WHY is the notion of Evolution so very offensive to certain people?

i've gotten into violent discussions with my mom on the subject of evolution. she was born more than once apparently which gives her special insight into scienctific matters.

and the subject used to come up in odd ways. she'd gotten a snake in her kitchen and we all chased it out and we started talking about snakes. somehow she started in on how snakes were satanic and symbols of the devil and stuff like that. i said snakes are not really evil, just scary, and then i was bold enough to suggest that evolution designed them very specifically and that they were fairly recently evolved from lizards.

she came unglued and started yelling about how god created all creatures and everything else in 6 days about 6,000 years ago and that evolution was just a lot of satanic disinformation designed to turn people against god and his position of creator of all things. she just really has no room for science, or bothersome evidence.

but i don't get why the zealots are so fundamentally frightened by the notion of evolution. i don't get what the big difference is, biblically. i can't understand why they are so viscerally, violently put off by certain scientific facts. faith i suppose.

faith is the ability to believe something, despite the overwhelming evidence, pro or con. while some people find it easy to accept the notion that we are closely related to chimpanzees, others are highly offended by the very idea. why o why o why?

Religion is often used as a crutch for the weak minded, weak willed, stupid person. The minute you encroach upon their fairy tale fantasy they get very angry because you actually poke holes in their little fantasy bubble surrounding their world.

Nothing makes a small minded idiot more defensive than someone questioning a fact that they've based their whole, meaningless existence on.

They're threatened by the truth, plain and simple.

They can't accept that anybody would believe anything but their narrowly constructed scientific arguments because they are often narrowminded, weak willed and stupid. The moment you start suggesting their are truths outside of their narrow-minded scientific deterministic philosophy they get very angry.

Nothing makes a narrow minded moron more defensive than someone questioning a fact they've based their whole meaningless existence on.

They are threatened by alternate beliefs, plain and simple.

For those irony-challenged, the above does not accurate reflect my beliefs.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

You can always drop out of school so you can avoid evolution. That way the woodshopists won't force their crazy theories of how to safely operate a table saw, and healthteacherists won't force their crazy theories of germ theory and proper hygiene on you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks for playing along at home.

and they say the religious are stupid

It is much more tidy to believe that God dropped us here just like we are now however I have always had a problem with that rib issue.

Since Adam gave his to Eve.

Whats up with that?

On edit, I realize you were being facetious. But I know people who actually beleive that men have one less rib.

I admit it. I'm vain. And I'm from a long line of vain folk. Is this behavior inherited or learned?


I remember reading an article many years ago, I believe in the defunct popular version of "Science," written by a professor who taught anatomy and physiology at a campus dominated by fundies. He wrote about how he dealt with the rib issue in particular and the scientific method in general. He seemed like a tactful fellow.

is more comfortable like a favorite blanket. People want to think they are special. The creation story gives them this feeling as well as giving them absolutes they can believe in. They can control everything by believing "in the word of God". Science challenges their absolutes and removes their control.

world. It denys that humanity is at "the top" of any food chain and in the process makes quite clear that we are only a link in the loop of that chain. It indicates that the earth was not put here for us but that it existed long before our arrival and will exist long after our demise. It makes humanity rather unimportant in the scheme of things and subsequently their respective lives equally unimportant.

It is, like red state neo-conservatism a tenacioiusly held, manufactured self delusion which grants its holders a feeling superiority. It's validity will, like red state neo-conservatism be insisted upon in spite of any logically rendered and presented proof to the contrary. This sort will only abandon these delusions when the pain caused by failure to do so outwieghs the pleasure they insure. Such an inspirational pain must be felt on a personal level. The pain of a neighbor or a neighbors child, the pain of ones own grandchildren...or relatives, the pain of the rest of the creatures on the planet is not sufficient to isnpire the abandonment of the narcotic self pleasuring effects of intentionally generated and held self delusion. In short Creationism and Neo-Conservatism are the pinnacle of selfishness and the antithesis of selfless way of life, it is claimed Jesus advocated.

RC

I remember them saying "I didn't come from no damned Ape!" They don't want to believe they are "related" to something like a monkey, a beast. They can't envision that humans are anything like other mammals. Maybe it has to do with them being farmers and they considered animals as unclean, dumb products for humans to use. And they wouldn't want to think of people like that. :shrug:

They have to feel superior and in charge of everything "beneath" them.

:evilgrin:

There never was a more compelling piece of evidence than Chimpy McSmirk. Sorry if I offended any chimps.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"they are"

but technology has effectively reduced any effect that natural selection has on humanity -- medicine, corrective technologies like hearing aids and eyeglasses, and plastic surgery have essentially stopped natural selection within modern society

I think that intelligence and the development of technology have led to a more rapid evolutionary process (and a very different one) than natural selection

And there will ALWAYS be factors that make one subgroup of the species to breed less than the other. It's just that the "classic" factors don't count anymore, others do.

If anything, technology is throwing Darwinian evolution into unpredictable directions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

People are allowed to ask questions and have confusion. It doesn't automatically mean they are a disruptor.

For instance many formerly fatal health problems are
now passed on to the next generation.

Also populations ravaged by certain ailment will have increasing
percentages of resistant individuals.

In one case evolution is effected by the relaxation of
natural selection in another by its increase.

What evidence have you that such is not the case? The very fact that the median lifespan continues to rise, on a worldwide scale, is indicative of continued evolution. Over thousands of generations, the genetic coding that is less amenable to long life spans have been minimized because those strains died too soon to proliferate as broadly.

Evolution is a slow process. It's NOT revolution. It's hard to see on a short term basis. Not impossible, just hard. The longer one's view over time, the easier it is to see.
The Professor

It seems to be an awful characteristic with the repukes....short-term vision and thinking.

I think the hand-eye coordination in kids who play video games must evolve into something one day...what? I have no idea. :)

The HEC is already there among those that are the best. Evolution is not the acquisition of characteristics. It's the transferrance of the BEST characteristics to future generations because those characteristics increase the survival probabilities of the species.

Video game stuff, unfortunately, seems unlikely to display that type of critical need. The skills to be good at video games are already part of the species. It won't turn INTO anything.

However, we can hope that those who are doomed to short term thinking will die out more quickly and prevent a devolution of the species.

We can only hope.
The Professor

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do pop up all the time. Look at the number of genus homo that have existed and come into existance over the last 100,000 years (a veritable blip in the timescale of life).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Evolution doesn't stop. When something stops evolving it probably means it is getting ready to go extinct.

As the Professor pointed out above. Now, that is scary. :scared:

He's asking why you don't wake up in the morning to find that your goldfish is suddenly a person. I'm saying that can't happen becuase people are already here. I never said that was the end of evolution.

It's difficult to discuss genetics and evolution with somebody who thinks that it means that one species becomes another overnight.

I'm not sure where to start.

Those turn into people, sorta.

Lower down in this thread, a poster is claiming that increasing life expectancy is a sign of evolution in action in humans.

Increasing of life expectancy = one species turning into another overnight?

I nominate this for the Misrepresentation of the Year Award.

just kidding. :silly: They do seem to be stuck in a time warp, trying to turn back the clock to a dark time in our history.

Evolution is the science of how and why genes are distributed within a population and how and why that distribution changes over time. Because we use sexual reproduction in order to reproduce, by definition the distribution of genes changes over time, so evolution doesn't ever stop. However, that does not mean that any species, in this case humans, will continue to "evolve" in the sense that the word is used in ordinary conversations.

In ordinry conversation, the word "evolve" has a connotation of "advance" or "progress" or "improve". That is NOT what's happening here. In order for evolution to produce some new skill or capability, it usually requires that the population that is evolving this new capability be removed from other populations in order to prevents interbreeding. In the modern world, this is not true. Populations are not being kept close for the thousands of years it takes for evolution to change the phenotype of a population.

And given that the rise in life expectancy has occurredover just a few decades, I doubt that the cause was evolution, which usually operates over hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in a fairly straight forward and simple subject taught to schoolchildren.

So unless you're a schoolchild or special, there's really no excuse.

Evolution takes upteen thousand years to show an impact on something with as long a life-span as a human.

We see evolution happening on the molecular level every day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There's so many different versions that have changed it over the past many years. Much of what is in there could not possibly happen as it is described. There is no science in the Bible.

The Professor

Look at all the languages and permutations of contents
it has gone through.

Even the "word of god" is tainted by dirty evolution.

Is the Bible literally true? Well, which version do you prefer? It's been translated into every human language and everytime it gets translated the translator changes the meaning to reflect what the person in charge wants it to say.

Have you read the Bible all the way through, in any version? Did you notice all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and different versions of the same story, side by side?

For millions of people, the Bible (in whatever version they prefer) is a sacred text that gives them insight into human beings and our relationship with God (however we define God). In that respect, it is assuredly not BS.

People didn't know why things happened, so they created stories. The greeks had their stars and gods, the native americans had theirs, etc etc, and christians had theirs. These stories were created to help explain what was at that time unexplainable. Now we know better. The bible is a guide, not a manual.

An unshakable love of a Spiritual Goodness that ties our souls. A Common God with many names.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Modern humans didn't evolve from modern apes. That's a common misconception. They evolved along with us, but they ended up as different species.

Apes and humans had a common ancestor way back on the evolutionary family tree. That ancient ape-human ancestor didn't look anything like modern humans or modern apes.

FYI, the plural of virus is 'viruses' not viri or virii.

Also, it's quite possible that the 'new' viruses are just emergent or re-emergent and not really new at all. Viruses like ebola, for instance, although new in recorded human experience, may have existed in an animal reservoir for a very long time, and only emerged now because of increased human activity in areas where the animal reservoir existed.

That's not to say that viruses don't evolve, they definetly mutate and some of the mutations can be quite drastic.

Same goes for bacteria.

The problem with recognising 'new' as opposed to newly identified bacteria is that we really haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to bacteria. It's widely believed we haven't even identified 10% of the bacteria that colonise our gut. They can be remarkably difficult things to culture.

What you can use bacteria to demonstrate though is the effects of selective pressure (natural selection). Antibiotic resistance is the prime example.

I follow you. You are intentionally avoiding the point i made.

Evolution doesn't happen so that we see "new people" popping up. It neither works that way, nor does how it works occur fast enough for us to see the results in such a short period of time as less than one person's lifetime.

Have you noticed things like the fact that swimmers continue to swim faster and faster? A person who won a gold medal in the Olympics in 1930 woudln't even be competitive in the regional pre-trials today.

Have you noticed that as bad as the flu is, we don't have pandemics of it like the ones in the 17th century, the 1840's, and 1918?

The evolution you claim hasn't been happening, HAS been happening. You just refuse to see it. I will not try to convince you, since your not looking to be convinced. You just want an argument. I don't. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that you were wrong.
The Professor

...micro and macro evolution, the former of course builds and builds, and ever-so-slowly takes its place in the scale of macro evolution, like the things you mentioned. Another example: the average foot size of a grown man was like 9 1/2 in the Civil War era, but is now 10 1/2 or 11 (something like that), to mention nothing of average height. Skeptics have no choice but to admit that it happens on this "micro" scale, but refuse to accept the conclusions of the macro.

Civilization has only existed for 10,000 years, which is practically infinitesimal on the geological time scale. Of course we can't see a macroevolutionary process in effect, it takes much longer than that.

"Another example: the average foot size of a grown man was like 9 1/2 in the Civil War era, but is now 10 1/2 or 11 (something like that), to mention nothing of average height."

Better childhood nutrition probably explains this, rather than natural selection... unless women really believe that the size of a man's foot indicates the size of his....

at hospitals all across the world.

They have a different distributions of genetic material than
the generation before because they are the result of various
selections that occurred on their parents.

A simple case is that of geographic distribution of traits.

1000 years ago very little travel was done and none between the
continent of Europe and North America.

Now individuals exist who have genes from both sources, people
who could not and did not have genetic counterparts in the
world 550 years ago.

Evolution has occurred and different resistances and susceptibility
to environmental condition exist that didn't before.

But median lifespan increasing is not an example of evolution, but an example of technology bringing out and aiding what is already expressed in our genes. This fundies often attack evolution using lifespan as an example of change without evolution.

Median lifespan is used by biologists all the time as evidence of evolution. Not average, but median. Not in the United States or developed world, but WORLDWIDE. The increase in lifespan is expressed in our genes and probabilities dicate that those that are predisposed to long life will have more time to procreate, passing those positive characteristics on. There is also clear correlation between predisposed lifespan length and procreation time. Thus, the time for that increases as well.

If the fundies attack evolution using lifespan as an example of change without evolution, they're even dumber than i thought they were. That's only true on a micro scale. On a macro scale, it IS evidence of evolution.

The Professor

for it to have had a major influence yet on our genes expressing life span. Life spans are increasing right now due to nutrician and medicine, not genetics. Given enough time, and a tendency of people to breed later in life, we would probably see an increase in lifespan due to genetics, but then again maybe not. Increased lifespan would require those who live longer to have more children, but is this the case in society today?

Most people who life in countries with longer life spans actually have less children later in life. I think what we would most expect to see is that the period of fertility in a segment of the population will be extended.

In poorer countries the women there have many more children. Even with a high infant mortality rate, they have more children that grow into adulthood than those of us in richer countries. From an evolutionary standpoint I could argue that they are the more successful of the two groups in passing on their genes!

Median lifespan will clearly be affected by better healthcare, so you won't be able to use the median lifespan of human beings as evidence of genetic change.

While a longer 'predisposed lifespan length' would increase the median lifespan, you can't say therefore that an increasing median lifespan must mean a longer predisposed lifespan. It's just one possible explanation - and an unlikely one, in my opinion.

I suspect given enough time, many of our descendants will have a healthy immunity to a wide range of currently toxic chemicals!

We have a new flu vaccine every year. Why? Because the influenza virus is constantly evolving into new forms. Bacteria, like tuberculosis and staph, evolve into drug-resistant strains. The HIV virus recently evolved into a human form, sometime in the last fifty years or less.

The reason that we don't notice evolutionary changes among plants and animals with longer life cycles is because it takes numerous life cycles to see the change over time. We can see the change in bacteria and viri because they have millions of life cycles in one year.

Humans evolved into our present form fairly recently, in geological time. In human time that is a very long time, though - at least tens of thousands of years.

that we are 'evolving consciously'. We use materials drawn from our environment to 'improve' (questionable) our lives and our chances for survival. People don't like to think of computers and cars as part of evolution because they're happening 'right now', but all sorts of animals use tools. There are birds that use stones to crack open snails - that's evolution. Apes use various tools - that's evolution. I don't see where the cut-off point is supposed to be at which human tool use stopped being 'evolution' and started being 'the modern world'.

Besides this, humans have, for example, been growing consistently taller within recorded history - and unfortunately, in the US and UK, fatter too...

people the "wisdom" teeth no longer fit in it because the jaw has become smaller.

answer. You would think it would be that we have reached "perfection", but with what we are doing in the world today, I hope that's not true - we are far from perfect. Anyway, welcome to DU and don't take everything too personal when someone attacks you; it happens to everybody.

It takes many thousands, or tens of thousands, of years for the slightest change to occur.

Why can't we see a tree grow? Science tells me they do, but I haven't seen it.

Damn, I hate wasting perfectly good Alert clicks on posters who were already tombstoned. But hey... what's THAT? Hmmmm! Gimme a sec.

to that of a chimpanzee(I think that's right anyway; it's been two years since bioanthropology class).

That sounds pretty damned 'related' to me.

(I do believe in evolution, natural selection, geology etc.), near identical composition doesn't have to mean a common ancestor. It could just mean a common designer.

I wasn't citing that as proof of macroevolution, only addressing the emotional argument that we can't be related to apes. If one argues that we aren't related in ancestry, one must at least concede that we are biologically extremely similar to other primates.

that's not what they've been brainwashed to believe!

You should have seen the look on my fundie (yet democrat) stepdad's face when my ten year old explained Big Bang to him...he saw it on TLC or some other channel like it. I got an hour long lecture about how immoral I was raising my children to be. Every time there is a major disciplinary problem, I get told that I need to take my chiildren to church or they will have no morals. I don't know how many times I've stated that I can instill moral values in my children without weekly brainwashings.

Besides being a symptom of an overall lack of good science education, it represents to Biblical literalists a symbol of everything they hate and fear. That's why they always throw in seemingly odd epithets like "godless," "atheistic," "amoral," and the like when describing evolution. It was easy for fundamentalists to rule the world when we had no answers for the mysteries of the universe and daily life. But as science has slowly provided convincing answers to those questions, religion has recoiled from its seemingly shrinking significance and authority.

Also, I think it stems from a deeper need to feel that there are mysteries in the world, and that we as humans are special. Evolution, especially, seems to impinge upon that, and it frightens people.

You said,

I think it stems from a deeper need to feel that there are mysteries in the world, and that we as humans are special.

Many people, especially "anti-evolution" religious people, are raised as followers; they adhere to an authoritarian dogma. In this mindset other people have all the answers, other people hold the truth, and the follower has no obligations but to seek the truth and guidance of the proper authorities.

In school these anti-evolution religious people don't recognize the subject of science as an exploration, only as a collection of "facts" presented by some authority. If some of these facts conflict with their religious beliefs, well then, the authority of their god and their church is simply higher than the authority of those scientists who collected the troubling facts.

The irony is that the mysteries of science are just as deep as any mystery of Faith. A simple god would create a simple universe. A very complex God might create a very complex Universe; a Universe far beyond the grasp of any single human mind.

I am a deeply religious and spiritual person who is trained as a scientist. I see my study of evolutionary biology as a celebration of God's Creation. From my point of view to deny Evolution is to deny God. From my point of view the atheist or agnostic who is seeking a scientific understanding of the universe may actually have a closer relationship to the Creator than any "Creationist."

To cook up a quick analogy--

You can sit in the cold dark cave remembering the Garden of Eden, or you can fire up the torches and go out exploring.

I try, but I don't have a lot of patience with folks like mopaul's mom.

up by speaking to all of us. Furthermore, if he's all-powerful, why would he allow the Devil to plant so much disinformation?

Logic defies all these people. God lives beyond our perceptions. Nomadic shepherds 4,000 years ago explained the creation of the universe via the story in Genesis.

On the flip-side, evolution is a developing theory as is the big bang. We need to keep this in mind as well. The major difference is that scientific theory can be verified via the scientific method, whereas dogma cannot. Therefore, Creationism != science.

Where's my prize? What's that?

Rats.

...who cling so tenaciously to the Creationism story are absolute Bible literalists. The Bible to them is the literal, inerrant Word Of God and must not be questioned. To them, the Theory of Evolution is the same as maligning God and smearing the Bible. (Many of them, however, conveniently ignor *other* parts of the Bible; I say, if you're going to take it literally, you must take the WHOLE THING literally.)

There are many Christians (myself included as a liberal Lutheran) who believe that the Theory of Evolution can work together with the Biblical story; we do not approach the Bible as a literal, inerrant document, but rather as a collection of books written by men, translated by men, and open to interpretation. We can also accept the historical context in which the books were written, the idea that the Creationism story was told for generations before having been written down, and that it's a story told in the most simplistic terms and should not be taken literally.

Bible literalists usually make me crazy.

from the Bible and that incertainty makes their heads explode.

If the Bible was wrong about creation maybe... gasp... there really isn't a God!

Rather than being forced to use critical thinking, they just say evolution is trash.

I have much more respect for people who manage to use critical thinking and combine their religion with science. Like the people who believe that God created evolution.

Evolution means that there is chaos in the world rather than an interested god who rewards xians and punishes muslims. Survival of the fittest, and modifications to survival, and who lives and who dies are, at the individual level, is a crap-shoot. It takes guts to live with the idea that the supreme being is only interested in the big picture rather than each and everyone of us. My current theory is that God or Mother Nature gets sick of the jingoistic, aggressive morans and has set it up so that there are wars every so often to wipe them out. Unfortunately, innocent people get taken out as well but that is the nature of chaos.

I am a genetics student here in Texas and am studying the evolution of the mammalian genome... anyway, its amazing the number of people who work with me who are 'born again' and will study evolution (and prove it) and turn around on Sundays and say god created all things... :wtf:

God created everything. Including evolution. I've never understood the moonies' obsession with this Adam and Eve bullshit.

I have no problem with believing this and evolution at the same time.

Personally, I think the whole issue with creationism v science is bizarre. I'm as puzzled as mopaul about why this is such a hot-button issue.

is also a collection of human writings--literature, not just the written word of God. They take everything in Scriptures literally because they can't tolerate ambiguity. Worse yet, they intepret the Bible in terms of today's society without taking into account the era the books were written.

Defitions: Adam is Hebrew for "everyman" and Eve means everywoman. The Book of Genesis just attempts to explain the unexplainable in terms the average person could understand. The six days layout was never to be taken as 6 24-hour days, but rather, 6 eras of indeterminate time. These "days" could mean a thousand years, or even a billion years. Radioactive dating proved that God created the world in 6 distinct epochs, and started the evolutionary process; at least, this is what moderate Catholics believe.

There are a lot of scientific concepts that you just couldn't discuss out there tendin' the old flock, dontcha know... ;)

Some of the fundies I knew in college were perfectly comfortable with accepting one thing during the week and believing something else when their Christian friends were around. They would even think of themselves as subversive (oooh, I'm studying biology but I don't really believe it!!!) rather than weak-minded or two-faced.

and racism. Evolution shows us that we evolved from a primate in Africa. We all came from Africa, and we all had black skin. I believe that depending upon the individual, the irrational belief in that 6000 year old earth and 'creation' is a combination of Blinders and racism - in differing proportions.

They can't accept that ALL of our ancestors came from Africa.

BS

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A deity is an entity. "Faith" in a method whose usefullnes can be demonstrated now is far superior than "faith" in a supernatural entity whose very existence is open to doubt until you actually die.

If you can come up with a better method of understanding the natural world, let's hear it. Last time I checked, every advance that has made man's world a little less painful has come from scientific inquiry, not shamans chanting ancient verses.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The creation myth is just that, a myth. It has no basis in any extant fact, it's just a made-up explanation. To accept it as factual is 100% a leap of faith and nothing more. Evolution is built upon a long chain of discovered and observable facts and mechanisms that require no faith whatsoever because they are there to see. If you had to quanify it, I'd say evolution is 99.5% fact and .5% faith in the idea that facts can support a likely conclusion. Creationism has no factual basis.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with faith, but it cannot be equated with interpreting facts as a successful means of approaching life (i.e., survival). Faith is a personal matter; facts are something we all need to agree are valid in order to have a rational society. If we don't, then we have an irrational society, which will likely not survive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Equating faith in the science with faith in religion is an old, tired, long-discredited argument.

There are two elements to evolution: the fact of evolution, which is easily observable in the fossil record and in current events, and the theory of evolution, which attempts to explain speciation in light of the facts - there are several variations on this idea.

That evolution has existed in the past and continues to this day, is an objectibly falsifiable idea that has advanced beyond hypothesis to fact. It doesn't require belief to be true any more than the sun rising in the east does. Ideas of divine creation, however, do require faith to exist since they are by design exempt from ordinary standards of proof, repeatability, and falsification.

Religious faith and faith in the results of the scientific methods are not remotely comparable. The scientific method is the surest and most reliable means of finding knowledge that humanity has yet to devise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Irrefutable. Mostly because it makes absolutely no sense.
The Professor

One only has to look at both the fossil record and think logically, and the idea that animals with superior traits survive and those with inferior ones do not makes a lot of sense. It could very well be wrong, but it's the best theory we've got so far, and there have been no significant scientific challenges to it yet. (Sure, there are challenges and refinements of specifics, but the overall idea still stands strong.)

Creationists believe in the Creation myth because they are told it is true--there is no evidence (if there were, faith would not be required) to support it, and even logical thought renders the Creation myth absurd.

This is like Creationists bitching about the Big Bang Theory. "I believe the Universe was made by God in six days; you believe it started in a ball 14 billion years ago. We each have our own Creation myths." Of course, the Big Bang is not a belief, but rather a theoretical conclusion.

Here's how it works. First, you start with the Doppler Effect, where a sound source moving towards you rises in pitch, and a departing sound source lowers. This is easily understandable and demonstrable. Around the turn of the 20th century, astronomers surmised how to gauge the state of the universe. There were three options: stasis, supporting the Genesis account; explosion, indicating what would be the Big Bang; or collapse, indicating that we are heading towards a Big Bang.

But how to test for this? They hypothesized that they could apply the Doppler Effect, which deals in sound waves, to light waves. If the Universe were in stasis, the light received from distant stars would be "true;" if it were exploding, there would be a "red shift" (low end of color spectrum) and collapse would be indicated by a "blue shift" (high end).

Unless I'm mistaken, it was Edwin Hubble (you know, like the space telescope) who did the final measurements and determined that there is in fact a red shift, indicating explosion. Now, if everything is expanding as time goes forward, it wouldn't be foolish to conclude that, as time goes backward, everything would be collapsing. Collapse enough and everything comes together at a single point. If you had the Universe on a VCR, and you were rewinding, you'd see everything collapse into a small ball; if you then pressed play, you'd see everything explode out in a... Big Bang. (Are you with me, so far?)

That's how science works: the experimenter takes already proven theories, and sees if they apply to other elements of nature. If it doesn't--great! Now we know it doesn't and we can develop other theories. Of course, if it does--great!

Bible literalists say, "Some ignorant nomadic barbarian 2000 years ago tells me the Earth was created in six days (although in two contradictory ways back-to-back). That's good enough for me!"

Excuse me if I find the rational scientific outlook on life superior to that of "faith-based knowledge." Science has no "tenets," for any theory can be struck down in an instant, if new scientific evidence proves its fallacy. I don't "believe" in Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, Plate Tectonics, etc. I simply find that these theories make sense and are supported by the latest scientific evidence. Show me something that makes more sense and is backed by stronger scientific evidence, and I'll accept that instead.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're trying to peg me as anti-Semitic. Yes, the "ignorant nomadic barbarians" are the ancient Jews. They believed that the sun went around the earth (ignorant), they wandered in the desert for forty years (nomadic), and they butchered countless non-Israelite tribes (barbarians). My own ancestry is French-German: I'm sure my ancestors at the same time were wearing pelts of bears and warring with every other tribe in the vicinity. Should I not call them barbarians? Should I expect others to accept my ancestors' beliefs as facts, simply because they're afraid of insulting me?

I have great admiration for modern Jews, but, like with my own ancestors, I'm not going to hold off questioning their ancestors' beliefs or actions.

Secondly, I don't have a "belief system" that is "ever changing." I come to conclusions based on the strongest scientific evidence. To hold onto a belief in spite of all evidence to the contrary is foolish.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I admire the strong educational current running through the Jewish tradition. Jews have a strong faith, yes, but they're not stupid about it. I've yet to meet a Jew who actually believes completely the Genesis account of the Creation (perhaps it's because of that strong educational current)--though, being a liberal, I'm admittedly only exposed to the liberal Jewish population, rarely the Orthodox.

There's a big difference between having a "strong faith,"--that there is a God guiding you and there is a purpose to the suffering--and believing that every little scribble in the Torah is superior to reality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is indeed gratifying.

the Hindu "Sleep of Brahma" account?

(As a curiosity, the Hindus actually got the time scales right!)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I will say that science has nothing to do with faith.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that if one is not a scientist, one has to accept science on faith?

Well, that demonstrably not true. You can always teach yourself to understand scientific concepts so that you don't have to accept them on faith. The facts are there to be understood if you want to do so. But with religious faith, well, it's *always* going to be just that, faith.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It requires the standing of rigor and test. There is no morality intrinsic to it. It either passes the test and stands up to rigorous examination or it doesn't.

Your attempt to alter the issue into one of morality is irrelevant, as is the rest of your argument.
The Professor

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I had a recent spirited exchange with another DU'er on this topic. I claimed then and still do that most people who unequivocally support the 'scientific' side of the question do so out of faith not out of science. They have never done, and likely could never do, the science required to support their position. They just like the scientific format better, so they go with that one. I suggested that if the other person couldn't produce academic work supporting his claims to scientific proficiency then his choice to follow the scientific framework over a religious framework was faith-based. He did not agree, vigorously :-).

Mind you, this is not an effort to attack the underlying superiority of the scientific method for determining questions of fact, only the basis for preference for it.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, wY

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Tired of wasting my time.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The truth is an absolute defense to slander, after all. :-)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...between referring to a person as stupid and a particular belief as stupid. Very intelligent people can have incredibly stupid ideas. You compeltely ignored what I said, which was something

You seem pretty thin-skinned about all of this though... baiting people, hiding behind some odd defense that because creationists exist at all, evolution stands challenged. It's very strange. You also seem unable to recognize fallacies when you state them and equate any criticism with a personal attack. How curious.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Spare me your mock outrage. You started all this rot with your "evolution is BS" line. Of course you're bound to get some personal attacks when you state something in such an inflammatory way.

Also, people are free to say whatever they like. Maybe some of the people who engaged in personal attacks really don't like you. I don't know. It has no bearing on the topic at hand. If I claimed, for example, that dogs "meow," and you called me a moron. It would have no bearing on my being wrong.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Maybe they do think creationists are stupid people.

And I said "mock outrage."

It's a way of evading the issues... which I don't need to tell you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Notice the title. This guy really seems to elicit a certain response from people, doesn't he? :toast:

You're completely right. I know it might "insult someone's beliefs," but if someone states that the sun goes around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat, I'm going to call him in an idiot. If he's insulted, maybe it's because it's true!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your subtlety is beyond me. :eyes:

Your repeated attempts to equate belief in observable facts with believe in an invisible Sky Father are not valid.

Your repeated attempts to equate belief in observable facts with believe in an invisible Sky Father are not valid.

Evolution is not an "observable fact". If you're going to insult people for their "stupidity", you ought to avoid saying anything stupid. It is stupid for someone to proclaim the certainty of something uncertain.

Evolution is NOT an "observable fact". It is a theory which describes how and why the distribution and frequency of genes changes over time within a population.

If you're going to proclaim the superiority of science, you should at least learn the language of science. If you're going to proclaim the superiority of evolution over creationism, you should, at the very least, learn what the word "evolution" means.

I can't tell whether your quibble is semantic or substantive, however.

but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask for a link, or a description of how changes in the distribution of genes in a population was "observed"

Here's a biological definition of "evolution" from dictionary.com

Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. .

But hey, I'll give you the "benefit of the doubt," as well. Also, I get the impression that your beef wasn't actually semantic, but that's another matter.

I'll preface this by noting that a colloquial dictionary definition is not the best source for help with scientific terms. Dictionaries are, everywhere and always, descriptive, not proscriptive. Therefore, an "all-purpose" dictionary will give definitions for how a term is used in common speech, not in the particular specialty.

Anyway, you can get good information for quick consumption from Talkorigins.org: here. Talkorigins has been cited and given accolades by several good journals and popular science magazines. It has fairly good primers on an array of subjects relating to evolution. Here's one brief article also for quick consumption: http://portfolio.iu.edu/kresler/article.pdf">here. Neither of these are a substitute for a good undergrad course in biology and genetics, however, but hey, I can only do so much over the web. If you need more, just let me know.

Added: I should also note that evolution is observed all the time with bacteria and viruses, but I figured you wanted something bigger.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The question you asked isn't the best question to ask IMO. A positive response implies that it's conclusions are the results of prejudice, and not an objective evaluation of the arguments both pro and con.

The site is obviously supportive of The Theory of Evolution, but not because it is prejudiced or predisposed to anything. It's because they evaluated the arguments and came to a conclusion based on the evidence pro and con.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but two wrongs don't make a right. And while I do believe that faith is a strong part of both science and religion, that does not mean that talkorigins is biased or prejudiced in any way.

Also, I get the impression that your beef wasn't actually semantic, but that's another matter.

No, it was semantic. Since evolution involves the changes in how genes are distributed over time, I don't understand how that can be observed.

I'll preface this by noting that a colloquial dictionary definition is not the best source for help with scientific terms. Dictionaries are, everywhere and always, descriptive, not proscriptive. Therefore, an "all-purpose" dictionary will give definitions for how a term is used in common speech, not in the particular specialty.

Dictionaries, at least the decent ones, contain more than just he "common usage" definitions. Most dictionaries also include the definitions used by particular specialties. The word "evolution" has several definitions, but I only posted the definition that applies to how it's used by biologists. It's the same definition evolutionists use.

Neither of these are a substitute for a good undergrad course in biology and genetics

We're not talking about GENETICS. We're talking about EVOLUTION. There's a difference. I agree that genetics has been observed, but evolution has not. In addition, evolution is a THEORY, not a FACT.

on edit: I checked out the two links you supplied. I agree with your description of the 1st site. They do a wonderful job. However, the 2nd link didn't work.

Your reasoning here is really... odd. Gene frequency can be measured in any number of ways. The easiest way is to look for expressed characters in a population, which most certainly can be observed (i.e. the "peppered moth" scenario). If your hangup is the whole "macro/microevolution" rubbish (which I gather from your separating out of evolution from genetics: which is rather the same thing), then we are at an impasse. Speciation is simply the piling up of differences in allele frequencies, and speciation, too, has been observed regardless of your concept of what constitutes a species.

As to dictionaries, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. Would you like me to quote from my old textbooks or what?

There is ample evidence in the geologic column for both the age of the Earth and for speciation. Since you seem to like Talkorigins, I'll let you read their material before I comment further.

and genetics is not "micro-evolution". Genetics is the study of how genes are passed from one (or more, such as sexual reproduction) organism to another. Eveolution is the study of how the distribution of genes changes in a population over time. They are related, but they aren't the same thing.

Speciation is simply the piling up of differences in allele frequencies, and speciation, too, has been observed regardless of your concept of what constitutes a species.

Speciation is more than the simple piling up of differences. Even the web site you linked to says this.

As to dictionaries, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. Would you like me to quote from my old textbooks or what?

If you like, I can do the same. Do you have a better source than E.O. Wilson?

There is ample evidence in the geologic column for both the age of the Earth and for speciation. Since you seem to like Talkorigins, I'll let you read their material before I comment further.

I do not dispute the age of the Earth or that speciation happens. I have also read a good deal of talkorigins content as well as a number of texts on the subject by scientists with impeccable credentials in the area of study.

Genetics is the study of how genes are passed from one...

Yes, yes, I know that. What I'm trying to do is tease out the nature of your claims. Genetics is related to evolution, but changes in allele frequency are, in living populations, measured partly by studying genes. You asked for evidence of observed speciation, which necessarily involves living populations... which are not evaluated only in expressed characters.

Speciation is more than the simple piling up of differences.

Stop being pedantic. That comment was directly related to my trying to figure out whether your hangup had to do with the macro/micro jazz. In the most simple terms, speciation is the piling up of differences in a population. Is it more complex than that? Yes. Is there one agreed upon way to define a species? Of course not.

Do you have a better source than E.O. Wilson?

Spare me. Did E.O. Wilson write the entry for Dictionary.com? If I show you three other specialized definitions that differ from an online dictionary, which is more accurate? Better information is gotten from specialized sources than a general source almost every time.

It's obvious you don't dispute evolution as a fact or a scientific theory, and I'm tired of dancing around this. I think it can be fairly stated that there exists evidence to challenge your initial claim about observed evolution. Is there anything more here to discuss?

After reading your latest post, I'm not sure why you are asking these questions. You say you are trying to "tease out the nature of my claims" but I don't understand what exactly you mean by that. You seem to think I've made an inaccurate statement of some sort, and while I understand which statement you think is incorrect (when I said that evolution is not an "observable fact") but I don't understand why you think that is wrong.

Spare me. Did E.O. Wilson write the entry for Dictionary.com?

Are you familiar with Wilson's work? He is considered a giant in the field. And I have seen this exact definition used by a number of scientists involved with studying evolution.

It's obvious you don't dispute evolution as a fact or a scientific theory, and I'm tired of dancing around this. I think it can be fairly stated that there exists evidence to challenge your initial claim about observed evolution.

I haven't seen it yet. Your link talks about observing a change in genetics and their expression in individuals, but not in the population as a whole. If I'm missing something here, I would appreciate it if you would be more specific as to where you think I've made a mistake.

Is there anything more here to discuss?

Unless I've misunderstood this discussion, you think evolution has been observed, and I disagree. Aside from that, I'm not sure if we're in agreement or not because I'm not sure what you mean when you say some things.

One example is your statement "In the most simple terms, speciation is the piling up of differences in a population. "

I don't know what you mean by "in the most simple terms". I think of speciation as having specific definitions. I'm not sure if "in the most simple terms" refers to something they all have in common, or if it refers to something that you think is critical to the idea of speciation.

Evolution HAS been observed, verifiably, idesputably under careful, scientific scrutiny. Not just good old bacteria, but with fruit flies a macroscopic multi-cellular organism. True speciation was observed resulting in two distinct populations that could no longer interbreed.

Other multicellular speciation events have occured.

For fun google: "speciation events observed"

but I'd like to point out that speciation is neither the entirety of evolution nor it's most critical result.

It can't happen without a non-trivial change in one or both of the population's genetic makeup, or else they'd REMAIN able to cross-breed.

but it isn't evolution itself, nor is it critical to the evolution of a species. A species can continue to evolve indefinitely without the creation of a new species.

A species can evolve forever without becoming a new species?

Speciation *IS* critical in the CREATION of a new species, but evolution can continue without speciation. Speciation is the RESULT of evolution, and is not evolution itself.

A species can evolve forever without becoming a new species?

Yes, according to the scientific definition, evolution is the study of how and why the frequency and distribution of genes changes within a population over time. Even if speciation doesn't occur, the genes and their frequency/distribution changes over time. Therefore, evolution can continue without speciation

"Since evolution involves the changes in how genes are distributed over time, I don't understand how that can be observed."

Well, you can always take two species that have recently diverged and studie how their genes have distributed over time. Or it doesn't even need to be a recent divergence.

"I agree that genetics has been observed, but evolution has not."

Patently false. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field. "We're not talking about GENETICS. We're talking about EVOLUTION." OK, like you said, evolution can be defined as the change in allele frequency over time. So it is genetics.

Well, you can always take two species that have recently diverged and studie how their genes have distributed over time. Or it doesn't even need to be a recent divergence.

But how do you go back in time to get the genome of the organism before it split into two species?

Patently false. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and in the field.

Do you have a link or a cite. I'm not saying you're. I just haven't seen this proof.

"We're not talking about GENETICS. We're talking about EVOLUTION." OK, like you said, evolution can be defined as the change in allele frequency over time. So it is genetics.

You've misquoted me. I didn't say "evolution can be defined as the change in allele frequency over time"

I said "evolution can be defined as the change in allele frequency over time IN A POPULATION"

Genetics involve individuals, while evolution involves populations.

It's an ego thing.

I've know many religious people who felt that evolution was a expression of how God worked to create everything.

I'm sorry your mother is so misinformed

We are vile creatures when it comes to destroying our own. God is a convinient way of explaining our killing tendencies. If there is a God then he must weep continually or have a very weird sense of humor.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or are you spamming?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I personally find your comments about religion making people weak-minded, I know some VERY faithful people who are very intelligent individuals. The point he made is that, in a sense, you are doing the same thing that they are guilty of.

Not me obviously, because nowhere have I said religion makes people weak-minded. So you should take the defensiveness up with whomever you are referring to.

Funny, why are you defending a tombstoned disruptor anyway?

none of us was there to see it all created, so who's to say? it was only the other day that we discovered that some of those little twinkles of light were actually gigantic galaxies like our own, containing billions of stars, and that there are billions of such galaxies going back in time and space as far as our robot eye can see, and we are retreating from everything as it expands forever.

none of that is covered in the bible.

...due to a new discovery, I'll give you a call. Until then, let's not confuse the colloquial use of the term "theory" (best guess) with the scientific, which is a coherent, rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and cross-disciplinary collection of observations, laws, predictions and retrodictions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of most peoples scientific knowledge, just as the local baptist nutcase is the extent of most peoples religious experience.

Did you ever take a biology class?

I never just 'accepted' evolution. I was taught it by example, by experiment, and by evidence.

The evidence to prove the theory of evolution is as overwhealming as the evidence that proves the theory of gravity. Just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's got no evidence to support it.

I'm holding my new baby girl in my arms right now. I can see the evidence of evolution in her, in the process surrounding the development of a fetus into a human child...

I live in Pittsburgh. The Squirrels here are black. Why? Because they adapted when Pittsburgh was a smoky hellhole. The lighter colored ones stood out and were eaten up by predators. The black ones were able to hide against the soot stained trees longer. It's cleaner now in Pittsburgh, but the black squirrels remain.

You SHOULD question evolution. All I'm saying is that if you're going to question it, you should at least pay attention to the answers.

with a microscope. the thought of little tiny creatures that we can't see affecting our lives was considered ridiculous and laughable. i wasn't at the big bang, and neither was steven hawking, but we can make educated guesses. even then we can be proven wrong many years later. never accept anything without checking it out.

in other words, i agree with you

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They're NOT in the same level.

By your reasoning, I shouldn't be dismissing faith that the Earth is flat either. Or the interior of a hollow sphere.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is that both consist in an affirmative sentence residing in your brain with a "yes, that's true" attached to it.

The source of that "yes, that's true" is VASTLY different.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Since when does "A is vastly different from B" means "I belittle B"?

...because of passive-aggressive and evasive claims like that.

And I'm much happier now. :-)

Try hitting Alert on an ignored post -- that's right, you can't.

*THUMP* *THUMP* *THUMP*
Another one bites the dust!
*THUMP* *THUMP* *THUMP*
Another one bites the dust!
And another one gone, another one gone!

I didn't realize that sort of thing happened on these forums.

*-ulp

You should try it sometime. It relieves tension. :evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that affect the movement of other deformations according to certain calculations. This is from Einstein. These calculations predict the movement of astronomical bodies with better accuracy than Isaac Newton's previous, simpler calculations did. Therefore, we regard Einstein's theory as the best shot at the "ultimate truth" so far, and reserve Newton's only to mundane approximations.

I don't have the brains to understand ALL the math in Einstein's calculations, and I don't have the time and resources to go measure deviation of light during a solar eclipse.

Therefore, I just accept, based upon the many reports, that Einstein's theory is sound, and that those experiments did in fact happen as reported. The alternative is too tinfoil-hattish for my rational mind, just like those wacky "Moon landings are fake" nuts.

Is this "faith" of mine less reasonable than religious faith?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Not everybody has to carry a radiotelescope or particle accelerator around and you know it.

Who made experiments to validate Genesis?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Or rather, other people, with NO motive to form a conspiracy, did. Experimenters checked it out and said "yep, the numbers match." Do you suggest that doubting those experiments happened would be a better position? Sound a lot like "Moon landings didn't happen" to me.

As I said before, that's flattening different faiths into having the same level of acceptability when they clearly don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And a new theory HAS to take into account the facts that were gathered so far.

Just as Einstein's theory didn't make Newton's "stupid" - the difference between the two only shows up in extreme situations. It turns out Newton's theory became a good approximation of Einstein's for small velocities. And that's good enough in most cases. It's like using the value of "3.1415659" for pi. It's good enough for all practical purposes.

Any future theory that debunks Einstein HAS to incorporate Einstein's as a good enough approximation for all cases except extreme ones that haven't been tested yet. Creating black holes in a lab is kind of tricky.

Now tell me, what FACT may be regarded as corroborating creationism more than evolution?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Diseases that become antibiotic-resistant. Likewise with crop plagues and the products used to kill tham. Butterflies and birs that become black in polluted areas. Mutations that have been observed in laboratory conditions. Previously unknow variants of viruses that keep popping up. Horses (they became bigger over recorded history) and other domestic animals. Fossil records.

You may say that's circumstantial evidence, and you'd be right. Still, circumstancial evidence is much better than NO evidence at all.

And there's a hell of a lot of that circumstantial evidence. Enough to make it slowly less and less circumstantial.

"Acceptance of evolution" is not "unquestioning." First and foremost, evolution is an observable phenomenon, just like gravity and taxes. You can watch it happen if you look for it. Further, the proposed mechanisms of evolution-- natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and so on-- have been subjected to incredibly rigorous questioning and testing. That effort has considerably broadened our understanding of evolution, but you must understand that no amount of experimentation is likely to invalidate the underlying phenomenon-- evolution-- because it is an observable fact, just like the sunrise in the morning.

Expectations to the contrary are among the most pervasive (and disturbing) misperceptions about evolution. Suggesting that evolution doesn't happen or might be somehow uncertain is literally equivalent to believing that the Earth is flat.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is it faith that makes you believe your computer will function? Or did you need to read about it in a book?

Sorry, but evolution is every bit as reliable a scientific theory as those behind the functioning of everyday electronics. Moreso, in fact, since we still don't quite understand how the atom functions (though electricity seems to work just fine).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Then answer my questions. They weren't rhetorical.

Your fallacy is in equating inductive reasoning with "faith" as a blanket term. They are not the same. I induce that when I turn on my computer, it will function and functions based on science and observable phenomena. Generally, I've ruled out the possibility that magical elves power it. Why? Because the evidence tells me so. You most probably do the same thing. That's why when you look for the milk, you look in the fridge. You induce from experience that it is where you last put it and that things don't normally move around on their own. Science is based on the same types of observations and inductions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I saw it on TV, so it must be true...

Creationists are well-meaning people who are so disturbed by the idea that all of the data contradicts their literalist reading of the Bible, they concoct pseudoscientific claptrap to discount the obvious. What motivates them beyond that is something I can't answer. There have always been people like them, who feel threatened by science. They, and you, are really no different from those who clung to the Ptolomeic solar system.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You asked for what I thought... and I told you. A statement about a group of people of any kind is, by necessity, a generalization. Can you, perhaps, correct me about my obvious ignorance about what creationists such as yourself believe?

Also, answer my questions. Stop evading.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It could have been when you claimed that evolution was "bs."

But hey, that's just a leap of faith, right?

...still waiting for answers... one more post ignoring my questions and you're on my ignore list.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You cannot possibly mean something other than that evolution is "bs." Sorry, but in the context of every bloody post of yours, it is an entirely logical thing to believe about your beliefs.

Of course, I notice that, once again, when asked to actually clarify what you mean, you evade. In fact, in the post above you could have said "...this is what I actually believe, just to make it clear," but you did not. One wonders why.

I'm not playing games with you, anymore, though.

You're plonked. Goodbye.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

mopaul: "WHY is the notion of Evolution so very offensive to certain people?"

Joe Momma: "thats because it is BS"

No backpedaling, no siree. You said that and it's OUT of the editing window.

Seriously. "Depends of what the meaning of 'is' is" is less evasive.

You can dig those fossils yourself, they are everywhere. I did, it's lots of fun. If you're too lazy to do that and prefer reading dusty books and having faith, don't blame science.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is the evidence that supports Evolution.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is there any physical evidence that this took place? Is there any data? Can this creation be replicated? Is it even theoretically possible? Is there any basis whatsoever?

The answer to all of these is no.

Ditto for those who believe the Moon landings were fake.

I mean you can learn to analyze fossils, use your eyes, compare, read books about it. Have you ever tried?

A rational explanation is not enough, it has to be one with empiric value that doesn't conflict with the whole body of science. Of course I could also state that the fossils where put there by an evil demon last
Tuesday, when he created the universe, to confuse me. It's rational, but I am not willing to give up everything else I believe in, just to keep believing in ol'demon.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't have much faith. People who think the earth is flat or that think they have just invented a perpetuum mobile shouldn't be taken serious. There is no such thing as "creation science"!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Actually I don't believe in "the" scientific method, because there are many of them. Methods are tools - I believe in scientific ethics, that there is truth out there and it can be found by hard work and open discussion.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm a professional, working biologist-- I don't just read about evolution in books.

on edit: I'm not talking about fossils-- I'm talking about change in the genetic structure of extant populations of plants and animal. You can watch it, measure it, and use it to test ideas about the mechanisms of change. That's evolution. It's no less observable than gravity (of course, it's easiest to observe directly in organisms with short generation times, but I'm an entomologist, so no worries there....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I said I can observe evolution (and so can you). That's all I said. If a professional theologist tells me that it isn't occurring, then yes, I would have to dispute that, because I can see it with my own eyes and measure it easily. Telling me that the Earth is flat would have similar validity.

This is the argument that most folks who want to deny evolution simply cannot seem to get. It is an observable phenomenon. It isn't speculative. It is real. The "theories" have to do with the mechanisms of evolution, NOT the reality of its occurrance, and as others have stated already, the term "theory" in scientific discourse does not mean speculation, but rather "an explanation for which sufficient evidence has accumulated to lead to broad acceptance." But that's neither here nor there. Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable fact.

Sorry, got to run to a grad student thesis defense!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look if you don't believe in scientific method then fine. I'm happy for you. Yes science involves a certain faith. Even if the people here don’t believe it. It's always possible God is a jerk and the world is fundamentally unknowable. It's always possible that 1 plus 1 is 3 and Decartes was right. But if he's right then what a bastard god is and he can go * himself.

I think the real question is why do people feel so defensive of creationism as science? As a scientific theory it toppled over 150 years ago. It simply did't support the current evidence and worse it's been horribly non-predictive since.

We probably aren't evolving very much. The fossil record shows species existing unchanged for millions of years. Does slow gradual evolution occur. Sure. But the fossile record is record of mostly sharp puncuated evolutionary events. Of evolutionary explosions and massive kill offs. The universe is a horrible place for multicellular being. Knowing evolution really points out how incredible the Earth and it's history really is. It supports the feeling of a special Heaven which you'd think would be a great message to anyone who'd wish to learn it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

evolution, then we can start questioning it and debating it more avidly.

So, did you have a question about evolution? Let's see what you got.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We're a curious bunch, we who have Faith in Science®.

if you have any

You accept what you believe unquestioningly, therefor everyone else does, too. I guess that makes sense from your viewpoint. It can be hard to realize that other people actually do base their viewpoints on facts they've acquired rather then just because someone else says so, when you've never done that yourself.