, because it allows for easy misunderstanding and bamboozling (example from Science), and such unclear communication relies on the reader to have to interpret the scope of the claims of the writer.
2. The reality of adaptation proves evolution – in fact, they are nearly synonymous!
While sloppy evolutionists imply or allow their readers to make the jump from adaptation’s reality to evolution’s reality (same error as above), they also make the mistake of failing to differentiate between adaptation (which they might rather call ‘variation and natural selection’), which relies on existing information and genes being expressed, which is congruent with the creationist model, NOT the evolutionist one.
What evolutionists mean when they imply that adaptation is evidence of evolution is ‘random mutation creates new information (variation), which gives an organism selective advantage AND is passed on to progeny.’ But that’s way more than simple selective expression of existing genes, and the burden is on them to prove that mutation really creates novel functional proteins, rather than combinations or adaptations of existing proteins. The evidence they usually parade out, such as the A-I Milano mutation, or nylonase, is thin, if not inadmissible.
3. Evolution has been proven by empirical science.
While the evolutionary model might make predictions (though poorly), and might incorporate existing data (again, poorly, see the next point), it has never been directly observed. That’s because it relies on the interpretation of historical evidence, not direct empirical evidence. Evolutionists try to squirm out o this fact, but they can’t. Evolution is as observable as the creation event. It’s assumed to be true.
4. The phylogenetic trees are factual and stable.
In Evolutionary Trees – In Flux or Broken and Bogus?, I discussed the common response of evolutionists to new evidence – more often than not, they have to scramble to redo their ancestry models to fit the new data. Even worse for them is that genetic mapping is forcing scientists to hugely modify the existing trees, which were based on morphology instead of genetics. While some may feel that this is merely using better data to improve our model, I predict that the more genetic info we get, the MORE confused the trees will get.
5. The human fossil record is significant and clearly defined (lucy anyone?)
Lubenow points out in his book Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils that
- Most palaeontologists have never handled the original fossils, but only casts of them
- Many fossils exist to falsify evolution, and are purposely marginalized or miscategorized to avoid their obvious implications
- Most hominid remains can be easily categorized as fully human or fully simian
Lubenow seems more and more correct in asserting that all ‘hominid’ fossils may actually turn out to be entirely modern human or entirely simian, not part of an evolutionary continuum. Now of course, evolutionists have some rebuttals to Lubenow, but his points remain salient and meaningful, and the rebuttals are often a real reach against simple, obvious logic, imo.
6. The fossil record may be incomplete, but other scientific disciplines have proved evolution.
Interestingly, more and more evidence from the micro and macro worlds, genetics (even more) and astronomy, and other sciences like geology (not to mention statistics), are constantly bringing up challenges to evolution. But that’s a well-guarded secret kept by the priests of evolution.
7. Evolutionists don’t really believe in abiogenesis as part of their evolution myth.
Evolutionists rightly avoid committing to abiogenesis as the source of the origins of life, even though they have to admit that this is really what they believe, and they have no other explanation for origins. Why should they shy away from it? Well, because scientists have for years tried to prove the Miller experiment, the Dawkins selfish gene idea, and such, but it can’t be done. And it never will, because it’s contrary to reality and nature, just like evolution itself.
8. Christianity and evolution are compatible
If you have a very liberal approach to the interpretation of literature and the bible, you could easily believe this. But reading the historical narrative of the book of Genesis as a myth is not just liberal, it’s intellectually dishonest, because it is obviously written by the author, and assumed by people after him, as real history.
But even deeper, the implied theology of evolution contradicts standard biblical theology. See Evolution and Religion: Not Compatible? Also, such a strong approach begs the question, Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
9. Evolution is in no way related to social darwinism, eugenics, and historic racism.
Evolutionists might be forced to admit that Darwinism, racism, and Nazism were historic bedfellows, but they fail to admit that social darwinism is a logical, inescapable conclusion drawn from Darwinism. Even Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. ~ Charles Darwin, from The Descent of Man
10. Evolution is in no way related to the Nazi approach to science.
It is a small step, if any at all, from Darwin’s quote above to this one:
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called “humaneness” of individuals, in order to make place for the true “humaneness of nature,” which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.
– Hitler
For more on evolution and it’s ideological counterparts in history, see:
- Darwinism’s history of racism
- Evolution and Social Darwinism in Civil War Reconstruction
- Darwinism and Imperialism
- From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
11. Evolution has contributed meaningfully to science, and certainly has not hindered it.
Evolution can claim few, if any real contributions to science and medicine, and the few they do claim may be easily attributed to basic scientific method, to basic genetics, and not to evolution. Feel free to enjoy these gems:
- Darwinism Impeding Science
- The Role of Evolution in Biomedical Research is Highly Exaggerated
- Evolution Contributes Nothing to Medicine
- Evolution’s Impact on Science
12. Evolution is not a key component of the atheist world view.
Some people like to argue that you don’t have to be an atheist to believe in evolution, and that is true – there are some well known Christians who are theistic evolutionists, like Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, who wrote a recent book on the subject entitled The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
However, if you are an atheist, you have pretty much a 99% chance of believing in evolution – not just because you rely on reason and science exclusively, but because you have no other theory of origins – that is, unless you are a truly strong individual, you MUST have a story to explain where life came from. This is why Richard Dawkins, the infamous atheist famously said:
…although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Another well known fact is that every cruel totalitarian atheist regime has also had evolution as part of its ideological underpinning – not just because they thought it “true science,” but because they used it to justify their anti-religious stance and persecution, if not for eugenic purposes also.
13. Scientists don’t have a reason to be self-deceived about evolution
When I express doubts about evolution, I often hear the retort “how could so many smart scientists be wrong?” as if such a thing could never happen. Not only will a ready student of history see how often scientists have held on to orthodox positions and resisted new ideas, it still happens today. We have good reason to be skeptical of today’s scientific claims. For example, see:
- Why I Trust Science in Principle, but not in Practice
- Separation of Science and State
- How the Media Spins Science
- The Politicization of Scientific Research
- Science as Salvation – A Cautionary Tale
Expressing such skepticism is not
- ignoring the significant contribution of science of the past decades (though much of its origins may be credited to Christian and creationist scientists like Pascal, Keppler, Lister, Steno, and Maxwell, to name a few)
- revealing a fear of science, nor a belief that science and faith, or reason and faith, are antithetical
- revealing a belief of a vast conspiracy in science
But it does show that modern thinking people should be disabused of their naivete, thinking science to be infallible, or able to answer moral and social questions, or above political and ideological manipulation and bias. But that won’t stop some evolutionists from thinking that evolution is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
But back to the question – do scientists have a reason to deceive themselves into believing evolution, and in doing so, in enforcing a dogmatic scientific orthodoxy that squashes dissent? You bet. Read with pleasure Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution, and call me in the morning.
CONCLUSION
While the original article that instigated me outlined a similar list of misconceptions that people have about evolution, it was decidedly PRO evolution. My list, though named similarly, is the list from the other side – rather than misconceptions of evolutionary doubters, my list is one of misconceptions of evolutionary believers. I dare say a similar pair of lists could be written for creationism, as well as intelligent design.
Clearly, the people touting these misconceptions are confused. I would venture to say that you might be, too, and for the same reason.
I saw that, although that was more about health than anything else. But I guess the point is, to convince people, you need more than education and information – you need to connect with and understand cultural taboos, fears, and beliefs, even if they are irrational, and formulate a plan that takes those into consideration.
Seeker, Aaron, I think you'll LOVE this! At the very least, it will make you laugh.
Richard Dawkins – Beware the Believers
That is amazing. Very nice.
Um, the very same PhD's, so to speak, who must have worked(and godless, by their actions)on the on the injecting of syphilis into Americans like to point out the ignorance of a Christian's way of life.
Christians have 5000+ years of wisdom and knowledge to draw upon. Others have YouTube. Seems right for a sometimes upside down world.
Trying to address everything would get very very long, so I intend to address just three things. One, I’ll prove you mistaken in claiming evolution basically equals atheism. Two, I’ll give very simple pair of examples refuting the Young Earth ~6,000 year timeline. Three, I’ll explain one absolutely conclusive sample of the evidence proving evolution true, out of the vast body of evidence establishing evolution.
(1) You equate evolution with atheism.
Surveys of the US population find a roughly even split for and against evolution. There is only a fairly small fraction of the US population that is non-Christian. Even if you dump all non-Christians onto the evolution side, that still leaves US Christians not too far from evenly split for and against evolution. If you then look at international surveys, out of 32 developed nations the US came out second to last in acceptance of evolution, above only Turkey. Every other developed Christian nation on earth has a majority-to-overwhelming acceptance of evolution. A bit of math can then establish the fact that globally a MAJORITY of Christians accept evolution.
The fact is that a majority of Christians accept evolution.
The fact is that only a minuscule percentage of the population are atheists – almost all evolutionists are Christians!
Your battle against evolution is not a battle against atheists. Your fight is against a group of people who are almost all Christian. Your battle is in fact against majority mainstream Christianity.
You can still argue that you are right about evolution, but you need to recognize that you are doing so based on your particular minority non-mainstream version of Christianity. Your conflict is with mainstream majority Christianity.
(2) The age of the earth.
The Young Earth line tries to explain away the grand Canyon as being quickly carved by a huge fast torrent of water after the Biblical Flood. But think a moment – a torrent of fast water will blast its way in STRAIGHT LINES, and a small slow stream of water will wander and weave. No science PhD is needed once you notice that simple point. Once you notice that point any small child can glance at the Grand Canyon and see which side is right. The Grand Canyon not only winds about, it makes countless tight U-turns. Large fast blasts of water do not make random tight U-turns. Any large fast flow of water would obviously and immediately cut its way straight across the middle of many of the U-twists.
The Grand Canyon was simply and obviously not carved quickly by a large fast flood of water. It was slowly carved over a very long time by a small slow weaving and winding flow.
If you go to the arctic or antarctic and dig, you will see there are clearly visible yearly layers in the snow. During the 6-month summer the surface snow bakes under the sun which alters its texture, and a layer of pollen and dust blows in and settles on that surface. During the winter another snow layer is built up. The layers are clearly visible and easily countable. In addition, traces of ash from the occasional major volcanic eruptions get blown in and settle in that year’s layer. If you dig and count down 1930 layers, you will find traces of volcanic ash from the 79 A.D. famous volcano that destroyed Pompeii. And then you can digging down counting layers, finding the yearly pollen and dust layer and every sevral of years finding traces of volcanic eruptions. And you can continue digging and counting down about a HUNDRED THOUSAND yearly layers. Actually there’s about a million years worth of icepack, with individual scattered layers of a million years worth of volcanic eruptions, but when you go more than about a hundred thousand years down the layers get too thin to be visibly countable. Some people try to make up some excuse about multiple fake layers mysteriously being laid down quickly, but that’s obviously bogus when you consider the volcanic ash record in those layers. It takes around a full year for volcanic ash to settle out of the atmosphere. Even the most fanatical stretch can’t invent any sane story on how you an quickly lay down tens or hundreds of thousands of individual ash layers of tens or hundreds of thousands of volcanic eruptions.
Again, no science PhD required. Anyone can easily and obviously establish that the earth is way way older than 6,000 years. The entire planet is covered with proof refuting the 6,000 year thing, the arctic layers are just one of the simplest and most obvious examples. The entire Young Earth timeline is just plain wrong.
(3) Proof of evolution.
Most of the fossil record is random and gappy. In most cases it is very rare and random for an animal to leave a fossil behind, and then it’s very rare and random for someone to happen to dig it up. This is particularly true for in forest environments where dead bodies get rapidly eaten by scavengers and any remaining bones are rapidly dissolved by forest soils. However there is in fact a substantial chunk of the fossil record that does NOT suffer from these problems. A substantial chunk of the fossil record that is absolutely continuous and complete spanning thousands of diverse species across a hundred million years. A perfect record documenting not merely a complete sequence of transitional form species, but a hyper-continuous record documenting in minute detail the transitional forms ALONG the individual splits into new species. A perfect record showing exactly how species can and did split into new species. A perfect complete record linking thousands of species in an evolutionary tree of common descent. A perfect and complete record tracing diverse currently existing species back to their common ancestor.
Where is this fossil record? Phylum Foraminifera. What the hell is Formainifera? It’s a branch of life roughly comparable to “mammals” as a group, but they are really small animals and they are aquatic. You’ve probably never heard of them if you’re not a biologist, they are not a glamorous as mammals, but that does not diminish the scientific legitimacy and validity of the evidence. The only important thing is that they get around BOTH of the problems with the fossil record… they solve the problem of it being rare and random to leave a fossil, and they solve the problem of it being rare and random to find fossils. Forams live in the ocean by the trillions, and they have skeletons called ‘tests’. They die by the millions every day, continuously raining down on the sea floor. The deep dark cold inert sea floor – where the tests become perfectly layered fossils in the slowly steadily accumulating sediment of the seabed.
In the 1970’s oil crunch we developed new deep sea drilling technology for oil exploration. Oil exploration started brining up long drill cores of the sea floor. Sediment cores that were incidentally loaded with Foraminifera fossils literally by the tens of thousands and more. An absolutely limitless supply of ideal perfectly layered fossils. A scientist’s wet dream perfect complete limitless supply fossil record.
Yes, most of the fossil record is filled with gaps. However they really are transitional fossils in a true and continuous evolutionary tree. We have a substantial chunk of that tree with a continuous complete fossil record spanning thousands of species. A record tracing diverse living species back to their common ancestor a hundred million years ago. A record showing in minute transitional detail exactly how new species can and repeatedly did form. Scientists long ago resolved the question that evolution is absolutely true. They long ago moved on to more detailed study on exactly how speciation can and did happen, they are studying exactly how long individual speciation events took to happen, they are studying things like how and why the rate of speciation increases after mass extinction events.
There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution, it’s just matter of space and time. And you’ve surely noticed this post is already overlong.
(*) Note: I can answer anyone HONESTLY wanting hear and HONESTLY wanting to understand the answer. It is of course impossible to successfully answer anyone who obsessively wants NOT to understand.
What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution. SOME Christians claimed that the moving earth solar system was atheistic, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create? That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism. Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it. Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
Quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Alsee, thank you for commenting, but I would like to disagree with you on some points.
>> ALSEE: The fact is that a majority of Christians accept evolution.
The fact is that only a minuscule percentage of the population are atheists – almost all evolutionists are Christians!
I find three faults with your argument:
1. Just because people 'call' themselves Christians culturally does not make them Christian in their thinking or behaviors. In fact, I'd say a majority who call themselves Christian disagree with central Christian doctrines when pressed – having affinity for 'christian values' is not Christianity, since many of those generic values are shared by most enduring faith systems, even secular humanism.
2. I am not arguing that Christians don't subscribe to mutually exclusive ideas (i.e. they can personally be illogical).
Rather, I am arguing that, if people WERE being logical, they COULD NOT hold Christian ideas and still believe in evolution.
Most Christians are theologically and philosophically uneducated, and don't make the logical and historical connections between evolution and atheism, and don't see how evolution's philosophic and theological implications contradict scripture, which I try to point out.
It is notable, for example, that during the time of eugenics in America, the scientific establishment used Darwinism to justify it, and the sole opponents were people of Christian faith who saw such cruelties as incompatible with Christian faith. I'm sure most of those eugenicists would have call themselves 'Christians,' but that does not make eugenics or other implications of Darwinism compatible with biblical views.
3. I am NOT saying that evolution is atheistic. In fact, some people are theistic evolutionists.
I am arguing that evolution is not only congruent with atheism, but that historically, it is the ONLY view of origins used in every atheist regime (which by definition reject God).
As atheist Richard Dawkins admitted, before evolution, atheists did not have a theory of origins. Now that evolution is here, it is 'now possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' The link between the two can not be any clearer.
Further, if we look in history, ALL atheist regimes, not to mention the fascist Nazi regime, held to the evolutionary view.
I am also saying that, while evolution doesn't lead to atheism, it DOES lead logically and historically to social Darwinism and support of eugenics. It contributed to the scientific legitimization of the Nazi program to further the human race through eugenics. It didn't create eugenics, but it gave it that extra boost that made eugenics acceptable, even in the US for over 40 years.
>> ALSEE: You can still argue that you are right about evolution, but you need to recognize that you are doing so based on your particular minority non-mainstream version of Christianity. Your conflict is with mainstream majority Christianity.
It all depends on what you define as 'mainstream' Christianity. I don't consider the majority of Americans who hold to a 'cultural identification' with Christianity as 'believers.' I am not so narrow as to say that only my denomination is the true one, but I do believe that there are some essentials that, if you disagree with them, you are not a Christian (see What are the essentials of faith?).
Also, there was a time when the majority of scientists and Christians thought that the earth was at the rotational center of our galaxy. Copernicus, and later Galileo, challenged that idea. They were in the minority. A minority of Christians supported Galileo, including his close friend Pope Urban VIII. (note: Galileo was supported by the church, but was asked to get more evidence before declaring heliocentrism – he agreed, but later reneged and published a work that called the Pope a simpleton and made some attempt at revising biblical theology – so when the church took issue with this (not his science), he was 'persecuted' – if you call 5 months of house arrest at the villa of a rich friend followed by a peaceful life in which he died of natural causes in his home 'persecution').
But I mention this because, while you are right that we should be circumspect if we disagree with the majority, an idea is not right just because the majority believe it. I think we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is faulty, and that it is not philosophically or theologically compatible with mainstream (traditional, orthodox, historical) Christianity.
>> ALSEE: The Young Earth line tries to explain away the grand Canyon as being quickly carved by a huge fast torrent of water after the Biblical Flood. But think a moment – a torrent of fast water will blast its way in STRAIGHT LINES, and a small slow stream of water will wander and weave. No science PhD is needed once you notice that simple point.
Not true. The same resistant forces that cause a river to meander over time are present if the span of time is shorter. Your mistake is thinking that shortening the time from millions to hundreds or thousands of years is the same as reducing it to 5 minutes with a high pressure hose.
A faster carving would not make straight lines, that's very naive and unsubstantiated. For example, see Rapid erosion on Mt. St. Helens. St. Helens' happened in a DAY, and even though the 'canyon' was made in packed ash (soft), it shows that
– even with little resistance, canyons come out curved, and
– it is entirely conceivable that a canyon can be created in less than millions of years
Again, I am not saying that the Grand Canyon formed in a day, but over time. But the extended time frame is not warranted. See Mount St. Helens in Washington State for more.
>> ALSEE: If you go to the arctic or antarctic and dig, you will see there are clearly visible yearly layers in the snow. During the 6-month summer the surface snow bakes under the sun which alters its texture, and a layer of pollen and dust blows in and settles on that surface. During the winter another snow layer is built up. The layers are clearly visible and easily countable.
First of all, there are some creationists who are 'Old Earth' creationists, so a young earth is not required by Christianity. So if you have problems with YECs, that's fine. I, however, happen to have YEC sympathies, and find merit in their arguments. We could look at them all one by one, but here's what they would say to your argument in Do ice cores show many tens of thousands of years?:
There is much more in that semi-technical article, but basically, your assumptions color how you interpret the layers, and the layers do not definitively prove your large timescale, because your assumptions could be very wrong, and I think that the YECs give a good alternate explanation.
>> ALSEE: Again, no science PhD required. Anyone can easily and obviously establish that the earth is way way older than 6,000 years.
Your patronizing attitude does not make your assertions true. In fact, people WITH PhD's take issue with the majority view, just like they do with evolution itself. Further, your argument from 'what is obvious' has often proved wrong. The rotational view of the earth, for instance, was 'obviously' NOT true because, if the earth was spinning, a rock thrown in the air would land farther away, and things not tethered to the earth would fly off. Since those things do not happen, some people reasoned that the earth could not be spinning. But science showed that it was.
So when you say that the earth is 'obviously' old, without understanding the assumptions behind such interpretation of the data, you are not being reasoned or scientific, but polemical. That holds little weight in a real discussion of what is true.
>> ALSEE: Most of the fossil record is random and gappy.
Agreed. That’s why Stephen Jay Gould formulated the punctuated equilibrium model – because the fossil record does not support gradualism. Your way around it is to say that ‘transitional’ fossils, or fossils in general, are too rare to show up in large numbers. That assumption itself is suspect, but even if it is correct, you can’t use a few arguable intermediate fossils to substantiate your claim. It’s basically an argument from ignorance (or lack of data).
And as more recent genetic data is showing, the assumed relatedness between similar species based on phenotype is often contradicted by the genotypes, so I suspect that many of your sparse ‘intermediates’ may not be related at all. Further, variability within a species is not evolution.
I am not saying that there is NO evidence for evolution, but it’s much sparser, and more contradictory than you would like. There is PLENTY of room to intellectually doubt common descent, and the fossil record does not make an ironclad case, but often contradicts evolution.
>> ALSEE: Scientists long ago resolved the question that evolution is absolutely true.
While many have concluded such, they have not ‘resolved’ the issue, for here we are disputing it, and not just us, but scientists with impressive pedigrees who doubt. While they are portrayed as religious nuts, and treated like Pariahs, not to mention persecuted (have you seen Expelled yet? If not, you can read my review at Expelled – well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see), they are real, and growing in number. Many people fail to speak about their doubts for fear of reprisals. As one doubter said, “better not to express your doubts until after you’ve got tenure.”
In fact, the fact that scientists are now trying to suppress dissent has a precedent in history – it’s the dogmatism that comes before an established theory (like geocentrism) falls.
It is only ‘as sure as gravity’ for those who have an emotional need for it to be ‘beyond doubt.’ See Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
>> ALSEE: There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution,
Actually, can you quote any ‘evidences’ for evolution that can not be explained as
– variation within species
– simple recombination events of existing DNA information
And even if you can (I am famililiar with some supposed evidences), most of what you think of as ‘entire libraries’ are really libraries of scientific data that has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory at all, it’s just the typical scientific method, and evolution is neither material nor influential in the findings. Most of the great findings of science, if not ALL, are independent of evolutionary theory. In fact, the father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a deeply religious Christian, and saw no conflict between historical faith and science.
Can you name which great discoveries are based on evolution? I can list literally tens or even hundreds that spring directly from the Christian, deist, creationist world view. In fact, check out:
– No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
– The biblical origins of science
– The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West
>> ALSEE: What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Actually, if you research the Galileo affair (I highly recommend the chapter in D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, you can look inside it at amazon), you will see that
(1) everyone believed in geocentrism, including science,
(2) the church adopted it, not because the bible said so, but because Christianity has rarely been at odds with science, and in fact, was in the middle ages practically the sole supporter of science and learning), and so accepted it as the established theory of the day
(3) the church did not persecute Galilee for his science, but for his mocking of the Pope and doctrinal claims which he made alongside his theory
(4) his ‘persecution’ amounted to 5 months of house arrest at the home of a rich friend, followed by a peaceful life till his natural death
(5) the idea that faith, and esp. Christianity, has had an adversarial relationship with science is ENTIRELY a fabrication, flatly contradicted by history, and shown to be created by anti-catholic writers who have since been debunked – yet their legacy of disinformation gets brainwashed into people like you and me.
The reason that Christian disagree with evolution has nothing to do with an antipathy for science, but for BAD science that has unbiblical implications. This is why Christians resisted the eugenics movements in the US, even though it was based on ‘evolutionary science.’ Evolution is a farce that many have bought into for emotional reasons, but not for scientific ones. There are good reasons to doubt, but evolutionary believers don’t tolerate doubt. Oh sure, modify the model, no problem, but discard it? Heresy.
>> ALSEE: Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
I’m telling YOU, not God, what probably is and is not true. I am telling YOU how GOD runs the universe, not telling God how to do it. I’m telling you that I deny that EVOLUTION is untrue, and incompatible with both science and biblical faith.
>> ALSEE: Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Like many evolutionists, you confuse operational science with historical science. They are not equal. You have never seen evolution, nor used it in a lab to create truly different species. We’ve bombarded fruit flies for millions of generations, and have we yet evolved them? Nope. You get either a normal one, a dysfunctional one, or a dead one.
I can demonstrate HOW optics works. You can only hypothesize about evolution.
>> ALSEE: Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create?
On what basis? Because you said so? I am a scientist, not just a believer. I don’t see a ‘perfect’ universe, and the bible doesn’t claim one either. It claims it STARTED perfect but was corrupted and is winding down. That’s matches EXACTLY with what I see. I don’t see evolution, but devolution and extinction, mostly.
>> ALSEE: That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
That’s a colorful and heartwarming comparison. But that’s not science.
>> ALSEE: Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Again, I’m not telling God, I’m telling the likes of YOU how it is, not how you or I wish it was.
>> ALSEE: And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism.
You’ve made the molehills of evidence into mountains in your mind. They vanish upon inspection. You’ve been duped.
I don’t claim evolution = atheism. Go back and reread my stuff. Rather, I say that the fact that evolution is so easily integrated into atheistic, and more importantly, eugenic points of view makes it suspect, if not guilty, and even BEFORE that, it’s just not scientifically valid, observable, or even falsifiable.
>> ALSEE: Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it.
Oh, I never said that. I said that evolution contradicts the scriptural views of history, theology, and philosophy, the scientific facts, and should not be held by reasonable people or reasonable Christians, and it is NOT UNREASONABLE to doubt evolution.
If evolution is true, does that mean that God is false? Many believe so, and have lost their faith in the Christian God needlessly over the false assertions of evolution. I think that in some ways, they are being logically consistent to see them as mutually exclusive. I don’t think that’s necessary. You can be a real Christian and have erroneous views about history, science, or even theology. But you can’t be a healthy mature one if you believe lies.
>> ALSEE: Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
I made no such assertion. Christian evolutionists are just mistaken, and logically inconsistent. And again, belief in evolution/creation is not a central tenet, so you can believe what you like. But to demean evolutionary doubters as unscientific is wrong. You might also like my post Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
>> ALSEE: Most of the fossil record is random and gappy.
Agreed. That’s why Stephen Jay Gould formulated the punctuated equilibrium model – because the fossil record does not support gradualism. Your way around it is to say that ‘transitional’ fossils, or fossils in general, are too rare to show up in large numbers. That assumption itself is suspect, but even if it is correct, you can’t use a few arguable intermediate fossils to substantiate your claim. It’s basically an argument from ignorance (or lack of data).
And as more recent genetic data is showing, the assumed relatedness between similar species based on phenotype is often contradicted by the genotypes, so I suspect that many of your sparse ‘intermediates’ may not be related at all. Further, variability within a species is not evolution.
I am not saying that there is NO evidence for evolution, but it’s much sparser, and more contradictory than you would like. There is PLENTY of room to intellectually doubt common descent, and the fossil record does not make an ironclad case, but often contradicts evolution.
>> ALSEE: Scientists long ago resolved the question that evolution is absolutely true.
While many have concluded such, they have not ‘resolved’ the issue, for here we are disputing it, and not just us, but scientists with impressive pedigrees who doubt. While they are portrayed as religious nuts, and treated like Pariahs, not to mention persecuted (have you seen Expelled yet? If not, you can read my review at Expelled – well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see), they are real, and growing in number. Many people fail to speak about their doubts for fear of reprisals. As one doubter said, “better not to express your doubts until after you’ve got tenure.”
In fact, the fact that scientists are now trying to suppress dissent has a precedent in history – it’s the dogmatism that comes before an established theory (like geocentrism) falls.
It is only ‘as sure as gravity’ for those who have an emotional need for it to be ‘beyond doubt.’ See Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
>> ALSEE: There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution,
Actually, can you quote any ‘evidences’ for evolution that can not be explained as
– variation within species
– simple recombination events of existing DNA information
And even if you can (I am famililiar with some supposed evidences), most of what you think of as ‘entire libraries’ are really libraries of scientific data that has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory at all, it’s just the typical scientific method, and evolution is neither material nor influential in the findings. Most of the great findings of science, if not ALL, are independent of evolutionary theory. In fact, the father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a deeply religious Christian, and saw no conflict between historical faith and science.
Can you name which great discoveries are based on evolution? I can list literally tens or even hundreds that spring directly from the Christian, deist, creationist world view. In fact, check out:
– No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
– The biblical origins of science
– The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West
>> ALSEE: What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Actually, if you research the Galileo affair (I highly recommend the chapter in D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, you can look inside it at amazon), you will see that
(1) everyone believed in geocentrism, including science,
(2) the church adopted it, not because the bible said so, but because Christianity has rarely been at odds with science, and in fact, was in the middle ages practically the sole supporter of science and learning), and so accepted it as the established theory of the day
(3) the church did not persecute Galilee for his science, but for his mocking of the Pope and doctrinal claims which he made alongside his theory
(4) his ‘persecution’ amounted to 5 months of house arrest at the home of a rich friend, followed by a peaceful life till his natural death
(5) the idea that faith, and esp. Christianity, has had an adversarial relationship with science is ENTIRELY a fabrication, flatly contradicted by history, and shown to be created by anti-catholic writers who have since been debunked – yet their legacy of disinformation gets brainwashed into people like you and me.
The reason that Christian disagree with evolution has nothing to do with an antipathy for science, but for BAD science that has unbiblical implications. This is why Christians resisted the eugenics movements in the US, even though it was based on ‘evolutionary science.’ Evolution is a farce that many have bought into for emotional reasons, but not for scientific ones. There are good reasons to doubt, but evolutionary believers don’t tolerate doubt. Oh sure, modify the model, no problem, but discard it? Heresy.
>> ALSEE: Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
I’m telling YOU, not God, what probably is and is not true. I am telling YOU how GOD runs the universe, not telling God how to do it. I’m telling you that I deny that EVOLUTION is untrue, and incompatible with both science and biblical faith.
>> ALSEE: Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Like many evolutionists, you confuse operational science with historical science. They are not equal. You have never seen evolution, nor used it in a lab to create truly different species. We’ve bombarded fruit flies for millions of generations, and have we yet evolved them? Nope. You get either a normal one, a dysfunctional one, or a dead one.
I can demonstrate HOW optics works. You can only hypothesize about evolution.
>> ALSEE: Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create?
On what basis? Because you said so? I am a scientist, not just a believer. I don’t see a ‘perfect’ universe, and the bible doesn’t claim one either. It claims it STARTED perfect but was corrupted and is winding down. That’s matches EXACTLY with what I see. I don’t see evolution, but devolution and extinction, mostly.
>> ALSEE: That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
That’s a colorful and heartwarming comparison. But that’s not science.
>> ALSEE: Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Again, I’m not telling God, I’m telling the likes of YOU how it is, not how you or I wish it was.
>> ALSEE: And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism.
You’ve made the molehills of evidence into mountains in your mind. They vanish upon inspection. You’ve been duped.
I don’t claim evolution = atheism. Go back and reread my stuff. Rather, I say that the fact that evolution is so easily integrated into atheistic, and more importantly, eugenic points of view makes it suspect, if not guilty, and even BEFORE that, it’s just not scientifically valid, observable, or even falsifiable.
>> ALSEE: Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it.
Oh, I never said that. I said that evolution contradicts the scriptural views of history, theology, and philosophy, the scientific facts, and should not be held by reasonable people or reasonable Christians, and it is NOT UNREASONABLE to doubt evolution.
If evolution is true, does that mean that God is false? Many believe so, and have lost their faith in the Christian God needlessly over the false assertions of evolution. I think that in some ways, they are being logically consistent to see them as mutually exclusive. I don’t think that’s necessary. You can be a real Christian and have erroneous views about history, science, or even theology. But you can’t be a healthy mature one if you believe lies.
>> ALSEE: Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
I made no such assertion. Christian evolutionists are just mistaken, and logically inconsistent. And again, belief in evolution/creation is not a central tenet, so you can believe what you like. But to demean evolutionary doubters as unscientific is wrong. You might also like my post Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
>> ALSEE: Most of the fossil record is random and gappy.
Agreed. That’s why Stephen Jay Gould formulated the punctuated equilibrium model – because the fossil record does not support gradualism. Your way around it is to say that ‘transitional’ fossils, or fossils in general, are too rare to show up in large numbers. That assumption itself is suspect, but even if it is correct, you can’t use a few arguable intermediate fossils to substantiate your claim. It’s basically an argument from ignorance (or lack of data).
And as more recent genetic data is showing, the assumed relatedness between similar species based on phenotype is often contradicted by the genotypes, so I suspect that many of your sparse ‘intermediates’ may not be related at all. Further, variability within a species is not evolution.
I am not saying that there is NO evidence for evolution, but it’s much sparser, and more contradictory than you would like. There is PLENTY of room to intellectually doubt common descent, and the fossil record does not make an ironclad case, but often contradicts evolution.
>> ALSEE: Scientists long ago resolved the question that evolution is absolutely true.
While many have concluded such, they have not ‘resolved’ the issue, for here we are disputing it, and not just us, but scientists with impressive pedigrees who doubt. While they are portrayed as religious nuts, and treated like Pariahs, not to mention persecuted (have you seen Expelled yet? If not, you can read my review at Expelled – well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see), they are real, and growing in number. Many people fail to speak about their doubts for fear of reprisals. As one doubter said, “better not to express your doubts until after you’ve got tenure.”
In fact, the fact that scientists are now trying to suppress dissent has a precedent in history – it’s the dogmatism that comes before an established theory (like geocentrism) falls.
It is only ‘as sure as gravity’ for those who have an emotional need for it to be ‘beyond doubt.’ See Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
>> ALSEE: There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution,
Actually, can you quote any ‘evidences’ for evolution that can not be explained as
– variation within species
– simple recombination events of existing DNA information
And even if you can (I am famililiar with some supposed evidences), most of what you think of as ‘entire libraries’ are really libraries of scientific data that has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory at all, it’s just the typical scientific method, and evolution is neither material nor influential in the findings. Most of the great findings of science, if not ALL, are independent of evolutionary theory. In fact, the father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a deeply religious Christian, and saw no conflict between historical faith and science.
Can you name which great discoveries are based on evolution? I can list literally tens or even hundreds that spring directly from the Christian, deist, creationist world view. In fact, check out:
– No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
– The biblical origins of science
– The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West
>> ALSEE: What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Actually, if you research the Galileo affair (I highly recommend the chapter in D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, you can look inside it at amazon), you will see that
(1) everyone believed in geocentrism, including science,
(2) the church adopted it, not because the bible said so, but because Christianity has rarely been at odds with science, and in fact, was in the middle ages practically the sole supporter of science and learning), and so accepted it as the established theory of the day
(3) the church did not persecute Galilee for his science, but for his mocking of the Pope and doctrinal claims which he made alongside his theory
(4) his ‘persecution’ amounted to 5 months of house arrest at the home of a rich friend, followed by a peaceful life till his natural death
(5) the idea that faith, and esp. Christianity, has had an adversarial relationship with science is ENTIRELY a fabrication, flatly contradicted by history, and shown to be created by anti-catholic writers who have since been debunked – yet their legacy of disinformation gets brainwashed into people like you and me.
The reason that Christian disagree with evolution has nothing to do with an antipathy for science, but for BAD science that has unbiblical implications. This is why Christians resisted the eugenics movements in the US, even though it was based on ‘evolutionary science.’ Evolution is a farce that many have bought into for emotional reasons, but not for scientific ones. There are good reasons to doubt, but evolutionary believers don’t tolerate doubt. Oh sure, modify the model, no problem, but discard it? Heresy.
>> ALSEE: Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
I’m telling YOU, not God, what probably is and is not true. I am telling YOU how GOD runs the universe, not telling God how to do it. I’m telling you that I deny that EVOLUTION is untrue, and incompatible with both science and biblical faith.
>> ALSEE: Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Like many evolutionists, you confuse operational science with historical science. They are not equal. You have never seen evolution, nor used it in a lab to create truly different species. We’ve bombarded fruit flies for millions of generations, and have we yet evolved them? Nope. You get either a normal one, a dysfunctional one, or a dead one.
I can demonstrate HOW optics works. You can only hypothesize about evolution.
>> ALSEE: Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create?
On what basis? Because you said so? I am a scientist, not just a believer. I don’t see a ‘perfect’ universe, and the bible doesn’t claim one either. It claims it STARTED perfect but was corrupted and is winding down. That’s matches EXACTLY with what I see. I don’t see evolution, but devolution and extinction, mostly.
>> ALSEE: That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
That’s a colorful and heartwarming comparison. But that’s not science.
>> ALSEE: Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Again, I’m not telling God, I’m telling the likes of YOU how it is, not how you or I wish it was.
>> ALSEE: And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism.
You’ve made the molehills of evidence into mountains in your mind. They vanish upon inspection. You’ve been duped.
I don’t claim evolution = atheism. Go back and reread my stuff. Rather, I say that the fact that evolution is so easily integrated into atheistic, and more importantly, eugenic points of view makes it suspect, if not guilty, and even BEFORE that, it’s just not scientifically valid, observable, or even falsifiable.
>> ALSEE: Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it.
Oh, I never said that. I said that evolution contradicts the scriptural views of history, theology, and philosophy, the scientific facts, and should not be held by reasonable people or reasonable Christians, and it is NOT UNREASONABLE to doubt evolution.
If evolution is true, does that mean that God is false? Many believe so, and have lost their faith in the Christian God needlessly over the false assertions of evolution. I think that in some ways, they are being logically consistent to see them as mutually exclusive. I don’t think that’s necessary. You can be a real Christian and have erroneous views about history, science, or even theology. But you can’t be a healthy mature one if you believe lies.
>> ALSEE: Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
I made no such assertion. Christian evolutionists are just mistaken, and logically inconsistent. And again, belief in evolution/creation is not a central tenet, so you can believe what you like. But to demean evolutionary doubters as unscientific is wrong. You might also like my post Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
>> ALSEE: Most of the fossil record is random and gappy.
Agreed. That's why Stephen Jay Gould formulated the punctuated equilibrium model – because the fossil record does not support gradualism. Your way around it is to say that 'transitional' fossils, or fossils in general, are too rare to show up in large numbers. That assumption itself is suspect, but even if it is correct, you can't use a few arguable intermediate fossils to substantiate your claim. It's basically an argument from ignorance (or lack of data).
And as more recent genetic data is showing, the assumed relatedness between similar species based on phenotype is often contradicted by the genotypes, so I suspect that many of your sparse 'intermediates' may not be related at all. Further, variability within a species is not evolution.
I am not saying that there is NO evidence for evolution, but it's much sparser, and more contradictory than you would like. There is PLENTY of room to intellectually doubt common descent, and the fossil record does not make an ironclad case, but often contradicts evolution.
>> ALSEE: Scientists long ago resolved the question that evolution is absolutely true.
While many have concluded such, they have not 'resolved' the issue, for here we are disputing it, and not just us, but scientists with impressive pedigrees who doubt. While they are portrayed as religious nuts, and treated like Pariahs, not to mention persecuted (have you seen Expelled yet? If not, you can read my review at Expelled – well done, thought provoking, too true for insecure evolutionists to see), they are real, and growing in number. Many people fail to speak about their doubts for fear of reprisals. As one doubter said, "better not to express your doubts until after you've got tenure."
In fact, the fact that scientists are now trying to suppress dissent has a precedent in history – it's the dogmatism that comes before an established theory (like geocentrism) falls.
It is only 'as sure as gravity' for those who have an emotional need for it to be 'beyond doubt.' See Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution.
>> ALSEE: There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution,
Actually, can you quote any ‘evidences’ for evolution that can not be explained as
– variation within species
– simple recombination events of existing DNA information
And even if you can (I am famililiar with some supposed evidences), most of what you think of as ‘entire libraries’ are really libraries of scientific data that has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory at all, it’s just the typical scientific method, and evolution is neither material nor influential in the findings. Most of the great findings of science, if not ALL, are independent of evolutionary theory. In fact, the father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a deeply religious Christian, and saw no conflict between historical faith and science.
Can you name which great discoveries are based on evolution? I can list literally tens or even hundreds that spring directly from the Christian, deist, creationist world view. In fact, check out:
– No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
– The biblical origins of science
– The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West
>> ALSEE: What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Actually, if you research the Galileo affair (I highly recommend the chapter in D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, you can look inside it at amazon), you will see that
(1) everyone believed in geocentrism, including science,
(2) the church adopted it, not because the bible said so, but because Christianity has rarely been at odds with science, and in fact, was in the middle ages practically the sole supporter of science and learning), and so accepted it as the established theory of the day
(3) the church did not persecute Galilee for his science, but for his mocking of the Pope and doctrinal claims which he made alongside his theory
(4) his ‘persecution’ amounted to 5 months of house arrest at the home of a rich friend, followed by a peaceful life till his natural death
(5) the idea that faith, and esp. Christianity, has had an adversarial relationship with science is ENTIRELY a fabrication, flatly contradicted by history, and shown to be created by anti-catholic writers who have since been debunked – yet their legacy of disinformation gets brainwashed into people like you and me.
The reason that Christian disagree with evolution has nothing to do with an antipathy for science, but for BAD science that has unbiblical implications. This is why Christians resisted the eugenics movements in the US, even though it was based on ‘evolutionary science.’ Evolution is a farce that many have bought into for emotional reasons, but not for scientific ones. There are good reasons to doubt, but evolutionary believers don’t tolerate doubt. Oh sure, modify the model, no problem, but discard it? Heresy.
>> ALSEE: Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
I’m telling YOU, not God, what probably is and is not true. I am telling YOU how GOD runs the universe, not telling God how to do it. I’m telling you that I deny that EVOLUTION is untrue, and incompatible with both science and biblical faith.
>> ALSEE: Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Like many evolutionists, you confuse operational science with historical science. They are not equal. You have never seen evolution, nor used it in a lab to create truly different species. We’ve bombarded fruit flies for millions of generations, and have we yet evolved them? Nope. You get either a normal one, a dysfunctional one, or a dead one.
I can demonstrate HOW optics works. You can only hypothesize about evolution.
>> ALSEE: Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create?
On what basis? Because you said so? I am a scientist, not just a believer. I don’t see a ‘perfect’ universe, and the bible doesn’t claim one either. It claims it STARTED perfect but was corrupted and is winding down. That’s matches EXACTLY with what I see. I don’t see evolution, but devolution and extinction, mostly.
>> ALSEE: That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
That’s a colorful and heartwarming comparison. But that’s not science.
>> ALSEE: Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Again, I’m not telling God, I’m telling the likes of YOU how it is, not how you or I wish it was.
>> ALSEE: And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism.
You’ve made the molehills of evidence into mountains in your mind. They vanish upon inspection. You’ve been duped.
I don’t claim evolution = atheism. Go back and reread my stuff. Rather, I say that the fact that evolution is so easily integrated into atheistic, and more importantly, eugenic points of view makes it suspect, if not guilty, and even BEFORE that, it’s just not scientifically valid, observable, or even falsifiable.
>> ALSEE: Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it.
Oh, I never said that. I said that evolution contradicts the scriptural views of history, theology, and philosophy, the scientific facts, and should not be held by reasonable people or reasonable Christians, and it is NOT UNREASONABLE to doubt evolution.
If evolution is true, does that mean that God is false? Many believe so, and have lost their faith in the Christian God needlessly over the false assertions of evolution. I think that in some ways, they are being logically consistent to see them as mutually exclusive. I don’t think that’s necessary. You can be a real Christian and have erroneous views about history, science, or even theology. But you can’t be a healthy mature one if you believe lies.
>> ALSEE: Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
I made no such assertion. Christian evolutionists are just mistaken, and logically inconsistent. And again, belief in evolution/creation is not a central tenet, so you can believe what you like. But to demean evolutionary doubters as unscientific is wrong. You might also like my post Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
>> ALSEE: There are literally entire libraries filled with more proof of evolution, there are countless experiments proving evolution, I cant go on an on for pages covering an infinitesimal speck of that proof, I am confident I can answer most any honest(*) question or challenge you have against evolution,
Actually, can you quote any 'evidences' for evolution that can not be explained as
– variation within species
– simple recombination events of existing DNA information
And even if you can (I am famililiar with some supposed evidences), most of what you think of as 'entire libraries' are really libraries of scientific data that has NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory at all, it's just the typical scientific method, and evolution is neither material nor influential in the findings. Most of the great findings of science, if not ALL, are independent of evolutionary theory. In fact, the father of the scientific method, Francis Bacon, was a deeply religious Christian, and saw no conflict between historical faith and science.
Can you name which great discoveries are based on evolution? I can list literally tens or even hundreds that spring directly from the Christian, deist, creationist world view. In fact, check out:
– No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
– The biblical origins of science
– The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West
>> ALSEE: What you are doing today with Darwin and evolution is no different than what happened with Galileo and his solar system. SOME Christians claimed that solar system science was in conflict with the Bible, exactly as you and SOME other Christians do today with evolution.
Actually, if you research the Galileo affair (I highly recommend the chapter in D’Souza’s book What’s So Great about Christianity, you can look inside it at amazon), you will see that
(1) everyone believed in geocentrism, including science,
(2) the church adopted it, not because the bible said so, but because Christianity has rarely been at odds with science, and in fact, was in the middle ages practically the sole supporter of science and learning), and so accepted it as the established theory of the day
(3) the church did not persecute Galilee for his science, but for his mocking of the Pope and doctrinal claims which he made alongside his theory
(4) his ‘persecution’ amounted to 5 months of house arrest at the home of a rich friend, followed by a peaceful life till his natural death
(5) the idea that faith, and esp. Christianity, has had an adversarial relationship with science is ENTIRELY a fabrication, flatly contradicted by history, and shown to be created by anti-catholic writers who have since been debunked – yet their legacy of disinformation gets brainwashed into people like you and me.
The reason that Christian disagree with evolution has nothing to do with an antipathy for science, but for BAD science that has unbiblical implications. This is why Christians resisted the eugenics movements in the US, even though it was based on ‘evolutionary science.’ Evolution is a farce that many have bought into for emotional reasons, but not for scientific ones. There are good reasons to doubt, but evolutionary believers don’t tolerate doubt. Oh sure, modify the model, no problem, but discard it? Heresy.
>> ALSEE: Stop telling God how He is and is not permitted to run His universe. Stop telling God that you deny His existence if evolution is true, if evolution is how He chose to do it.
I’m telling YOU, not God, what probably is and is not true. I am telling YOU how GOD runs the universe, not telling God how to do it. I’m telling you that I claim that EVOLUTION is untrue, and incompatible with both science and biblical faith.
>> ALSEE: Evolution is no different than optics.
The science of optics explains HOW rainbows are created.
Evolution explains HOW the diversity of life is created.
Like many evolutionists, you confuse operational science with historical science. They are not equal. You have never seen evolution, nor used it in a lab to create truly different species. We’ve bombarded fruit flies for millions of generations, and have we yet evolved them? Nope. You get either a normal one, a dysfunctional one, or a dead one.
I can demonstrate HOW optics works. You can only hypothesize about evolution.
>> ALSEE: Can’t you just accept God created a perfect complete universe with perfect complete mechanisms (aka laws of physics aka laws of nature) to create everything He wanted to create?
On what basis? Because you said so? I am a scientist, not just a believer. I don’t see a ‘perfect’ universe, and the bible doesn’t claim one either. It claims it STARTED perfect but was corrupted and is winding down. That’s matches EXACTLY with what I see. I don’t see evolution, but devolution and extinction, mostly.
>> ALSEE: That the science of optics is merely God’s chosen means for creating rainbows just as evolution is God’s chosen means for creating the rich diversity of life?
That’s a colorful and heartwarming comparison. But that’s not science.
>> ALSEE: Again, I say quit telling God how He is and is not allowed to run His universe.
Again, I’m not telling God, I’m telling the likes of YOU how it is, not how you or I wish it was.
>> ALSEE: And even if you still deny the mountains of evidence for evolution, at minimum please at least quit claiming evolution = atheism.
You’ve made the molehills of evidence into mountains in your mind. They vanish upon inspection. You’ve been duped.
I don’t claim evolution = atheism. Go back and reread my stuff. Rather, I say that the fact that evolution is so easily integrated into atheistic, and more importantly, eugenic points of view makes it suspect, if not guilty, and even BEFORE that, it’s just not scientifically valid, observable, or even falsifiable.
>> ALSEE: Quit asserting that God is forbidden to exist just because He didn’t do things exactly the way you insist He did it.
Oh, I never said that. I said that evolution contradicts the scriptural views of history, theology, and philosophy, the scientific facts, and should not be held by reasonable people or reasonable Christians, and it is NOT UNREASONABLE to doubt evolution.
If evolution is true, does that mean that God is false? Many believe so, and have lost their faith in the Christian God needlessly over the false assertions of evolution. I think that in some ways, they are being logically consistent to see them as mutually exclusive. I don’t think that’s necessary. You can be a real Christian and have erroneous views about history, science, or even theology. But you can’t be a healthy mature one if you believe lies.
>> ALSEE: Quit smearing Christian evolutionists as atheists. It’s false and it’s obnoxious.
I made no such assertion. Christian evolutionists are just mistaken, and logically inconsistent. And again, belief in evolution/creation is not a central tenet, so you can believe what you like. But to demean evolutionary doubters as unscientific is wrong. You might also like my post Is Creationism a Barrier to Faith?
Hitler? Oh hell, you didn’t.
You did. Sigh.
One side of my family was exterminated in the concentration camps, so I’d rather you didn’t go throwing Hitler around in dirty smear attack, thankyouverymuch. It would also be nice if you at least got your history right, thankyouverymuch. People are all too ready to automatically believe and repeat things they hear when it supports their idea that thing-X or people-X are evil. The Nazis are the icon of evil, people believe thing-X or people-X are evil, so someone uses the Nazis to smear X and others who hate X assume it’s naturally true and repeat it.
Take a look at some quotes from Hitler’s speeches beginning Nazism:
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.
National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.
The Nazi party motto was “Gott mit uns”, which means “God is with us”. The phrase was stamped on their military belt buckles.
The Nazi Party established an official policy with the Church that Christian instruction would be established as a regular portion of the curriculum in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools. Article 21 reads “In religious instruction, special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects.“.
The Nazi party was RABIDLY anti-atheist. In the typical warped logic of religious fundamentalism, atheism was one of the many charges leveled against the Jews. At times people become presumptuous in the perfection of their faith, and presumptuous in their own perfection in their understanding of God. Anything that conflicts with their (presumed perfect) understanding of God becomes a denial of God himself. The Jews denied the One True religion, therefore the Jews deny God. In the 1500’s Galileo’s science denied the Church’s presumed self-perfection in understanding God and understanding the Bible. Many accused Galileo and his science of being atheism. Just as today many accuse evolution of atheism.
Hitler was was Christian. To the extent Nazism was “concordant” with religion, that religion was Evangelical Christianity. Hitler and Nazism were explicitly dedicated to establishing a faithful Evangelical Christian population with Evangelical Christian religious instruction in the schools. Nazism’s mission in the name of Christianity.
You can call the Nazis BAD Christians, you can call them wildly MISGUIDED Christians, but it is up-side-down false to think Hitler or the Nazis were atheist.
The only connection between the Nazis and atheism is that the Nazis wanted to EXTERMINATE atheism.
The only connection between the Nazis and evolution is that Hitler twisted anything any everything – including Christianity – to their warped and evil ideology. They did what they did because simply hated the Jews, hated the homosexuals, and hated atheists. They didn’t do it because of evolution or because of Christianity. They did it out of hate and fear and the lust for power and faith in government-in-the-name-of-God.
Note that none of this should be taken as a smear attack against Christianity or Christians. There are evil people from every religious persuasion. bin Laden is Muslim, Stalin was atheist. Christianity is not wrong or evil just because Hitler was evil and twisted Christianity to evil. You however were wrong for trying to smear atheists and evolution with Hitler.
I presume you simply unknowingly echoed the slanderous lies you’ve heard too often repeated by others, but it’s still a dirty and invalid argument even if it were true. The Nazis believed 2+2=4. That does not make math wrong, does not make math evil. Evolution is true or false, based on the evidence. Period. Hitler doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
I have a partial reply written down answering many of the religious/theological issues from your last post, but I would like nothing better than to be able to skip the whole subject. I only got into it because you insist on a theological conflict with standard science. I am not here to push my theology. I happen to have minority religious beliefs, but they are not relevant here. I am here to defend valid science, and to the extent I address theology I do so from the majority perspective – and that majority position is mainstream-Christian-with-evolution.
If you are agreeable, I would like nothing better than to drop the Hitler subject entirely, drop the whole atheism thing, drop all of the theology issues, and examine just the evidence for/against evolution in a rational objective manner. I ask only that you take the same approach that you would advise for someone who opposed Galileo on Biblical grounds. To step back from the theology, to step back from religious dogma, and to examine the evidence on its own merits. That if the evidence shows merit, that if Galileo is right, it does not mean God doesn’t exist. It merely means we are all imperfect people with an imperfect understanding of God. That if Galileo and Darwin are truth, learning that truth can only serve to increase our humble understanding.
I will check back here, and I hope next post I can get back to science and an examination of the evidence. I am very confident that the evidence shows both chemistry and evolution to be correct, and if somehow I am wrong, I do sincerely want to learn how chemistry is wrong or how evolution is wrong. If I’m wrong, I want to see and understand the evidence showing where I’m wrong. The earth is young or old, based on the evidence. Evolution is right or wrong, based on the evidence.
"I want to see and understand the evidence showing where I'm wrong. The earth is young or old, based on the evidence."
Alsee, I just wanted to warn you that you are wasting your time speaking to this guy about evidence and evolution. Danielg has seen this video, Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG and somehow still manages to believe that the Earth is 6k – 10k years old. Evidence is not what is important to this guy because he's a religious fanatic; A young Earth creationist.
"Creationists are not interested in science, data, or truth. They just want to believe in their simple myth and will twist facts and data, and even LIE to support their claim."
Cineaste, trust me, trust me, I am too familiar with the frustration you feel. I make a deliberate effort to set aside the ill feelings I have for some people behaving badly on this subject in the past. I make a deliberate effort to start new people I meet with a clean slate, offering my hand more than half way seeking a good faith productive dialog. I am all too often painfully disappointed, but I have also been pleasantly and rewardingly surprised on occasion. I try hard not to blame anyone unless/until I see them prove themselves incapable of productive discussion. danielg has not crossed that line – at least not yet (chuckle). I'm still willing to extend my hand a bit, even if it may be wasted time.
If you notice my last two paragraphs last post, I made a strong step either towards either productive discussion or proving it impossible. I made a call to set aside theology and to objectively consider the evidence together, an invitation that should entice anyone who considers themselves reasonable and open to discussion. And alternately, it gives danielg the chance to immediately prove himself incapable of productive dialog, in which case I plan to move on.
You are missing the point entirely, and perhaps that is my fault for being unclear. Evolution does not create atheism, nor do I contend that Christians don't believe in evolution. Let me be clear about my various points:
1. Evolution as an ideology is congruent with and has been used historically to promote and support atheism and all atheist regimes, often showing up prominently.
2. Evolution also contributed significantly to the scientific legitimacy of Nazism (no atheist references here), as well as eugenics and racism.
3. Evolution's philosophic and theological implications are not compatible with Christianity
4. Evolution is quite possibly, if not probably, untrue, and those who claim it as a certainty are merely self-deceived religious believers.
>> ALSEE: Hitler? Oh hell, you didn't. You did. Sigh.One side of my family was exterminated in the concentration camps, so I'd rather you didn't go throwing Hitler around in dirty smear attack, thankyouverymuch.
1. Actually, so were mine. I am half Jewish, and my Polish great grand parent's and their generation were killed also. So I am not throwing these accusations around lightly.
2. I'd rather you didn't go throwing around your holier than thou attitude just because you had relatives killed, nor accusing me of the lowbrow tactic of calling evolutionists Hitlerian, which I do not do.
3. While careless references to Hitler when addressing ideological opponents may be common on flame sites, I assure you that I am not making baseless or careless accusations.
The historical fact is that Social Darwinism was a considerable factor in most, if not many of the genocides of modern history, including its very important role in communism, Nazism, American and European eugenics, and the rolling back of advances in the post-Civil War reconstruction.
And I say all this, not because it proves evolution false, but as (1) relevant information that those who worship at the church of Darwin overlook willfully, and (2) it bears on my argument that evolutionary theological and philosophical implications are incompatible with Biblical Christianity.
As to the actual truth or untruth of evolution, I think that the facts speak, but those who need evolution to be true and follow it slavishly without real skepticism ignore the gaping holes and contradictory evidence.
>> ALSEE: Take a look at some quotes from Hitler’s speeches beginning Nazism:
Actually, if you have read Mein Kampf, you will know that Hitler made such statements to manipulate the public, not because he believed them. His ‘Christianity’ was not sincere, nor biblical. You are being duped by his propoganda just like the people of his day. As Hitler’s Table Talk revealed, his true thoughts on religion were not favorable:
And there are many more such quotes. From Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs(Wikipedia):
Also, see Nazi Attitudes towards Christianity.
Also, see The Nazis and Christianity:
>> ALSEE: The Nazi party was RABIDLY anti-atheist.
While it is probable that Hitler was not an atheist, it is spurious to think that Nazism was anti-atheist.
I'm sure any threat to Nazism, including atheists who were engaged in the "free thought" movement, were not favored. However, as I've said, I've never really said that Nazism was atheist, though I've read that many of his henchmen were.
I merely state that Darwinism has been significantly used (and you may argue abused, but I think such outcomes are logical extensions of Darwinism even if they are distasteful, and so did Darwin, see Darwin Understood the Social Application of his Theory) in support of both horrific atheist regimes, as well as the racist and eugenics movements of modernity, including Nazi Germany.
Please do not think that I am calling Nazism atheistic.
>> ALSEE: Note that none of this should be taken as a smear attack against Christianity or Christians.
None taken, because he was a Christian in propoganda only. However, he was a Social Darwinist in truth, and the influence of Darwinism is only understimated by its proponents, not by historians. I suggest you actually read such works as :
Hitler's Professors
6 Million and Counting: Darwin, Atheism and Genocide, The Darwinian Crisis in America
Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler
Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State by G.K. Chesterton
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
>> ALSEE: I presume you simply unknowingly echoed the slanderous lies you've heard too often repeated by others, but it's still a dirty and invalid argument even if it were true. The Nazis believed 2+2=4. That does not make math wrong, does not make math evil. Evolution is true or false, based on the evidence.
You presume wrong. My arguments are neither dirty nor invalid, you are just misunderstanding. I am not arguing that evolution is wrong because it has significantly contributed to the mass genocides of history.
I am arguing that, true or not, such things have happened, but evolutionary believers are unwilling to see it. I am also arguing that, when a theory is so easily and logically integrated with heinous ethical systems, perhaps it should be suspect. I consider this supporting evidence to the bankruptcy of Darwinism, not the primary argument, which is that
(1) the scientific facts plainly contradict it in many ways, and there are significant gaps
(2) those who claim it as empirical are confused, if not deluded
(3) it contributes little to science or medicine, but has impeded it
(4) it serves as a useful myth of origins for those who hate faith
(5) it is inconsistent with Christian theology and philosophy, and is not neutral on such matters
(6) it is not unreasonable to doubt evolution, or to even believe in a young universe.
And while Louis and others might want to throw up their alarmist 'he is an unthinking bible thumper' flags at such claims, they are merely frustrated that I don't yield to their bullying, appeals to authority and majority, and their deep need for evolution to be true and obeyed.
I merely claim that I am a young universe sympathizer, and think that YECs have compelling arguments. The universe may indeed by old. But evolution itself? It is, IMO, a sham, and I continue to be willing to defend that viewpoint.
>> ALSEE: If you are agreeable, I would like nothing better than to drop the Hitler subject entirely, drop the whole atheism thing, drop all of the theology issues, and examine just the evidence for/against evolution in a rational objective manner. I ask only that you take the same approach that you would advise for someone who opposed Galileo on Biblical grounds.
We could discuss evolution based upon the science alone, and I have addressed the science in many posts.
With you, I am willing to leave the discussion of the ideological and historical links between Darwinism and Nazism, eugenics, genocide, and atheism, but those problems for Darwinism still exist. And my contention that evolutionary thought is incompatible with Christianity is still, in my mind, a strong philosophic and logical argument, and the fact that it upsets people is no surprise, since kicking sacred cows always produces such results now matter how circumspect you are.
If you do not want to discuss those matters because it angers you, or you vehemently disagree and can't imagine that a rational person would hold such views, we do not have to discuss them. That is really your choice.
But don't think you can get away with ad hominems, and (what I consider to be) poorly substantiated logical or historical points, then bail out because you claim my rebuffs 'fanatical,' thinking you have made your point and I am unreasonable.
Such intellectual bullying make some feel superior, but, since I have a science degree and a fair amount of intellectual self-confidence, such tactics mean little to me, except perhaps that I examine myself to see if I can present my arguments next time more compellingly, with less arrogance, vitriol, or patronizing.
So, on to the science? We may end up rehashing common arguments, so let me say this in anticipation:
(1) I appreciate your efforts at reasonable discussion
(2) I admit that some evidence exists to support common descent
(3) I claim that there is a fair amount of evidence contradicting evolution
(4) I claim that evolution contributes little to medicine or science
(5) I claim that no significant genetic information has been shown to be produced by mutation
And more.