Smithsonian: How to Talk with Evangelicals about Evolution

[abu afak]

Poor Indoctrinated Cultists.
Turns out you have to break it to them gently. Very gently.

HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION
Smithsonian Magazine -- 4-19-2018

""Rick Potts is no atheist-evolutionist-Darwinist. That often comes as a surprise to the faith communities he works with as head of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Human Origins Program in Washington, D.C.

Raised Protestant — with, he likes to say, “an emphasis on the ‘protest’” — the paleoanthropologist spends his weekends singing in a choir that sings both sacred and secular songs. At 18, he became a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War...
[....]That’s why, for him, human evolution is the perfect topic to break down entrenched barriers between people in an increasingly polarized, politicized world.
[.....]
If you aren’t caught on one side of the evolution debates, it can be hard to grasp what all the fuss is about. Here’s the short version: Charles Darwin’s crime wasn’t disproving God. Rather, the evolutionary theory he espoused in "On the Origin of Species" rendered God unnecessary. Darwin provided an explanation for life’s origins — and, more problematically, the origins of humanity — that didn’t require a creator.

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?
[.....]
[.....]

How to Talk With Evangelicals About Evolution

For two years, researchers from the Smithsonian traveled the country explaining the science of our shared origins

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[AFrench2]

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.

 

[fncceo]

HOW TO TALK WITH EVANGELICALS ABOUT EVOLUTION

How about you just don't?

The facts of science don't change if someone doesn't believe in them.

There really is no point in trying to educate the mind of someone who isn't seeking to learn the truth.

 

[abu afak]

Darwin didn't prove God does not exist. All he did was prove that all living things change and adapt over long, long, long, long, long periods of time.

Yes, that is Exactly what the article says.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Dan Kahan, a science communication expert at Yale Law School, thinks that's possible, but only if we abandon some tired rhetorical terrain. Asking people whether or not they “believe” in evolution is the wrong question, Kahan's work suggests, because it forces them to decide between what they know and who they are.’ ibid

True.

And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.

 

[cnm]

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?

I imagine he'd think Americans are exceptional...

 

[fncceo]

What would Darwin think if he could see the evolution wars rage today? If he knew that, year after year, national polls find one-third of Americans believe that humans have always existed in their current form? (In many religious groups, that number is far higher.) That, among all Western nations, only Turkey is more likely than the United States to flat-out reject the notion of human evolution?

I imagine he'd think Americans are exceptional...

I think he'd be right.

In all of human history, America and, by extension, Americans, are exceptional. The first colonized country to break from the powerful British Empire. A country who freely excepted immigrants from all over the world and asked of them only one thing, to work hard, and be a part of the creation of a great nation.

America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.

Of course, any country who starts with such high expectations is bound to falter along the way. It took us a century to eradicate slavery, another century still to establish civil rights for all Americans. But, all the while, even when we faltered, we didn't abandon our ideals.

We started out as a third-rate agricultural-based experiment in Democracy and created the most prosperous nation state in history.

All-in-all, a very exceptional achievement.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!

Science = settled!

Can I get an Amen?

We have Concensus!

 

[cnm]

And of course evolution isn’t a ‘belief’ – it’s a fact; religion is a belief.

Perhaps a belief with evidence as compared to a belief without evidence. Evidence in this case being that which can be shown.

 

[cnm]

America was founded not, as other nation states, by a violent king looking to carve out a kingdom, but by wise men with a vision of an enlightened country, the most free in all the world.

It was founded by venal scoundrels wishing to break treaties with the Indians in order to obtain the Indians' lands and to avoid paying for the wars that had protected them against the French and the Indians while basing an economy on unpaid labour. Quite normal, really.

 

[fncceo]

I'm still fascinated by the Evolutionary explanation of how the first cells appeared: well, they just did! We know they existed, therefore evolution!

Darwin didn't shed any light on the creation of organic cells and still t,oday, there two very different, and equally plausible explanations for the source of organic cells on Earth. But the science is never settled, as no science ever is.

We know by experimentation that carbon-based organic molecules will spontaneously combine from existing free elements under conditions found in nature.

We also know that organic molecule that exist in space and which exist in our solar system have been found on meteorites found on Earth.

Either explanation could explain the existence of organic molecules -- or --- both could be true.

A third explanation might very well be currently beyond our understanding.

Evolution doesn't explain everything. Just as the 'laws' of gravity don't tell us anything about how gravity actually works. But, we can demonstrate gravity and we understand its effects, if not its workings, very well.

Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.

 

[cnm]

Evolution is the best explanation for the origin of life on Earth that fits the existing observations and evidence.

For the speciation of life on earth, agreed.

 

[Thoth001]

I tend to subscribe the the Ancient Astronaut theory for humans. Either way they are all just theories and no one really knows for sure what exactly happened in the past. No doubt though that many things evolve over time. A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their are no Neanderthals left?

 

[fncceo]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

 

[cnm]

Either way they are all just theories

No they're not all just theories. Some are 'scientific theories' backed by evidence and some are delusional maunderings plucked from people's arses, eg the astronaut 'theory'.

 

[Thoth001]

Either way they are all just theories

No they're not all just theories. Some are 'scientific theories' backed by evidence and some are delusional maunderings plucked from people's arses, eg the astronaut 'theory'.

Some so called evidence is also fraudulent. You really can't believe anything. Feel free to believe what you want though. There are many entities invested into the history that they tell us. I will do my own research and come to my own conclusions. I really don't need anyone to tell me what to think.

 

[Thoth001]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

 

[fncceo]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

No, and neither does anyone else who understands Evolution.

Apes and Men both descended from another, much earlier, common mammalian ancestor.

A genetic mutation created two separated genealogical lines, one led to humans, the other led to apes.

 

[cnm]

You really can't believe anything.

Yet you manage to believe the 'Astronaut Theory' without any difficulty at all, let alone evidence, when there is much more evidence for evolution of species. Oh well, colour me surprised. And you exceptional.

 

[surada]

A good question I always thought of is if we evolved from Apes, why are there still Apes but their [sic] are no Neanderthals left?

If a river splits in two ... the branches go off in different directions, one doesn't just cease to be. The same is true of offspring. When a mutation occurs, creating a new line, it doesn't affect the existing, non-mutated lines.

As for the Neanderthals, fossil evidence shows that modern humans not only co-existed with them, but mated with them. Neanderthal DNA accounts for up to 20% of the genome of non-African humans.

The most plausible answer to where they went is, we killed them off.

Do you believe we literally evolved from Apes?

Nope.. That's a simplification for uneducated people.