Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

[newpolitics]

As a Christian, I don't care what anyone else chooses to believe, or what they choose to teach their own children, but don't be pushing your fantasy on me or my kids. Believe what you want but teaching a theory to a captive audience (school children) as fact, is not education, it's indoctrination and should not be allowed.

Except when it is established fact by science. Teaching kids religious fairy tales as myth is indoctrination. Teaching mods demonstrable scientific facts is the right thing to do to keep our populations keen on the reality before us.

A moron is a word ignorant people use to label others they disagree with but cannot explain why... Darwin clearly thought the finches were various species called finch. He had no clue that the beaks only represented variations within one species that interbreed freely. And what you say is correct. Unless one is willing to try to explain various interpretations of data but limit one's presentation to the explanation of only one view (secular or not) that instructor, institution, etc., is indoctrinating and not teaching anything. And the public school system of the United States has been proven to not be much better than a place for target practice by individuals such institutions previously indoctrinated...

Evolution is both a demonstrated, observable fact and a theory that explains all of the evidence we find in the archaeological record and in genetics. The probability that it is wrong at this point being corroborated by many disciplines- biology, geology, archaeology, immunology, and others, is low as to be laughably absurd. Meanwhile, you read a book and concluded its truth value without outside evidence, and attempt to criticize epistemologies who draw justifiable conclusions using evidence, sound logic and reason. Take your kid out of school if you must, but creationism will never be taught in schools.

 

[PredFan]

It isn't established fact.

Doesn't have to be.

Compared to the Creation fairy tale, evolution is an absolute certainty.

Thanks for admitting it isn't fact.

There are very few facts in this world. If we only taught facts, there would only be mathematics. there certainly wouldn't be any teaching of religion. The argument was that evolution should be taught in schools because it's a science based on facts and observable data. It isn't myth, or opinion, it's science. as such, it can be amended whenever new data is discovered.

Evolution doesn't have to be an established scientific fact to be taught in schools.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

(i.e., anyone who questions their politically correct dogma) as a means of defending their own position? Is arguing that the earth is more than 6,000 years old the best they can do? I don't care if we descended from apes or not, but the currently popular...

We do not descend from apes. Science does not claim that. We share a common ancestor with apes. You are using old talking points. Were you home schooled?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

 

[PredFan]

Except when it is established fact by science. Teaching kids religious fairy tales as myth is indoctrination. Teaching mods demonstrable scientific facts is the right thing to do to keep our populations keen on the reality before us.

A moron is a word ignorant people use to label others they disagree with but cannot explain why... Darwin clearly thought the finches were various species called finch. He had no clue that the beaks only represented variations within one species that interbreed freely. And what you say is correct. Unless one is willing to try to explain various interpretations of data but limit one's presentation to the explanation of only one view (secular or not) that instructor, institution, etc., is indoctrinating and not teaching anything. And the public school system of the United States has been proven to not be much better than a place for target practice by individuals such institutions previously indoctrinated...

Evolution is both a demonstrated, observable fact and a theory that explains all of the evidence we find in the archaeological record and in genetics. The probability that it is wrong at this point being corroborated by many disciplines- biology, geology, archaeology, immunology, and others, is low as to be laughably absurd. Meanwhile, you read a book and concluded its truth value without outside evidence, and attempt to criticize epistemologies who draw justifiable conclusions using evidence, sound logic and reason. Take your kid out of school if you must, but creationism will never be taught in schools.

I can't agree that it's an established scientific fact but that is probably just semantics. I agree that it's so close to a fact that to prove it wrong would be near to impossible.

 

[PredFan]

We do not descend from apes. Science does not claim that. We share a common ancestor with apes. You are using old talking points. Were you home schooled?

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

I'm supporting your argument.

 

[newpolitics]

Scientists admit and are well familiar with the inherent uncertainties in science. Absolute truth is a fiction invented by religion but to which many have become accustomed through religious indoctrination, who them judge science as being inferior using this false standard of perfection. This is the problem with religion. People of faith need certainty, and can't have it with science, so they reject it and call it fairy tale, without realizing that any standards of evidence applied to their own claims make them absurdly unjustifiable.

 

[newpolitics]

Perfection doesn't exist in reality. No scientific theory will ever be perfect. Once you take this word out of your vocabulary, science becomes accessible as a viable means of explanation for the observable universe. Expectations for perfection ruin science for any mind trying to grasp it. It is sad. Science is the best mode we have for assessing what is true and false about the universe. Nothing else has ever come even close. It does not preclude a god or gods, but to date, has not provided any evidence for them or any supernatural claims. There is no bias against any explanations that show evidence, merely those that don't, and so far all religious explanations fail to provide any evidence. This is why faith is required. Faith is belief without evidence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

99.999% of the people who argue against evolution know very very little about it. That is the reason they are confused. The real sad thing is that you could explain it to them but they'd wake up tomorrow and return to thinking that humans evolved from apes.

I'm supporting your argument.

I know. Your statements make me sad...because of their truth

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Scientists admit and are well familiar with the inherent uncertainties in science. Absolute truth is a fiction invented by religion but to which many have become accustomed through religious indoctrination, who them judge science as being inferior using this false standard of perfection. This is the problem with religion. People of faith need certainty, and can't have it with science, so they reject it and call it fairy tale, without realizing that any standards of evidence applied to their own claims make them absurdly unjustifiable.

Perfection doesn't exist in reality. No scientific theory will ever be perfect. Once you take this word out of your vocabulary, science becomes accessible as a viable means of explanation for the observable universe. Expectations for perfection ruin science for any mind trying to grasp it. It is sad. Science is the best mode we have for assessing what is true and false about the universe. Nothing else has ever come even close. It does not preclude a god or gods, but to date, had no provided any evidence for them. There is no bias against any explanations that show evidence, merely those that don't, and so far all religious explanations fail to provide any evidence. This is why faith is required. Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is required? oy vey

 

[newpolitics]

Scientists admit and are well familiar with the inherent uncertainties in science. Absolute truth is a fiction invented by religion but to which many have become accustomed through religious indoctrination, who them judge science as being inferior using this false standard of perfection. This is the problem with religion. People of faith need certainty, and can't have it with science, so they reject it and call it fairy tale, without realizing that any standards of evidence applied to their own claims make them absurdly unjustifiable.

Perfection doesn't exist in reality. No scientific theory will ever be perfect. Once you take this word out of your vocabulary, science becomes accessible as a viable means of explanation for the observable universe. Expectations for perfection ruin science for any mind trying to grasp it. It is sad. Science is the best mode we have for assessing what is true and false about the universe. Nothing else has ever come even close. It does not preclude a god or gods, but to date, had no provided any evidence for them. There is no bias against any explanations that show evidence, merely those that don't, and so far all religious explanations fail to provide any evidence. This is why faith is required. Faith is belief without evidence.

Faith is required? oy vey

By definition. In other words, it is an irrational belief.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except when it is established fact by science. Teaching kids religious fairy tales as myth is indoctrination. Teaching mods demonstrable scientific facts is the right thing to do to keep our populations keen on the reality before us.

A moron is a word ignorant people use to label others they disagree with but cannot explain why... Darwin clearly thought the finches were various species called finch. He had no clue that the beaks only represented variations within one species that interbreed freely. And what you say is correct. Unless one is willing to try to explain various interpretations of data but limit one's presentation to the explanation of only one view (secular or not) that instructor, institution, etc., is indoctrinating and not teaching anything. And the public school system of the United States has been proven to not be much better than a place for target practice by individuals such institutions previously indoctrinated...

Evolution is both a demonstrated, observable fact and a theory that explains all of the evidence we find in the archaeological record and in genetics. The probability that it is wrong at this point being corroborated by many disciplines- biology, geology, archaeology, immunology, and others, is low as to be laughably absurd. Meanwhile, you read a book and concluded its truth value without outside evidence, and attempt to criticize epistemologies who draw justifiable conclusions using evidence, sound logic and reason. Take your kid out of school if you must, but creationism will never be taught in schools.

Correct.

Without evolution life could never exist on this planet. The surface of the Earth is constantly changing. Life changes, evolves, as well, to accommodate the changing Earth to survive.

 

[jillian]

We know the Darwinian view, why do they not teach the Creationist view?

Please see (seemingly a Roman Catholic site): The Case for Creationism

because creationism isn't science.

science is science.

i hope you're no longer confused.

Views and opinions are not science. Evolution is founded on interpretation of data and not actually seen repeatable events. As such, there are various interpretations that can be applied. But no one can say with absolute certainty this is how the events occurred --- one must speculate or accept divine revelation. True scientific method demands full observation & repeatablity.

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

 

[rdean]

Why Do Evolutionists Attack "Creationsists"

Because they are backwards rubes who when it comes down to it prefer to believe in magic.

Sounds worthy of attack to me.

No, believing in magic would be to accept the notion that one species somehow became another.

You mean like lions and tigers? Or zebras or horses or donkeys? Genetics is obviously mistaken.

 

[rdean]

When you think about evolution and mystical creation, you realize what a difficult choice it is.

On one side, you have:
fossils
genetics
geology
biology
plate tectonics
radio carbon dating

on the other side, you have the imaginings of bronze age people who wore robes and sandals, many lived in caves and they didn't know to wash after wiping.

See what I mean? It's a very, very difficult choice to make.

Speaking of evolution, everyone get their flu shot? You need it every year because the virus is always evolving.

 

[LittleNipper]

When you think about evolution and mystical creation, you realize what a difficult choice it is.

On one side, you have:
fossils
genetics
geology
biology
plate tectonics
radio carbon dating

on the other side, you have the imaginings of bronze age people who wore robes and sandals, many lived in caves and they didn't know to wash after wiping.

See what I mean? It's a very, very difficult choice to make.

Speaking of evolution, everyone get their flu shot? You need it every year because the virus is always evolving.

There is an interesting fact the Jews followed the Biblical ceremonial laws conerning hygiene (Read Leviticus) and were thought to be practicing witchcraft because they tended not to get infections as did the "gentile" population. So clever of these primitive bronze age people to figure out something that wasn't discovered until the late 19th century by "modern man"... The flu virus is adapting to its environment. So far, there is no proof that a virus has ever been anything but a virus or ever will be. PS> A flu shot can make one sick and may not even prevent the flu one contracts...

 

[LittleNipper]

You may wish to read the following:

How Old Is That Fossil (in the layer)?

Creationists are not the only ones who consider circular reasoning...

 

[LittleNipper]

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

So, because there are so many unknown variables I see more probability that man is mistaken with regard his theories, and many other things man does.

 

[newpolitics]

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

So, because there are so many unknown variables I see more probability that man is mistaken with regard his theories, and many other things man does.

Given that there is actual evidence bearing in evolution and none for god, it is more reasonable to conclude that science has better explanations, and one is therefore more justified in believing science over religious claims. The simple fact that religious claims require faith in order to be believed should tell you enough, if you are being honest with yourself.

 

[S.J.]

so because there are unknown variables, you'd equate something that is entirely faith-based and which has zero scientific basis?

So, because there are so many unknown variables I see more probability that man is mistaken with regard his theories, and many other things man does.

Given that there is actual evidence bearing in evolution and none for god, it is more reasonable to conclude that science has better explanations, and one is therefore more justified in believing science over religious claims. The simple fact that religious claims require faith in order to be believed should tell you enough, if you are being honest with yourself.

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

 

[newpolitics]

So, because there are so many unknown variables I see more probability that man is mistaken with regard his theories, and many other things man does.

Given that there is actual evidence bearing in evolution and none for god, it is more reasonable to conclude that science has better explanations, and one is therefore more justified in believing science over religious claims. The simple fact that religious claims require faith in order to be believed should tell you enough, if you are being honest with yourself.

A lack of physical evidence in one theory does not make YOUR theory any more legitimate by default.

Your exactly right. You should heed your own words. Attacking science or evolution doesn't make creationism or gods any more true or real. Science doesn't rest on the fallacy of a false dichotomy, unlike many Christians. It's conclusions are supported by the evidence, in fact many times drawn from the evidence itself.