This is for both sides to consider:
Have any of you noticed that when a fossil comes out one of the two sides immediately jumps on it?
When the Nebraska man came out it was immediately used in the Scopes Monkey Trials to solidify the growing theory of evolution. It was later found that the fossil consisted of a single tooth belonging to an extinct species of pig.
When a creationist finds the complexity of an organ or organism they immediately publish a document stating how it shows that evolution is utterly false. Often these organs are proven to be less complex than previoulsy thought.
This is entitled "Go for the Heart" because rather than going for the mind and bringing evidence to the other side to be tested and critiqued, evolutionists and creationists immediately print it in order to cripple the other side and build up its own beliefs.
I know evolutionists will completely deny this (as will creationists) but both sides have questionable flaws that can not be left alone. In modern times we no longer want to find out the truth but to be proven correct and rub it in the face of those who oppose us so that we can end the courage that they once had.
Why can't we do this:
When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
When creationists find an amazingly complex organism why can't they show the evolutionary medical teams and collectively observe it once more, and repeat the process.
The conclusions will still be different but we won't have a bunch of brainwashed zombies anymore.
When I was a young-earth creationist we discussed the Scopes Monkey trials in History Class. It was inevitably brought up that I was a creationist and the teacher said "I don't know how you could have such an opinion" we had a debate (informal) and I crushed both the evolutionary classmates and the teacher because I was the only one who had researched both sides. The comment by the teacher made it harder for me to accept evolution and therein lies another problem.
We are prideful creatures, some would rather be ignorant than allow somoeone to gloat. So if we realize we have made a mistake we hide it and cover it up, dodging the issue and further increasing the pain.
I am really fed up with the debate. I will continue to debate but it is some of the people here who mock Creationists and some of my creationist friends who basically laugh at the phrase "evolution occurs" that annoy me. Why can't the debate be civilized and open-minded?
If someone wants to be an atheist than just come to terms with that and quit debating because nothing will convince you. If you want to be a Christian that stop arguing because we will get no where.
Go for the Heart
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I don't think it's quite that simple. The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum. They seem to fear evolution, based on their particular reading of the bible, and their particular belief that it is weak enough to be undermined by a mere scientific finding. This basic notion has been discussed many times in many places.
Scientists, on the other hand, say we should start with the data, and draw our conclusions from it. What is taught in science class should be the data, and the conclusions based on the data. There are no data that lead us to creation, but lots and lots and lots of data that lead us to evolution.
The vast majority of people in the world have accepted evolution. The vast majority of relgions have accepted it. It is only a few fundamentalist sects of a few religions that have decided that the scientific findings must be wrong, and should therefore be suppressed. The US right now happens to have enough members of some of these sects to keep the debate roiling.
As an afterthought, I think that I will also take issue with your statement that when a new fossil is found, evolutionists jump on it and say it proves evolution. I know of none who would do so. Instead, they would jump on it and say "I think this tells us [some particular bit] about evolution." It's not a question of proving evolution. Scientifically, we are at the point of determining the fine points of the mechanism.
Scientists, on the other hand, say we should start with the data, and draw our conclusions from it. What is taught in science class should be the data, and the conclusions based on the data. There are no data that lead us to creation, but lots and lots and lots of data that lead us to evolution.
The vast majority of people in the world have accepted evolution. The vast majority of relgions have accepted it. It is only a few fundamentalist sects of a few religions that have decided that the scientific findings must be wrong, and should therefore be suppressed. The US right now happens to have enough members of some of these sects to keep the debate roiling.
As an afterthought, I think that I will also take issue with your statement that when a new fossil is found, evolutionists jump on it and say it proves evolution. I know of none who would do so. Instead, they would jump on it and say "I think this tells us [some particular bit] about evolution." It's not a question of proving evolution. Scientifically, we are at the point of determining the fine points of the mechanism.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
Dilettante
- Sage
- Posts: 964
- Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
- Location: Spain
Post #3
I totally agree that debating is useless if both sides are convinced that they're absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong. No truth will be changing hands in such a situation and debating is a waste of time and energy. But not everybody is like that. In this forum you will find lots of people who are open minded, civil, respectful and knowledgeable.
However, in the particular case we're dealing with it seems to me that there's an imbalance. The evolutionist side is more diverse, so to speak. I know that some will disagree, but the fact is that you can be both a Christian (or any kind of theist) and an evolutionist. Accepting evolution does not necessarily make people atheists. Is the converse true? I think not. How many creationists or ID proponents are atheists? Very few or probably none. This is perhaps an indication that in the latter group religion, not science, is the basic motivation. Of course, having a motive for upholding a certain theory does not make that theory wrong. I'm not suggesting that. All I'm saying is that their religion and their science get mixed up, and religion wins. As a result, Creationism ends up being much more metaphysical than scientific.
However, in the particular case we're dealing with it seems to me that there's an imbalance. The evolutionist side is more diverse, so to speak. I know that some will disagree, but the fact is that you can be both a Christian (or any kind of theist) and an evolutionist. Accepting evolution does not necessarily make people atheists. Is the converse true? I think not. How many creationists or ID proponents are atheists? Very few or probably none. This is perhaps an indication that in the latter group religion, not science, is the basic motivation. Of course, having a motive for upholding a certain theory does not make that theory wrong. I'm not suggesting that. All I'm saying is that their religion and their science get mixed up, and religion wins. As a result, Creationism ends up being much more metaphysical than scientific.
-
Samurai Tailor
- Student
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:52 pm
Post #4
An excellent point. Fossils are recovered daily and debate begins almost immediately - largely out of the public eye - on their places in the developmental chain. News outlets, however, reserve their coverage largely for primate and hominid finds, not because they are any more or less crucial for evolutionary theory as a whole, but because they provoke the most visceral debate and are thus the most newsworthy.Jose wrote:As an afterthought, I think that I will also take issue with your statement that when a new fossil is found, evolutionists jump on it and say it proves evolution. I know of none who would do so. Instead, they would jump on it and say "I think this tells us [some particular bit] about evolution." It's not a question of proving evolution. Scientifically, we are at the point of determining the fine points of the mechanism.
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #5
I support Jose on this issue.The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum.
We can't come to some sort of "meeting of hearts" on this issue because science, as science, is under sustained attack in the US.
Science, as an institution, has an obligation to defend itself when a group of religious conservatives want to government to remove a part of science and install a religious doctrine in its place. This is as true in Alabama as it is in Iran.
I think the heart of this issue is in this quote from Dilly:
The problem is that many creationists insist that evolution and atheism are synonyms. The controversy is created by their insistance that "good christians" must believe creationism.Accepting evolution does not necessarily make people atheists.
In this view, creationism isn't a statement about the world, but a test of apostacy. An exercise in church discipline.
DanZ
Post #6
The above is a false statement.....or can you back up that comment Jose?Jose wrote:I don't think it's quite that simple. The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum.
If you can't then I expect you will be retracting it.
Post #7
Can't speak for the creationists but I suspect that most working scientists studying biological systems are interested in their field of study and not in creationist theories. You don't expect that Astronomers should have collegial discussions with astrologers or chemists with alchemists. Scientists do what they do to advance their knowledge of science and not to discredit creationists whose theories they already see as coming from the lunatic fringe. There are a few scientists who have made it their mission to attack creationists wherever they find them but that's a small minority of the scientific community.When evolutionists find a fossil that "proves evolution" they should bring it to the creationists and collectively examine it. Then both sides write their critiques on the fossils including the arguments for the other side.
No ... its a true statement. Refer to the Discovery Institute's Wedge Project and the writings of the Godfather of ID, Phillip Johnson hereThe above is a false statement ...
To YEC
Post #8To YEC,
Why would anyone who thinks that a particular metaphysic (materialism) is anti God and will lead people to eternal damnation; who believe that particular sciences eg much of biology, astronomy, anthropology and geology are in fact not science but irrational belief systems not want to keep “scientific materialism” and sciences that it has supposedly spawned, from the school curriculum?
YEC - have you ever read any of the literature from AiG? Try reading Ken Ham’s “The Lie: Evolution”. And if you still reckon they do not wish to eject scientific materialism and its supposed irrational belief systems from schools, then in what form do you think they will allow these to be taught?
Given the continual misrepresentation of mainstream thinking by YEC/OEC it might just as well be removed from the school system. It certainly will not be taught as it should be.
Would you allow an evil belief system created by Satan taught to your children?
Regards, Roland[/quote]
In my experience, Jose is not too far off the mark.Jose:- I don't think it's quite that simple. The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum.YEC:- The above is a false statement.....or can you back up that comment Jose?
If you can't then I expect you will be retracting it.
Why would anyone who thinks that a particular metaphysic (materialism) is anti God and will lead people to eternal damnation; who believe that particular sciences eg much of biology, astronomy, anthropology and geology are in fact not science but irrational belief systems not want to keep “scientific materialism” and sciences that it has supposedly spawned, from the school curriculum?
YEC - have you ever read any of the literature from AiG? Try reading Ken Ham’s “The Lie: Evolution”. And if you still reckon they do not wish to eject scientific materialism and its supposed irrational belief systems from schools, then in what form do you think they will allow these to be taught?
Given the continual misrepresentation of mainstream thinking by YEC/OEC it might just as well be removed from the school system. It certainly will not be taught as it should be.
Would you allow an evil belief system created by Satan taught to your children?
Regards, Roland[/quote]
Post #9
rjw,
The statement was.....The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum.
I still have not seen this.
Evolutionism is still in our text books with an accurate sticker placed in some of then alerting the students to the fact that evolution is still an un-proven theory and not all scientist accept the interpretation of the evo scientist.
This puts Jose ...waaaaaaayyyyyyy..of the mark.
Of course I often see the evo present the extreme as the norm on these forums and I suggest jose and now you are doing the same.
Should evolutionism, gradualism, uniformatarism and the such be ejected from our schools? My answer...not yet.
My prediction, much of it will be slowly replaced in the years to come as evolution continues its slippery slide away from general scientific belief and concepts such as ID , irreducible complex components and the flood model gain in popularity due to scientific research demonstrating Charlie was incorrect.
The statement was.....The politically-active creationists and IDers have specifically set their sights on removing scientific materialism from the school curriculum.
I still have not seen this.
Evolutionism is still in our text books with an accurate sticker placed in some of then alerting the students to the fact that evolution is still an un-proven theory and not all scientist accept the interpretation of the evo scientist.
This puts Jose ...waaaaaaayyyyyyy..of the mark.
Of course I often see the evo present the extreme as the norm on these forums and I suggest jose and now you are doing the same.
Should evolutionism, gradualism, uniformatarism and the such be ejected from our schools? My answer...not yet.
My prediction, much of it will be slowly replaced in the years to come as evolution continues its slippery slide away from general scientific belief and concepts such as ID , irreducible complex components and the flood model gain in popularity due to scientific research demonstrating Charlie was incorrect.
Post #10
YEC
If you "... still have not seen this ..." then you apparently didn't read the Creation Institute's Wedge Strategy or Phillip Johnson's writings. In both instances it is not Jose but the Creationists who are presenting the extremes.
You should also note that the textbook stickers in Cobb County have been banned by the courts as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The "slippery slide" to which you refer seems to be a gravity-defying slide upward. The studies that I have seen in paleontology, genetics and biochemistry recently have all added even more support for evolution. I haven't seen anything that lends support to ID, irreducible complexity or the flood model. Perhaps you can provide references for some that do provide such support.
If you "... still have not seen this ..." then you apparently didn't read the Creation Institute's Wedge Strategy or Phillip Johnson's writings. In both instances it is not Jose but the Creationists who are presenting the extremes.
You should also note that the textbook stickers in Cobb County have been banned by the courts as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The "slippery slide" to which you refer seems to be a gravity-defying slide upward. The studies that I have seen in paleontology, genetics and biochemistry recently have all added even more support for evolution. I haven't seen anything that lends support to ID, irreducible complexity or the flood model. Perhaps you can provide references for some that do provide such support.
