The evolution/creation ANSWER (End!)

[Stoid]

How many threads are or have been active on this subject in this last 6 weeks? Ten? Each one comes at it from a minutely different angle than the others, then they all come down to the same thing. Which is: educated people giving reams and reams of information explaining to creationists how and why evolution is a reality, has been proven repeatedly, and in true scientific circles, no debate about the fact of it even exists. The particulars of how it occured, yes. The fact of it occuring is not in dispute, and has not been for a very long time.

On the other side, we have creationists. They pose ridiculous questions, make meaningless assertions, and brush aside everything they can't explain with a "God made it that way, we can't know why." (Let us not forget that, for the most part it appears that most of the believers here do not dispute evolution, they simply accept what is obvious: if God created the earth and all life in it, he apparantly used the mechanism of evolution.)

Why does this debate even exist? Well, the answer lies in another thread question here in Great Debates: why do the religious feel the need to bring others to their belief while atheists do not?

Insecurity.

Here's the question we must ask when viewing the debate dispassionately: who has an axe to grind? Who has an agenda? Who needs to prove that what they believe is true? Well, there's no question that the fundamentalist believers do! They preach, proselytize, condemn, judge, etc. They are very concerned with making as many people as possible believe as they do. If they can convince anyone that separate creation is true, that bolsters their belief system, and they are always concerned with everything that bolsters their belief system, and hostile to anything which appears to threaten it.

Do the evolutionists have an agenda? No. People who accept evolution have zero need or reason to persuade anyone, except in the service of reducing the ignorance in the world. But the evolution scientists themselves don't have any real agenda, apart from the quest for knowledge, like all scientists. They aren't preaching any religion, they don't need to have a belief system bolstered, all they want is to understand and explain. There is no particular truth they want, they have no desire for the facts to fit any preconceived notion, they simply want as many facts as they can get. They want as much truth to be revealed as possible. And of course, if they are the revealers of new truth, they will get accolades and career boosts. But not by proving anything preconceived! They only "win" by revealing what IS, not what ANYONE wants to be. And has been pointed out previously, the original evolution scientists were themselves Christian, and had no desire to prove that God did not exist, they simply sought to understand how He did what He did. And many of todays are also believers. They just don't let that make them ignorant.

This being the case, who has the more trustworthy argument? Who is the more believable advocate? Who is more likely to have truth? The ones who need you to believe with them? The ones who are threatened by information that doesn't (they THINK) support thier beliefs? The ones who are on a campaign to make others think as they do? Or the ones who are simply trying to increase the understanding and knowledge of the whole human race, without any preconceived ideas of what the answers may be?

It's kinda like witnesses in a murder trial; who ya gonna believe: the accused found with the bloody knife in his hand, or the innocent bystanding witnesses and forensic scientists?

Well, guess what: OJ was guilty.

So we can stop arguing now that I have laid out who is full of it.

Thank you, and good night.

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[tomndebb]

C'mon, Stoi, tell us how you really feel.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Or do you have a secret agenda?)

------------------
Tom~

Evolution is a smoke-screen with the creationist crowd. What they are actually trying to do is have their Christian beliefs declared a scientific fact.

[C K Dexter Haven]

... and the risk of ignoring them is that they wind up getting people elected to critical posts (like school boards) where they can influence the curriculum.

Discarding the teaching of evolution (as in Kansas) is only one of their goals. They would also remove from literature classes any works that do not conform to their standards of what is Right and True.

It's scarey.

[Czarcasm]

How about a standard answer for the next person who posts the There isn't any evidence for evil-lution, so you might as well convert to my religion topic. I propose,"dear madame or sir, you are member #(fill in the blank) to pretend to ask for evidence of evolution. Please refer back to the last (fill in the blank-1) topics on the subject for the answer. Thank you and go away."

[David B]

Slythe, maybe you could come up with a general form letter for stuff like that. I know alt.folklore.urban had such a form response to post to ignoramuses who wrote messages about things like flowing glass, friend-of-a-friend stories, etc. :) I used to have a copy, but alas, no more.

[Czarcasm]

Don't want credit, "bro". Send cash. ;).

[pldennison]

Hey, David and slythe, maybe we can get Opal to add it to the Flame Mail Generator at the Teeming Millions home page (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/flamegenerator.html). It also appeared in the latest SD book. It's pretty funny stuff.

[David B]

I like that idea! Ok, who's gonna ask OpalCat? :)

[Aaron White]

I'm a non-militant athiest from Birmingham, Alabama, so I've gotten an earful of religious rationalizing over the years, and I know how the religious right will answer the idea that evolutionists have no axe to grind...

"They're trying to destroy christianity, aren't they? Trying to promote secular humanism! That's their axe! Secular humanism! Teach children that they're animals and they'll behave like animals!" And so on...

[DrFidelius]

AAron-

I've heard of that argument before. That is probably why, according to a poll I've seen, more than 80% of the population of American prisons claim to be Secular Humanists. Those people have evil ideas inserted into their heads, and cannot live a law-abiding life, as they have never been taught a real morality, just a simple punishment scenario.

Um, wait, I misread the data. The prison population is overwhelmingly identify themselves as Christians, with evangelical denomination predominating. Nevermind


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur

[Czarcasm]

O.K., I just popped a message off to OpalCat about this.

[OpalCat]

Your wish is my command (as long as it's cool)

It's done.

------------------
>^,,^<
"Cluemobile? You've got a pickup..."
OpalCat's site: http://opalcat.com
The Teeming Millions Homepage: fathom.org/teemingmillions (http://fathom.org/teemingmillions)

[Stoid]

Interesting that so far no creationists have responded to this.

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

What are we gonna say Stoid? Are we going to argue more? Nah, it's too much of a hassle, and nobody's mind is changed anyway.

The day will come when the truth is revealed to all.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[Stoid]

There isnt' anything you CAN say, and that's pretty much the point.



------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[bj0rn]

stoidela: maybe this has surved a purpose after all...no more creationists. you convinced them that evolution is the true religion in this world...
beware, they might write a book about you!

bj0rn ;)

[vanillanice]

Sure,there is some things we could say,but like Arg said,everyones mind is closed.

[AuraSeer]

Not everyone's mind is closed, vanillanice. Just some people.

Open-minded viewpoint: "Let's look at the world around us, gather as much information as we can, and figure out how things work."

Closed-minded viewpoint: "I know how things work. Anyone who says otherwise is evil and wrong, and must be working toward some hidden agenda."

Sound like a familiar debate?

------------------
Of course I don't fit in; I'm part of a better puzzle.

[tomndebb]

vanillanice:Sure,there is some things we could say,but like Arg said,everyones mind is closed.

Oh, the irony!


I'd be willing to bet that between those who have attacked scientific knowledge and those who have defended scientific knowledge, more defenders of science have read creationist tracts than opposers of science have read scientific literature.

(Any bias that may be found in the above statement is purely in the eye of the beholder. < eg > )

------------------
Tom~

[Polycarp]

Can't resist a challenge....

I believe that the world was created by God.
In 4,600,000,000 BC.
In approximately .00000000000000000001 nanoseconds.
And that all species came into existence by His will.
Through evolution from already extant species.

There....THAT ought to get somebody arguing!

[Stoid]

Tom:

You've got that right! I've read more creationist literature than most creation believers have!

Which reminds me... I occasionally, and used to frequently, listen to Christian radio. I also do the same with right-wing radio, even though I am neither a Christian, nor right wing. Why? So I can get an accurate picture of what "the enemy" so to speak, has to say. I don't want my information filtered through the eyes of people who disagree, I want it stright from the source. Then I know exactly what it is I'm disagreeing with. It's only fair.

Stoid

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

The day will come when the truth is revealed to all.

Yes, and most of us recognize that that day was a hundred and forty years ago.

[Strainger]

Mike King:Evolution is a smoke-screen with the creationist crowd. What they are actually trying to do is have their Christian beliefs declared a scientific fact.Please don't think that Christian = creationist. I consider myself Christian, but not creationist in the literal sense. I tend to follow Pollycarp's way of thinking. I will ignore all attempts to sway my belief one way or the other.

[Strainger]

To clarify, I should've put the last sentence in my post in a separate paragraph.

[tracer]

Polycarp wrote:

I believe that the world was created by God.
In 4,600,000,000 BC.

Okay, I'm with ya so far.

In approximately .00000000000000000001 nanoseconds.

Whoa, there! As far as I know, all the evidence points to an Earth that took hundreds of millions of years to form, from the first few dust grains coalescing together at what would later be its center of mass to the point when the planetessimal bombardments had slowed enough to let the surface cool.

Oh, and some time during this process, the sun lit up.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[kknick34]

Stoidela, you say you listen to Christian radio to find out what the enemy is up to.
Do you really consider Chistians your enemy?
What about Jews & Buddists, are they your enemy too?

Keep in mind not all Christians are intolerent or insecure as you appear to believe.

[vanillanice]

For the Record, I have read Stephen Gould, Carl Sagan,and all of James Randi's books! ;)I believe in creation by Faith.

[AuraSeer]

From Stoid's post:
..."the enemy" so to speak...

See the quotation marks, kknick34? See the words, so to speak? Those things signify that the word "enemy" is not being used literally, but rather in a humorous or flippant manner.

(Some people need an explanation for everything. Sheesh!)

[Strainger]

Yeah, tracer, I'm with you on that one. I left the nanosecond thing alone because I wasn't exactly sure what Polycarp was refering to.

[Polycarp]

Sorry, folks. 10^-43 nanoseconds = creation of Universe X million years = creation of (planet) Earth.

However, the instructions on how long to cook, say, non-instant pudding do not include the cooling time. You going to hold God (or the forces of Nature) to something that you don't expect of Betty Crocker?? :)

[NeedAHobby]

Dramatic environmental events cause some organisms to die and some to continue to live based on the characteristics that distinguish them from other organisms. This is the basis for how evolutionary changes occur.

Is there a consciousness who (or more traditionally, Who) decides when these dramatic events are to occur? Did this consciousness decide my windshield would crack yesterday? Did it decide to slip a geological fault around Turkey a few weeks ago?

Is there purposefulness behind its decisions?

Did it make living things long ago?


------------------
Hey, aren't you supposed to be at work?

[pldennison]

vanillaice, I can't specifically answer your question, but here's something for you to consider. (I discovered this wonderful example in Richard Dawkins' book, "Climbing Mount Improbable.")

In fruit flies, there is a gene which controls the development of the eyes. If this gene is "turned off," the fly will not develop eyes. Just for kicks, scientists took the "eye" gene and spliced it into the sequence elsewhere. Sure enough, eyes developed on the fruit fly other than in the normal places. Legs, backs, whatever. (I don't recall if they were functioning eyes, but I doubt it.)

It so happens that scientists have also located the gene that controls the development of the eye in mice. The took the mouse eye gene and spliced it into the fruit fly gene sequence. Know what? Same result--eyes in various places. Know what else? They were fruit fly eyes, not mouse eyes.

This is a pretty good testament to a basic level of genetic similarity among all creatures that have DNA. The fruit fly instructions can come across a gene from a completely different kind of creature, recognize what the gene does, and use its own material to still build the proper kind of eye. Pretty amazing.

[Stoid]

This reminds me of something I've thought about recently re: separate creation.

If God were to create all the animals separately, why wouldn't he just create each in a manner perfect for itself? Meaning, for instance, snakes. Snakes have 2 of everything most of us have 2 of: lungs, gonads, kidneys. However, in snakes, only one is normal sized and fully functional. The other is smooshed and nearly useless (as far as I understand it. Seems to me pretty obvious that this is an adaptation from an earlier form, and if they were separately created they would simply have special snake-organs, perfectly made for the body of a snake. No fuss, no muss, no extras.

Naked mole rats: why have eyes if you're blind?

Flightless birds: why have wings, why have feathers? Those two things are meaningless unless you fly.

The list goes on...

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[kathmandu]

FTR, I am an atheist. Keep that in mind when perusing the following.

First of all, why all the vitriol? There seems to be somewhat of a trend on this message board to jump all over anyone who expresses a "Christian" viewpoint with very little provocation. I think it should be kept in mind that an individual's beliefs are benign - it is only the action which is taken pursuant to these beliefs which impacts on others. If I choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, and can not be persuaded otherwise, who am I hurting? Why should anyone care that I continue to hold this irrational belief despite having the evidence which disproves it presented to me? If this belief somehow comforts me, why should anyone interfere?

Even taking action to propogate my belief is not, in itself, problematic. Anyone who does not hold this belief is free to present evidence disputing it. I like to believe (and my lurking on this board tends to confirm) that most people are rational, intelligent, and capable of coming to sensible conclusions based upon the facts available to them.

I do have a problem with individuals or groups who disseminate their own beliefs while suppressing evidence contrary to these beliefs, which seems to be a potential result of the recent Kansas school board decision. However, barring this, I see no reason to get so angry at people who, in a forum such as this, profess a belief which may or may not have a basis in fact or science. Feel free to state and support your position, and leave it at that.

Why does this debate even exist? Well, the answer lies in another thread question here in Great Debates: why do the religious feel the need to bring others to their belief while atheists do not?

Another question might be, why do so many atheists care that someone chooses to "shut their eyes", so to speak, and hang onto a belief which makes their life a little bit easier or more comfortable?

Live and let live.

[Czarcasm]

Katmandu, one of the reasons is that they clog up the message board with questions they don't wish to hear the answers to. This is a deception I can't abide, and thus attack. If we do not openly and fervently respond, others new to the board may think that another viewpoint exists. They have too many unchallanged forums as it is; this will not be another if I can help it.

[vanillanice]

I asked this in another post,but I'll try again. Apes and man are different genetically by roughly 2%. In what ways? Are there any other species which cannot intermate,which are also that close alike? Thank you.

[Polycarp]

Couple of points on that last series of posts:

> Most Christians who are regulars on this board are at least willing to listen to the other side, even if they disagree. Case in point is Adam (ARG220). I bring a quasi-scientific viewpoint to my dealings with the world: I believe in God based on (subjective) evidence sufficient to me. At present I have more evidence for the existence of God than for that of the Sombrero Galaxy. I am aware that my subjective evidence is not sufficient to convince someone else of the point, and I'm not trying to do so. I am not interested in denying the evidence of nature on the basis of my interpretation of a Book that matters to me but may not to most everyone else. I am interested in integrating what I learn of nature and humanity into a world-view that does include God (and the Sombrero Galaxy).

A Christian feels compelled to "lead others to the Lord" for several reasons: (1) he has made a commitment to accept as Lord someone who gave instructions to all his followers to do so. (I realize how close that comes to "I was just following orders" but I'm not done yet.) (2) he has found a satisfaction and joy in his Christian life that he out of common humanity wants to have others have opportunity to feel as well. (3) On the view of most Christians, those who deny God are metaphorically walking towards a cliff that they cannot see or have blinded themselves not to see, and they feel compelled to at least warn the others that there is indeed a cliff there, and here is the Way down it safely.

Now, total disclosure: I do not think I have all the answers about this. The God I believe I know would not have dreamed up ichneumon wasps and their fun way of reproducing, nor would he have let Jeffrey Dahmer do his thing. I feel it is my job to be a good Christian before you as a way of witnessing to what a Christian can be. I do not believe that any Bible-pounding or assertions of what God demands you do are going to do the slightest bit of good. But if my lucidly (I hope) presenting my world view punctures a rationalization that bolsters your atheism, then I've done some good towards what I'm expected to do. (Comment from a wise Christian: "Agnosticism is reasonable. Atheism is an act of faith.")

At the same time, when I see Christians behaving unchristianly towards others, it's also my task to call them up short, and if possible mediate. And while I'm at it, I'm also a fan of trivia generally and the stuff the Straight Dope deals with in particular, and I'm having a great time exchanging ideas with like-minded people (like-minded=trivia freaks).

I do not care to "troll" except when I'm really interested in hearing both sides of a question (as I did in posting the Second Coming and forgiveness of sins questions on this board). I learned a lot about the Jewish view from the latter...shalom, Akiva!

If I am in any way in violation of what you expect me to be, given these conditions, then let me know. I know the difference between a fact, a theory, a hypothesis, an opinion, and a belief, and I try to express each as what it is.

[cmkeller]

Stoidela:

I haven't bothered to respond to this thread, because it seemed like an open call for religion-bashing rather than a question intended to start a debate. However, the "vestigial organs" bit doesn't prove anything. Just to take two of your three examples (I don't know much about naked mole rats):

The Bible does seem to acknowledge that snakes are not in an ideal form. It says (or at least implies) that the snake originally had legs and that it was made to crawl on its belly as a punishment for tempting Eve and Adam to sin; presumably all other non-ideal organs in a snake follow from that.

Feathers (or fur) are necessary for insulation in warm-blooded creatures; upper appendages are necessary for balance in bipeds, and in penguins, their flipper-like wings make them excellent swimmers.

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[Stoid]

CM:

But aren't these adaptations of forms intended for other uses? And just how warm does an ostrich need to be on the veldt? (I love that word).

And I wasn't calling for religion-bashing, I merely wanted to point out the underlying and obvious weakness of the creation argument. As I have stated over and over and over again: it does not require an abandonment of faith in God's creation to accept that He used the mechanism of evolution to do it with. Go ahead and believe with all your heart, I shan't judge or deride you. Just don't let your belief make you blind or ignorant. There is nothing in this world to disprove the existance of God (setting aside the fact that it is impossible to prove that anything does NOT exist, only that it DOES.) and for myself, no reason to try. But the whole creation/evolution thing has heated up lately because of the Kansas decision, which to me and to most reasonable people, is a real shame, in the truest sense of the word. It is a matter of shame that in 1999, an American state can shun truth and science in the service of (insecure) religious pressure. It's a shame and it's shocking. And frankly, it pisses me off.

Stoid

------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[cmkeller]

Stoidela:

But aren't these adaptations of forms intended for other uses? And just how warm does an ostrich need to be on the veldt? (I love that word).

How warm does a lion have to be on the veldt (and it is a nice-sounding word)? Yet it's furry all over.

it does not require an abandonment of faith in God's creation to accept that He used the mechanism of evolution to do it with

No, but it does require an abandonment of faith in the Bible to accept that Earth and living things on it have been around and developing slowly for millions of years, and that animals (and humans) descended from different animals rather than being created in approximately their current forms. And since most creationists' belief in G-d is based on the Bible, if you throw out the Bible, where does that leave their religions?

It is a matter of shame that in 1999, an American state can shun truth and science in the service of (insecure) religious pressure.

That Kansas thing has, IMHO, been blown extremely out of proportion. There's no ban on teaching evolution, merely a lack of requirement to do so. And while a prior thread here has convinced me that a genuine understanding of biology is incomplete without explaining the importance of the survival instinct and adaptation, teaching that living things evolved from simpler forms and, prior to that, from inanimate chemicals is a bit of a stretch to consider a necessary part of a curriculum.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[pldennison]

Call me disrespectful, intolerant, nasty, or whatever, but I simply think it's obvious that the fact that the earth is millions of years old is not something about which reasonable people may differ. It is not a matter of opinion or subject to conjecture; it is simply true. I'm not sure why some people find that so threatening.

[VegForLife]

Feathers (or fur) are necessary for insulation in warm-blooded creatures
I musta plucked all of mine out when I was stressed as a baby. I do recall hearing a story about an ear infection I had once. . .

Rich

[Czarcasm]

Does anyone else find it curious that when we question the existance of god and comment on the lack of evidence for creationism, it's called Christian-bashing, but when they tell us we are going to burn in Hell for all eternity, it's called love? Someone should write a English-Christian, Christian-English dictionary. :).

[Polycarp]

First, kudos to Chaim for his post above. "...since most creationists' faith is based on the Bible...." Right on target!

Adam and Jeffery, a hypothetical question: Imagine for a moment that the next post is one from David or Stoidela that clearly proves the total invalidity of the Old Testament to any rational person. E.g., a new "book" is found at Qumran that describes the work of a team of rabbis under orders from John Hyrcanus (Maccabean high priest/ ethnarch of Judea about 100 BC) to set up a false history for the Jews and a set of myths to keep them under control. Where does this leave your faith?

That is totally hypothetical and of course extremely unlikely. But what would it mean for you?

===============

As for the "obviousness" of the age of the earth, it's not really so obvious. Lord Kelvin, brilliant physicist of the late 19th century, held out for a young Earth, not on religious principles, but because (not knowing abour radioactivity) he could see no way for the Earth's core to remain molten for millions of years. With the data we have today, IF you look into it at all thoroughly and objectively, you become convinced that either (a) the world is several billion years old or (b) Somebody is playing the world's largest practical joke. If you assume that (i) there is Nobody or (ii) Somebody is not a practical joker, then conclusion (a) is the only valid one. Only "scientific creationists" believe that Somebody is a practical joker, and I have a hard time keeping myself from thinking that this is because they care more about adherence to their dogma that the Bible is true when taken verbatim than they do about the reputation and characteristics of God.

The term "scientific creationist" bothers me for the same reason as a physicist who is a devout Catholic is disturbed at being thought a faith-healer if he calls himself a Christian scientist.