It seems that if you break down just about any of the common arguments about evolution you find that the reason they are used is almost always the same. Some people have a literal or heavily literal interpretation of the bible which they believe to be absolute truth. The facts uncovered by evolutionary science seem to regularly contradict these rigidly held tenets and the believer is therefore forced to argue that evolution must be flawed, if not outright wrong. What other possible reason would there be to use outdated and thoroughly disproven arguments repeatedly, to no effect? It seems they are following the common tongue-in-cheek definition of insanity: “Repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results” What is going on here?
Tags: Against, Arguments, Biblical, Common, defend, Evolution, literalism, Purpose, serve
all theories are subject to attack and rightly so.
I agree about the fundies’ intentions in this regard but no scientific theory should be held to be above criticism and review. It would defeat the entire point of science.
I have read a *lot* of Creationist literature (I would wager that I’ve read more than most Creationists I meet). I have also read a lot of *pro-evolution* literature written by devoutly Christian writers (like Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, and Ken Miller). And so I have concluded, as you have, that the attack on evolution is not justified in any logical argument that evolution contradicts a belief in God or Christ, but that it contradicts a specific literal interpretation of the *Bible*. This, to me, is not worshipping God … it is worshipping a human artifact, an idol … a book transcribed, translated, edited, and transmitted by a countless number of fallible humans and declared to be the “literal word of God” … which to me (as a Catholic) is idolatry!
But that’s a discussion for the Religion & Spirituality section.
As far as the science is concerned, Creationism is a complete and utter *disaster*. Not only does it undermine one of the most central principles of modern Biology, but it leads to horrible understanding of really *BASIC* concepts of science! By starting out with the premise the evolution *must* be false, the Creationist develops an understanding of scientific concepts that if applied to any other branch of science, would turn science into impotent mush. Creationists mangle BASIC concepts such as ‘theory’, ‘fact’, ‘law’, or the difference between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’, or the role of ‘observation’, or ‘inference’, or what ‘repeatability’ means. They misrepresent what the word ‘evolution’ even means, or misuse words like ‘microevolution’ or ‘macroevolution’, or mangle the second law of thermodynamics, or throw around terms like ‘information’, ‘complexity’, ‘entropy’ without any coherent understanding of what these things mean! Because they are NOT starting with a general concept of science and understanding evolution in that light, they are starting with a deep-seated rejection of evolution (before they even know what it is or what its evidence is) and then reconstructing all of science to justify that rejection!
And by the time they are done, they have taught laypeople an utterly confused, mangled, inconsistent, jumbled conception of science. And they have taught laypeople to have an utter *contempt* for scientists and their profession, to the point of outright *hatred* for them. (I’ve seen it here in Yahoo Answers.)
So yes, a healthy respect for the concept of questioning all orthodox science is not only allowed in science, it is *essential*.
But when that turns into head-in-the-sand, “I will start with my rejection of evolution and then redefine all of science if necessary to justify that rejection” … this is not healthy, this is teaching people a path to a lifetime of scientific illiteracy. It is teaching people to use *beliefs* to color understanding, instead of the other way around!
>”What other possible reason would there be to use outdated and thoroughly disproven arguments repeatedly, to no effect? It seems they are following the common tongue-in-cheek definition of insanity: “Repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results”
I have to disagree that these arguments are being made “to no effect.” The Creationists ARE seeing results! The endless repetition of these absolutely bogus arguments is not persuasive with scientists, but they are *VERY* persuasive with non-scientists already predisposed to believe evolution is false …
… and these bogus arguments are especially effective with children!
That is why more than 40% of Americans reject evolution outright. That is astounding and alarming. But it is a testament to how effective it is to keep raising the same bogus arguments over and over. A kid in school has no idea they are bogus, or that they’ve been answered repeatedly for over 150 years. A lay-person whose science education is limited to a C+ in 10th-grade biology doesn’t know that they are bogus. So they not only accept these bogus arguments without question, they *repeat* them. (Welcome to Yahoo Answers.)
So I disagree that they are not getting results.
purpose? biblical literalism?
you gotta be joking, right?
the purpose of biblical literalism is pretty clear-cut… fear-mongering though evangelism…
Truthfully, they are merely a rearguard action by those who would deny any evidence that conflicts with their faith. The debate was lost decades ago, but they just can’t let it go. By muddying the waters with things like “Intelligent Design” (Creationism by another name) they can encourage more placating types among us to do their will. No creationism in schools? Ah well surely you will teach intelligent design theory. It’s even got the word theory in it’s name!
It’s no longer a battle of belief vs evidence. It has devolved (ironically) into a battle of politics, semantics, distortion, deceit, and delay.
1. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION. Even if evolutionary science is true, the natural laws making it possible must come from some source of intelligence and decision- an architect. One does not have to be religious to see a great intelligence in the mechanism of evolution.
2. The bible starts with history of mankind and does not tell about all the events prior to that, besides a short briefing about the creation.
The bible does compare a day to a thousand years. There were many events missing before the history of mankind begins. One can fit evolution in those untold events.
3. One does not have to be religious to see all creatures on earth as being specifically designed to be what they are and not evolved.
a mechanism of evolution cannot be denied, but up to a level of evidence.
You cannot extrapolate the existing evidence to a conclusion that humans evolved from apes.
A thought: Since we don’t know if life was brought here by a falling meteor or by an intentional landing, we can’t neglect the possibility that all basic species were put here on earth, and a limited evolution property had diversified them.
This possibility is not religious, and makes me comfortable not to be an evolved ape.
I don’t see antievolutionists as defending biblical literalism but as propagating dogmatic belief.
I see a subtle difference between the two.
These are true believers, and they will not admit of anything that contradicts what they hold to be true. In this case, it happens to be the Bible — but it could be, and throughout history has been, anything else for this kind of person: political parties, clan attachments, economic groups, racial groups, and on, and on.
We’re seeing the war between irrationality and rationality playing out today just like it has been since the dawn of civilization.
For starters I’d like to ask:
1. if you’ve read the Bible (and are not just going on what people say about the Bible).
2. if you’ve studied science (and are not influenced by what people say about certain scientific facts).
Biblegateway (in the sources section) is a good online version of the Bible if you don’t have a printed copy handy.
May I kindly say that your statement, “The facts uncovered by evolutionary science seem to regularly contradict these rigidly held tenets…” is incorrect. First, there isn’t such a thing as “evolutionary science.” Either it’s science or it’s not; “evolutionary science” is a spin or interpretation some would put on the unvarnished facts.
The actual, true facts, unvarnished by a false inference or interpretation, always support the truth of Scripture. If you haven’t done so, I highly recommend that you study cell biology, for starters. The “machinery” and inner workings inside a cell are amazing. A cell and all its components certainly couldn’t have happened by chance. Nothing that works well in human endeavors happens by chance–is it reasonable to expect it to happen by chance in the biological world? I wouldn’t suggest that you ascribe insanity to those who believe in a Creator, if you catch my drift.
In addition, consider this fact: The law of biogenesis–we see creatures giving rise to their own kinds only. It’s an established thing in biology, and there’s no support for evolution in that law.
Furthermore, we never see any creatures evolving into a more complex, different kind. Evolution of this sort (macroevolution) has never once been observed.
You would seem to do away with the Scripture entirely, or at least the creation account. One has to take it all–or nothing, to one’s eternal doom. Would you do away with the parts that talk about not murdering, not lying, not stealing? Many of our laws are based on God’s laws. Would you prefer anarchy and the destruction of your society? I don’t imagine so.
The most important part of Scripture is God’s offer of salvation through Christ. May I recommend you visit this site http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ to that end.
Lastly, if you are open to the truth, I recommend these links for further consideration:
http://www.allaboutcreation.or.....on-faq.htm
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
http://www.allaboutcreation.or.....tion-2.htm
http://creation.com/clouded-minds
http://creation.com/antidote-to-superstition
http://creation.com/the-scient.....-evolution