Why respect religious belief?

[kathyv]

One such 'punch' in the evolution theory are polystrat fossils. These are a fact, have been found all over the world and point to a catastrophic flood event. . .

Another punch are the many evolutionists who have publicly stated that evolution is in itself a theory, not a fact, and can't be completely scientifically supported. Including the man himself, Charles Darwin.


I think a lot of the evolutionary sciences look at an adaptation and label it evolving.


Something that I find odd, and a punch in the creationists side are the eohippus questions. There are several reasons, according to creationists, why the eohippus can't point to evolution into the horse and one of their reasonings are the numbers of ribs found in several fossils varies, this is taken by creationists as proof of non evolution. However, modern horse has a breed with different numbers of ribs, the Arabian has 1 set of ribs fewer than other horse breeds so I do question the reasoning of creationists using that as support.

I question it all, because I wish to continue learning but I don't let it disrupt my life. I also don't insist that anyone look at my views as fact.

And Bell, I haven't called you dumb or your views stupid. If there is something that you believe as truth but you have nothing tangible to support it, but you still believe it, isn't that faith? Do you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? Can you touch it? Can you take it out and prove to me that you actually have one or do I have to take it on faith that it's there?

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by kathyv

One such 'punch' in the evolution theory are polystrat fossils. These are a fact, have been found all over the world and point to a catastrophic flood event. . .


Actually it's polystrate fossils and again you've proved my point- you have churned out a creationist red herring that you have obviously got from one of their websites without realising that it is a complete falsehood and deals specifically with geology rather than evolution. They are caused by rapid sedimentation in the floodplains of rivers etc. and provide no problems whatsoever for evolution.



Another punch are the many evolutionists who have publicly stated that evolution is in itself a theory, not a fact, and can't be completely scientifically supported. Including the man himself, Charles Darwin.


There are no mathematical facts in science but there are phenomena supported by such a weight of evidence that it would be perverse to dispute they were facts. Speciation of insects is observed in laboratories so that can only be termed the fact of evolution. Only the biological mechanisms involved are theoretical so natural selection- Darwinism - is a theory but the fact that species evolve through time is an indisputable fact.



I think a lot of the evolutionary sciences look at an adaptation and label it evolving.

Evolution is only defined as change at the genetic level of any species through time so in fact it is creationists who try and define evolution as only being adaptation.


Something that I find odd, and a punch in the creationists side are the eohippus questions. There are several reasons, according to creationists, why the eohippus can't point to evolution into the horse and one of their reasonings are the numbers of ribs found in several fossils varies, this is taken by creationists as proof of non evolution. However, modern horse has a breed with different numbers of ribs, the Arabian has 1 set of ribs fewer than other horse breeds so I do question the reasoning of creationists using that as support.

Another creationist favourite- possibly from answersingenesis? And yet another completely flawed argument. The fossil record of horses shows that it branched off into various lineages which in turn split into a variety of different species. Biology doesn't say that evolution has to be a consistent progression but the fossil evidence shows all stages of development and doesn't cause any problems for evolution.


I question it all, because I wish to continue learning but I don't let it disrupt my life. I also don't insist that anyone look at my views as fact.

But that is exactly my point. Evolution of species is a fact. It does occur and isn't in question and your responses prove my argument. You, like many other people, obviously felt they were valid objections because you saw them on some creationist website presented as if they were credible arguments when in reality they have no validity or relevance whatsoever. That is why creationists must be challenged- they are preventing people from learning scientific facts and not only that but the culture that actually encourages evangelicals to spread their lies and propaganda has to be questioned.

[Scottish_Republican]

"There is no such thing in the age of global communications as essentially an American thing. Creationist websites originate in the US and misinform kids from every country in the world."

Yes, there certainly is. Despite taking over most of the world's entertainment and media, there are certain things which bear classic American hallmarks, and which have not really taken off much elsewhere. Egg-nogg. American Football (despite the billions pumped into it, they can barely muster a few thousand), Thanksgiving etc etc.

"Richard Dawkins might be brash and abrasive but his approach is 100% right considering the people he's confronting."

Richard Dawkins is the worst ambassador anyone could have. Stephen Jay Gould was better. A public schoolboy with a sledge hammer and insults will not do the job for you. He's the Maggie Thatcher of science.

"Evolution of species is a fact. It does occur and isn't in question"

It's the best interpretation of the evidence. However, within evolution, there are umpteen other factors scientists bicker on. What we have now in biology is not what Darwin proposed. Darwin didn't even know about DNA, so things have moved on.

But as I say - evolution/creation is the big distraction in American politics. A distraction from social issues etc I don't exactly think about evolution all the time I'm commuting, cooking, shopping etc. I do think about my money though, and my working conditions.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Scottish_Republican

Yes, there certainly is. Despite taking over most of the world's entertainment and media, there are certain things which bear classic American hallmarks, and which have not really taken off much elsewhere. Egg-nogg. American Football (despite the billions pumped into it, they can barely muster a few thousand), Thanksgiving etc etc.

No I don't agree with that and I don't agree any of the analogies are valid. Creationism and the manufacturing of misinformation and rhetoric has become a full time occupation amongst Christian evangelicals- they have a medium, the internet which they can utilise to spread that ideology and they make full use of it, and if you visit their websites you find that creationism is only one segment of a wider fundamentalist agenda.



Richard Dawkins is the worst ambassador anyone could have. Stephen Jay Gould was better. A public schoolboy with a sledge hammer and insults will not do the job for you. He's the Maggie Thatcher of science.


Your subjective views of Dawkins are a personal matter for you. Evolutionary biology doesn't need an ambassador with diplomatic skills it needs a professional biologist who is adept at highlighting the flawed arguments employed by creationists and Dawkins does that more effectively than anyone else.

It's the best interpretation of the evidence. However, within evolution, there are umpteen other factors scientists bicker on. What we have now in biology is not what Darwin proposed. Darwin didn't even know about DNA, so things have moved on.

Evolution of species is a fact inasmuchas anything in science can be proven fact. Fossil evidence shows species transitions and the physiological similarities between species such as man and primates, for example the inability to synthesise vitamin c due to having the same enzyme deficiency, as well as the fact that speciation is observed occuring in laboratories means that evolution of species cannot reasonably be questioned. If you're talking about Darwinism then that only deals with the biological mechanisms involved which is a different matter. That is the "theory" of evolution and all scientific theories should be examined in the light of new evidence and improved upon.


But as I say - evolution/creation is the big distraction in American politics. A distraction from social issues etc I don't exactly think about evolution all the time I'm commuting, cooking, shopping etc. I do think about my money though, and my working conditions.


I agree but it is very much the cornerstone of the evangelical ideology. It's one of the more potent weapons in their armoury and they are adept at using creationist rhetoric to attack and undermine science and are totally unscrupulous and amoral in doing so. Kent Hovind who I mentioned previously made his name as a creationist spokesman but behind the scenes he was involved in everything from tax evasion to embezzlement and coercion. I'm not suggesting all creationist spokesmen are as unscrupulous as him but I do think most of them have a wider agenda that they will promote by any means possible given half a chance.

[kathyv]

Andy, I've never visited a creationists website, I got this information from my Geology class which looks at 3 theories.

The biggest flaw in all 3 theories we have looked at are the facts that NO ONE was around to document any information as it occurred. This means we have to take what we are told from all sides, weed out what we, personally can best accept, take what we are told on faith and see if it makes sense to us.

Much of the problem with Evolution is that it has had so many interpreters.

Much of the problem with Creation is that it can't be scientifically tested.

The problem with Theistic Evolution is that is attempts to marry 2 polarized theories.

Whatever side you look at, there are those who passionately support their own view, they give biased info and expect you to trust what they say because they have said so. I can't do that. I have to decide for myself and what I have determined from my year of looking at this is that it really doesn't matter! In the States it's political and politicians will use and say what ever they wish to get their point funded, regardless of their evangelical views.

I am happy to accept that the world works, that I am living on it and I can take care of my part of it. I don't worry about what may have been because what is important is what is now.

[southern]

I was in my Micro-Biology class last night and we were discussing this issue–creation verse evolution. I agree with Kathy that with each issue there are faults and you have to base your beliefs or theory on what you can live with. Science will always question everything! (Which we should be thankful for because they discover wonderful things!) But the downside to science is what they claim as fact today might be out proven in years to come as technology changes Example...one book explains we are derived form of bang and now there is evidence that we might come from a virus, but who is to say who made the virus. If you study anatomy and look how each species have similarities that are unique and how planned out every detail of all living organisms are...it is remarkable. But this is bias from a Christian who believe species evolve and have faith that God started it. Science will never accept that there can be a God, and as for

If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so
It doesn’t really matter each to their own...

[CreepingJesus]

The evo-devo "debate" is a misnomer.

"Debate" implies that both sides have something equally valid to bring to the table.

Evolution, as AndyJ2 says, is a scientific fact. It is supported by huge amounts of evidence and is not disputed by any serious scientist.

Creationism is a bronze age made up story which flies in the face of the actual evidence. (Evidence= as in facts - things we actually know and can prove)

For the benefit of the hard of thinking let me make it even simpler

Evolution = proven fact.

Creationism = made up story. No proof. None. Zilch.

Now how utterly braindead thick would you have to be to choose the one that's based on fairy tale speculation over the incontrovertible facts?

There is no "debate".

Now I ask again.

What is there to respect about religion?

Now:

Southern took my statement

If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so

And said this

It doesn’t really matter each to their own...

Oh but it does.

People are being killed every day in the name of unprovable claims made by religion.

Religion is a murderous blight upon humanity based upon ignorance and superstition.

"Each to their own" implies that this is some kind of acceptable situation.