The Dangers of Evolution

[SahBumNimRush]

Time for some research I reckon, Dr. Rush . It's one great thing, other than the delights that fora such as this can bring, that I think the Internet has really made easier - in 'ancient times' it could take me days and a fair bit of travel to find the books I needed to research something that wasn't covered well in the encyclopedias and other texts I physically owned.

Looks like I've probably got a good dose of caveman in me too.. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7062415.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025143311.htm

 

[Drasken]

Of course we did not come from soup, we came from wood. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve made the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from a tree on the beach. They also made Midgard (earth) from the body of the slain giant Ymir, the sky from his skull and the nothern lights from his eyebrows. Soup really, that is just silly.

Actually I believe it was TWO trees. The Ash and Elm if memory serves.

And it's funny, I've yet to meet an Asatruer that doesn't believe in evolution despite that story. Generally we can see the value of metephor and ancient attempts to explain things while embracing science instead of fighting it.

Good reply though.

I'm going to go drink some Mead.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

True, but if one can't convert them, one can kill them. At least, that seems to be an age-old tried and true method of 'winning'.

Sure is. And virtually every cultural group, regardless of religion, has tried that method at some time or another.

And while the internet is fluff, is it part of a serious 'war of words' going on by certain groups for idealogical supremacy/legitimacy.

I'm not even sure that I'd call it a war. Creationism is based on pseudoscience, misunderstanding of actual science, bad etymologies, and an insistance upon a literal interpretation of the entire Bible coupled with belief in both the inerrency of scripture and belief that the Bible represents a contiguous continuity from Genesis through Revelation. People outside of Evangeliclism (and probably some within) see it for what it is and generally don't support it.

On the other hand, accepted views of the age of the earth, origins of man, and evolution of life are accepted not only by atheists, but by most Christians as well. Speaking for the US, at least.


One of the reasons that I stopped listening to Christian radio was because the idea of a culture war was being constantly pushed. The thing was though, the supposed enemy didn't seem all that interested in fighting. In fact, I couldn't discern any real attacks; simply a lot of whining that Christianity had to share the spotlight with other religions, ideas and philosophies. That doesn't constitute a culture war in my book; merely a religious temper tantrum.

 

[elder999]

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory),

This is abiogenesis, not evolution, as someone else pointed out.....you can certainly have one without the other.

MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe.

Sigh. How much "younger?" Seriously, MACRO-evolution happens-the "creationism/intelligent design/anti-evolution" crowd hang their entire faulty thesis on "a lack of transitional fossils," when, in fact, there are entire lists of transitional fossils, one of which , the feathered dinosaur,Archaeopteryx, is the original "early bird, " and the answer to that famous riddle, because, clearly, the chicken came before the egg.....:lol: In all seriousness, the convolutions needed to make a grotesquely medieval literal interpretation of the creation myth of Genesis fit with scientific fact never ceases to astound me-again, for the record, early Church fathers-and Jews-did not believe Genesis to be a literal history-they knew it to be allegorical, and Origen, Eusebius, Augustine and Maimonides all said as much......lastly, if we need evidence of human evolution, we need only look and see that humans-as in all of humanity-share 98% of their genetic material with chimpanzees. Additionally, we only need to look at lactase manufacture in the digestion of adult humans from certain geographical areas-and the lack of it in others, as well as the Tibetan populace's possession of allele's that allowed them to live at high altitude with lower pressure atmospheric O2 for more recent human evolution if you climb rocks, and your feet get callused, that's adaptation. If you climb rocks, your feet get callused, and your kid is born with calluses, that's evolution, and all the splitting hairs about "micro/macro" evolution (when they're really the same thing over different periods of time or geographies_ isn't going to change that....:lfao:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I still haven't, in over two decades of hearing arguments from Evangelicals for creationism, determined what the danger is.

And the OP is not the first and certainly not the only person who characterizes it as dangerous. According to Evangelical theology, faith in Jesus, and virtually nothing else, is the only thing that gets you into Heaven.

I don't personally care if a person believes in a literal six day creation and a six thousand year old earth. I really don't. Which is why I offered no counter argument to the OP regarding creation. Holding such beliefs may be problematic for an aspiring geologist or paleontologist, but that between them and their career counselor.

I do care if a person is an insufferable bully who imposes his or her will on others by bludgeoning them with their beliefs while demonizing the beliefs of others. It shows a lack of respect and is discourteous. And people who try to justify bad behavior by cherry picking NT verses are the absolute worst in this regard.

 

[Steve]

Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy).

We all know that the moon's not made of cheese. But what if it was made of BBQ spareribs. Would you eat it then? I sure would. Heck, I'd have seconds and then I'd wash it down with a nice cold Budweiser.

 

[Cyriacus]

And then we "non-Africans" bred with Neanderthals, from the north.. . Producing "fair skinned half breeds". Today, non-Africans contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA.

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_evolution/2012/10
/neanderthal_and_denisovan_genetics_human_ancestors_interbred_with_extinct.html

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.htm

*claps*

 

[The Last Legionary]

Only a fool denies evolution!

 

[Rich Parsons]

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place. MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.

Why not try and contribute to he Martial Arts portion of this site?

Also If you really want to have a yelling MATCH with caps and BOLD and what have you, and try to get your point across by being the last person standing, I suggest you go and search this site to find out how others have faired with such an attitude.

Post. Make comments. Enjoy the site.

Do not dictact religion to me. I grant everyone the path of Zen. I know their path will be unique from my own. I understand that. So walk you path, just do not insist that I walk your path as well.

 

[arnisador]

The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.

Yeah, but the truth of the matter lies in egocentrism. Everyone deep down knows the world revolves around ME! :flame:

Well that and the fat lady at Pizza Hut.. . I feel sorry for the poor kids that get sucked into her orbit.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

The religious fascination with evolution confuses me--esp. since it's such a lost cause. We know less about how gravity works than we do about how evolution works. (Really, we do.) It's over! You might as well insist on geocentrism--and yes, I know that a few still do.

Geocentrism you won't see; the Bible doesn't give a detailed account of it.

Honestly, outside of Evangeliclism, you don't see a religious fascination with it. Where does it come from?

The five solae (by scripture alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone, and glory to God alone), a doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture coupled with a literal interpretation of scripture is where it starts. The Bible is viewed as a contiguous continuity, written by God as a complete book through a human agency. So this eliminates the idea that multiple authors wrote the books and that the current form is a redacted and edited form.

So by scripture alone; no theological ideas that are not found in scripture are accepted. Since scripture is being interpreted as literal, that means that you're starting with belief in a six day creation with every creature being a unique and special creation, humanity included.

The age of the Earth is being determined by adding up the generations from Adam through Moses (or perhaps Adam through David) and coming up with a number of approximately 5700-5800 years. This isn't all that hard to do, given that early generations lived for close to a milenium. As the Bible is being interpreted literally, it assumes that all of the generations are included. As the Bible is inerrant, this cannot be wrong.

Since the creation account and the time recorded in the genologies beginning with the first man on a five day old planet do not match scientific theories of creation nor estimates of the Earth's age, and since we're working from a literal interpretation of the Bible, you now have a circumstance where somebody must be wrong. Since scripture is inerrant, scientists are not only wrong, but since they have the Bibilical account and choose evolution and a many millions of years old Earth instead, you now have in issue of denial of revealed truth.

Since they believe that the Biblical account is actually a literal and technical account, they view an old Earth and evolution as being as ridiculous as a flat Earth and geocentrism is to you and I. Since the Scopes monkey trial, there has been a public policy argument ever since. Creationists want to see their "correct" views given the same regard in the school system as that scientific fiddle faddle. The establishment clause mitigates against this, so other variations of Creationism that lack direct reference to a specific creator, like Intelligent Design, are tried instead with similar results.

What you end up with is a group of people who feel that their views are marginalized. Groups that feel marginalized tend to be combative, or at least frustrated and on the defensive.

Finally, there is 'Mr. Smith goes to Washington' dynamic at work. The idea that a simple man with comparatively meager education is more noble than a highly educated entrenched man is an idea that is deeply ingrained in American society. It is part of how Sarah Palin attained huge popularity in certain segments of the US population. This dynamic is coupled with the American love of the underdog.

Throw all of this together, along with a dash of conspiracy theorism and a dash of opportunistic frauds who are happy to sell books to people who will buy anything that supports their own view, and you have a self sustaining counter culture that subscribes to Creationsism.

 

[harlan]

Don't leave out the most important part: they vote.

Throw all of this together, along with a dash of conspiracy theorism and a dash of opportunistic frauds who are happy to sell books to people who will buy anything that supports their own view, and you have a self sustaining counter culture that subscribes to Creationsism.

 

[DennisBreene]

You can do your own research - Skin tincture is influenced by temperature, is a big one. Thats an evolutionary difference. An evolutionary difference is the difference between humans and koalas. Therefore, there are multiple different species of human.

Note that i dont look at it that way. Im presenting that point in retaliation to a few things the OP said.

EDIT: Slight correction to my logic - Temperature is a result. The cause is exposure to sunlight. Less sunlight and lower temperatures mean less exposure to the sun over a long period of time, and so on and so forth, whether from clouds, storms, or staying inside more because its cold outside and wearing more coverings.

EDIT 2: And this can affect day to day life.
Google the Fitspatrick Scale.

All Homo sapiens are the same species. Google "human species" and go to the Smithsonian Institute web site. Species is loosely defined as the level of inter-relatedness that permits interbreeding. The term has had rather fuzzy issues with precise definition. Humans are all the same species. The only surviving species of the Genus Homo. Sub grouping within the human species is referred to as "populations". Populations are more or less defined by common characteristics found within a group of humans that vary from other groups of humans in varous locations and cultural isolation that result in definable morphologic grouping. Genetic mapping is adding another layer to the "lumping or splitting" of these populations into various subsets. All in all, it is frought with the difficulties of parsing any continuum into subsets. While there is variability in defining exact populations, there is no variability in defining all modern Homo sapiens humans as the same species.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Don't leave out the most important part: they vote.

As well they should. I laud them for that.

It is the duty of every US citizen to vote. And to take the time to cast an informed vote (voting party line is almost as bad as not voting). Knowing the issues and the candidates is the duty of every US citizen. But largely, the people have abdicated their responsiblity and would rather their party, pastor, or pundit of choice tell them who to vote for instead. And between non voting and uninformed voting, along with selfish voting, we have the governmental mess that we have today.

And our governmental mess is far more destructive to everyone, regardless of stance on evolution, because our governmental mess adversely affects every US citizen and virtually every culture around the globe.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Yeah, but the truth of the matter lies in egocentrism. Everyone deep down knows the world revolves around ME!

While I have criticisms of Evangeliclism, this is not one of them. In fact, one of the main criticisms that Evangelicals have of evolution is that it replaces God with man. I disagree with this assessment and the logic that undergirds it, but in truth, Evangeliclism is a very ego-free belief system. The believer has salvation through literally no means of his or her own. Even the decision to believe is credited to the Holy Spirit, as Evangelicals believe that humanity is fallen and is incapable of choosing God without divine intervention.

That isn't to say that it is the only ego free belief system or that there aren't egotistical people who follow it; that is true of every belief system, as ego can infect the most noble of belief systems.

Ultimately, Evangelicals want the world to revolve around God, specifically Jesus. I don't criticize Evangeliclism itself. While it isn't for me (lots of things aren't for me), it is a functional and viable religion. It isn't until you mix it with politics and scientific debate that it tends to stumble.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

It wasn't a stab at Evangelicals, just a poor joke, playing off of the geocentrism comment that Arni made.. . I should definitely stick to my day job. :uhyeah:

But I agree, Evangelicalism at its heart is more Christcentric, for lack of a better term, than anything else. The quadilateral of priorities are traditionally conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

It wasn't a stab at evangelicals, just a poor joke, playing off of the geocentrism comment that Arni made.. . I should definitely stick to my day job. :uhyeah:

But I agree, Evangelism at its heart is more Christcentric, for lack of a better term, than anything else.

Personally, I think that the people who drive the creationism vs. evolution debate (the only ones who drive it are on the creationism side) are egotistical. They distract their flock from more important matters with an issue that is really a non issue.

Also, It is egotistical to think that a publicly funded school system is going to teach a belief that is not only scientifically unsound (saying that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old is scientifically unsound), but grounded in religion. And there is no law requiring you to utilize the public schools to educate your children. There are plenty of private religious schools and plenty of people who home school.

The only concession that should be given is monetary: if you do not use the public schools, I do not believe that you should be taxed to fund them.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hmm, not sure I agree with your very last there, Dan but I am of the opinion that anything infrastructural (which includes social infrastructure like schools as well civil infrastructure like roads to me) should be centrally funded. So, even if you don't use one then your taxes should still be used to pay for the infrastructure for the good of everyone. After all, there are roads in this country that I will never use but it would be silly to try to claim back tax for that .

Bit of a side step there tho' from the point you were trying to make.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

Yes, technically there is a stark difference between Creationists (and fundamentalists in general) and Evangelicals. I was raised in the Methodist Church, and went to a Methodist College, and the Methodists started the Evangelical movement in the 1700's. The UMC's official stance is the following, "[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology." The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum."

http://www.nhumc.info/faq.html



[/FONT]