Evolution was tailor made for the Ignoramus

Evolutionary theory is the latest in a series of historical world views. And as such will eventually be overturned by another thought system. Its fate, like that of “world views” before it, is to viewed by some future generation as being naïve and ignorant.

Those who insist that “Evolution” is ultimate and final word on the subject are deluding themselves. They do this not for scientific reasons; for there is abundant evidence that evolution is deeply flawed. Instead they hold religiously to evolution for selfish personal reasons – to live in the illusion that they are “right” and to avoid at all costs the pain of personal growth. They live in and are nurtured by the flattery that they are the most intelligent and enlightened people to have ever lived. Their narrow minded and self “righteous” attitudes make meaningful dialog all but impossible.

The replies seemed to have disappeared, so I repost mine in the interest of keeping the discussion going.

Should we just have a standard “sticky” reply for creationists who start a thread with this subject over and over?

1.) What “world views” of the past are you referring to? The only ones I know of from the past that has been proven wrong is the various creation mythos and superstitions. Are these the ones you mean?
2.) People support evolution due to the overwhelming amount of information that supports the theory. You seem to be taking the simplistic view that the theory of evolution is limited to evolution. Other sciences have benefited form the evidence uncovered by the theory of evolution.
3.) You castigated the theory as something untenable and temporary. So, it is reasonable that if evolution is just a flash in the pan, what you see as the replacement for it. It is not required, but it would help to flesh out your point of view.
You also seemed to overlook your rather egotistical boast regarding evolution and simplistic dismissal of its supporters. If you wish to discuss something in a rational manner, then start the conversation in such a manner.

While some scientific theories have been altered or overturned in our history, not all have. Electromagnetism is still in the same form now as it was when it was first discovered by Maxwell over 100 years ago.

Besides, all new theories must take the evidence and experimental results of old theories and explain them just as well as old theories. The fact of the matter is we've buckets of evidence for the slow, gradual transformation of life forms in Earth's history to adapt to new surroundings, to one another, even to us! DNA, fossils, adaptation by bacteria in hospitals.

Should another theory come along to replace evolution, it will still say "Animals adapt to their surroundings" because we've seen it happen. It will still say "This process has been happening to billions of years" because we've evidence for it. It will not say "God created the Earth and all animals in their current form 6,500 years ago" because that contradicts large parts of well established (ie backed up with evidence) parts of physics and biology.

No doubt evolution will develop at time goes on. Some parts falling away, other parts added to, but the general premise of gradual development is supported by too much evidence. Plenty of creationists have attempted to interpret evidence in other scientific ways, they'd LOVE a scientific theory to rival evolution which didn't contradict the Bible, but they can't find one.

It's been my experience that anyone who says that doesn't actually understand evolution or much science. Someone yesterday linked me to an Islamic preacher giving a talk in evolution with the comment "He'll show you why evolution is wrong, he's very knowledgable in science". In a 30 minute lecture I noticed over 20 errors, omissions and downright lies in his statements on evolution.

No, evolutionary biologists are taking the evidence they have and making the best model they can. It's been that way in science for hundreds of years. It's not that they are cleverer than previous generations, but have access to more evidence, more tools, more people work in the field. Progress, as a result, speeds up.

While you're the one saying you've got all the answers? Biologists, any scientist even, is always open for criticism, constructive criticism, and scientific evidence. Hence why so many theories are constantly be revised, we accept that we don't know everything now. It's all too common with more extreme religious people that they say they DO have all the answers.

Did you know that the Pope accepts that both evolution and the big bang can be inline with Catholic beliefs? John Paul II said to Stephen Hawking that he admired his work in unravelling God's creation. Is the pope, the head of the Catholic church are brain washed evolutionary ignoramus? Or is he just more open minded to accepted scientific evidence and absorbing it into doctorine?

For our advanced mate no1nose here is an interesting evolution research subject.

A weighty scientific question

In NewScientist, 11 May 2006,

A discourse on a very old weighty scientific question:

"Is it a coincidence that a human finger fits exactly into a human nostril?"

DH

Quote : Henisdov
"Is it a coincidence that a human finger fits exactly into a human nostril?"
Finally a perfect example of Natural Picking (excuse me : Natural Selection)!
Thanks for the giggle,
Ron

Evolution is not a "historical world view", it is a theory which is based on evidence. You can only fool yourself by calling it a "world view".

True scientists do not claim anything to be a final word on a subject. They only present their theories based on the evidence at hand.

The words "ultimate and final" describes religion better than science.

What selfish personal reasons are you talking about? I trust the theory of Evolution, What selfish personal reason do you think I have? On the contrary, the Priests and their followers have a lot to lose due to the spread of the Evolutionary theory. Their entire "Religion crap" is based on Creationism. Who will make donations to their Churches if people know that God did not create humans?

Again, the words "narrow minded", "self righteous" etc describe religion better than science.

Interesting title: "Evolution was tailor made for the Ignoramus"

I'd like to know what you'd substitute for Evolution?

Creationism? That's tailor made for Ignoramuses.

Because if god(s) created the Universe, then who created god(s)? The point of where we came from would require a first cause... and that would have to be who created god(s) if he/she/it exist(s)?

Put into another example, when you ask, "who created me?" The answer is your mother. Well, something created your mother. Your grandmother. Who created your grandmother? Your great grandmother. And before that... god? That's not a first cause... who created god?

(unless you're going to claim that babies drop from god's loins, I think it's pretty evident that babies come from women, ergo, you came from your mother. That's what it says on your birth certificate. Last I heard, men can't be born from men).

Who created the creator is just as valid a question as "who created your mother?". If a creator is required, it simply means you have to go back farther with the question.

SOMEWHERE life originated without divinity of any kind... or the divinity had no means of coming into being.

Why is evolution less satisfactory, when we have direct evidence of how it works (what species is a chuihuahua? Where did it come from? Wolves? Do tiny teacup dogs resemble wolves? Oh, they were bred... selectively 'evolved' by humans... go figure), than something no one can see or prove the existence of?

Creationism is a better 'theory'? You must be joking?

This post has been edited by curious1 on Jul 3 2006, 08:00 AM

It's all collapsing before our very eyes!! What will we do, now that 'god' is dead?

We'll have to (re)learn how to be responsible for our own actions, whether we like it, or not...

The greatest mistake, in my opinion, was thinking 'we' were somehow 'superior' to the indigenous cultures that europeans encountered on their travels around the world. 'We' found great civilizations that lived as harmoniously as possible, respecting Nature, and living sustainably within, and as part of, it, and 'we' judged this to be 'inferior' or 'savage' to 'our cultured ways'.

This was the biggest mistake in the History (read: Arrogance) of (empire-building) mankind, and it needs to be rectified, NOW - while 'we' still have the possibility...



k.

Knot of this world

Sorry, it's already too late, the world will not support the present population living as the Native Americans did. Nor one tenth of present population.

Grumpy

No, Mr. Grumpy!

Admittedly, it will take a bit of a leap of imagination, but the biggest obstacle is the greedy land-owner.

Also, the 'present population' is not the future population. Again, we have to radically re-invent our ways of thinking, to keep things sustainable.

Before that, we need to be positive!!

There really is NO OPTION to this. We either learn to live sustainably, or go the way of the dinosaur. Nature will have its way, and we can choose a rough path, or a smoother path to the inevitable....change.

k.

This is sooo off-topic, but I think there is a built in answer in nature... it's war.

When people begin overpopulating to the point of unsustainability, historically, several things can and have happened to reduce population.

1. A need arises for more 'lebensraum', and the nation requiring the 'space' attempts to take it from another nation who is perceived to have more than they need.

This always reduces the population for both areas naturally, the same way that animals have a natural 'territory' they will defend, and during times of overpopulation, the territories shift. Those who successfully defend live, those who do not die and are replaced by 'fitter' replacements. Those animal populations which can successfully hold their territories are the ones which survive and pass on the territorial genes. It's an evolutionary step, and the winners pass on their genes, and the losers don't.

2. The other method is that fast overpopulation leads to easier disease spread, and this also reduces population as the plague/pandemic runs its course.

3. Famine/flood/hurricane/natural disaster, a bad weather cycle leads to less food production, and a percentage of the unfed masses dies of starvation.

If you look at history as a whole, man's behavior has been no different from any other territorial animal species. Nature's responses are no different than for other animal species.

It will be interesting to see, now that man has become more civilized and technologically advanced, if we can sustain our populations without the need for war and famine.

I tend to think that when we hit our upper limit again, nature will take its course and we'll be at war, or a pandemic will take out a lot of us, making things sustainable again.

Our technology has kept that sustainability level moving upwards for years, but I'm sure there is still a limit. I think nature will do what it always does to regulate sustainability, regardless of what we do or think once we hit that next limit. And a lot of people will die.

I'm not referring to a deity when I say 'nature', I'm referring to natural causes like living in too close a proximity allows disease to mutate and spread more quickly and easily. Socialogically, people who feel they do not have adequate resources to sustain their own populations will try to take it from another nation (Japan invading China in WWII, 'settling' North America by Europeans against native americans, Germany in WWII against Europe).

First off let me say I'm new to the forums and have read some very interesting posts. When it comes to this debate I'll tell you I'm sitting on the fence. You see the problem both sides face is the ability to look at the other with an "open mind". If your going to ridicule one another make sure you know where there coming from! See I've been researching this now for years and come up with one guaranteed conclusion KNOW ONE KNOWS!! Id like to think there is an afterlife of perfection. Can you prove it ? NO. Can you disprove it ? NO. Your dealing with the most important question in the world so you better make sure you got all your facts straight.

What are you findings apart from "KNOW ONE KNOWS"?

Can you be 100% sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow? I guess "KNOW ONE KNOWS!!". with this logic, there is no point in discussing anything.
What we can do however is to look at the facts and evidences, read books and research papers, discuss on forums and come to a informed decision on what we can trust.

Id like to think that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Can you disprove it? No. Can you prove it? No.
I hope you get the point.

The idea that evidence that refutes evolution is creationism is gross scientific illiteracy.

This post has been edited by B_Sharp on Jul 13 2006, 03:06 AM

Evidence that refutes evolution is also not the same with new evidence that doesn't fit into the evolutionary theory at this time. Also, creationists often use evidence against evolution as 'evidence' to support creationism, which is also grossly unscientific. The problem is, critisms coming from creationists does not come in the same manner it comes from from scientists.