Evolution can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in evolution, from biology to philosophy and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television, and in blockbuster movies. So, how do you know if you’ve been evolutionized? Here are a few questions to find out:
If
you answered “yes” to any of these questions, you’ve been evolutionized
to some degree, and the more times you responded “yes,” the more
evolution impacts your thinking. Evolutionary teaching so permeates our
culture that it can affect every area of our thinking, including what
we believe about the Bible. This sort of evolutionized thinking has
even permeated our churches.
That is why it is more important
than ever for Christians to be discerning and weigh every thought
against the truths revealed in God’s Word. If you examine each question
more closely, you will see how your answers must be different from
evolutionists’ if you start with God’s Word.
It is the duty of Christians to “demolish arguments ... and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV).
Visit www.answersmagazine.com/go/are-you-evolutionized to find the truth behind these questions.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Have You Been Duped by Evolution?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's See
Let's see, I'll play.
"Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?"
Primitive in technological development? Yes. Primitive in a cognitive sense, I have no evidence to believe that so, No.
What does that have to do with evolution ?
"Did dinosaurs live before humans?"
I'd say yes, but I say this based on the fossil record and, most importantly, I happen to be confident in the radiometric dating methods which are based on very well understood principles of nuclear physics.
"Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?"
Uh, there is no objective measure for determining what is "not intelligent" so this is an unanswerable question. Also, are caveman defined as Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals? Neanderthals control fired, made shelter, and built traps so I'm confident they had a reasonable degree of intellect.
What does this have to do with evolution?
"Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?"
First you have to establish Noah existed and define "special tools or equipment."
What does this have to do with evolution?
"Are the stars older than the earth?"
Some stars are, some aren't. Stars form all over are universe so this is an unanswerable question. If he discuss "our Star", the Sun, then not by any significant measure is it older or younger. Radiometric uranium-lead isotope dating clearly demonstrates are planet is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5 billion years old. In the case of the sun, we can measure the propagation of acoustic waves because this allows us to infer the amount of hydrogen and helium as its core. Since we know the sun fuses hydrogen into helium we can get its life-span by its helium abundance based on models of stellar evolution and it's a little over 4.5 billion years. This is consistent with our understanding of universe formation.
"Is there more than one race ?"
Depends on your definition. If you are referring to heritable characteristics that can differentiate one sub-set of a species from another, yes they exist. This isn't some biologically valid theory, it's a matter of taxonomy and just classifying groups based on study of genetic traits.
What does this have to do with evolution?
"Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil , coal , or diamonds?"
Fossils: The process of fossilization can vary based on the size of the specimen;manner of fossilization (pre-mineralization versus compression versus etc.); climate; atmosphere; environment . It can range from a matter of decades to thousands of years. The norm tends to be in the 100 years+ for proper fossilization. This has nothing to do with anything though since we have radiometric dating methods to determine the age of the fossil.
Oil: Considering that it requires geological time to cause organic matter to change into kerogen and then get heated due to the nature of the process - so yes, it does take millions of years.
Coal: Seeing that coal is based on layers of plant material accumulating and the only known actions of changing these chemical and physical properties requires tremendous heat and energy caused by geological activity suggest it would take millions of years to form naturally. Although, the process wouldn't require millions of years itself - the conditions designed to facilitate it would take millions of years.
Diamonds: Virtually the same deal with coal, in terms of length, because of the geological time-scale necessary to create the conditions.
What does this have to do with evolution?
"Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?"
Adam didn't exist. There was no "first man" we are all transitional forms .
What does this have to do with evolution?
Well, your quiz sucked. Most of the questions have nothing to do with evolution or the rest of them the evidence is overwhelming such that to even ask the questions is astounding.
I'm proud to be "evolutionized" since I believe in evidence, unlike Answers in Genesis.
Keeping peddling your anti-scientific propaganda; the rest of us will just keep laughing.
- caelum
October 11, 2009 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
Do you know what I find funny? People who refuse to see the scientific truths and accuracy that are found in the Bible.
The Bible is not an anti-scientific book - quite to the contrary, it has amazing scientific truths found throughout it - if you choose to read it instead of dismiss it out of hand because you are uncomfortable with the truths it tells us about our fallen nature (ie, sin, and the fact that we need to be saved).
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php
- headache62
October 14, 2009 11:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Infinite Number of Stars exist?
Not in a finite universe.
Man was the last animal created?
Different species have shown up since humankind got here.
Snow has material value?
That's...economics, I suppose.
- quantummechanik
October 18, 2009 12:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yeah, like all the good stuff adults like
http://archive.wrongwaygoback.com/paraphernalia/capalert /
Ban the bible !
- Submariner October 19, 2009 5:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
have you been duped by AiG?
"Are tribes in the South American rain forest more primitive forms of humans than we are?"
Evolutionarily speaking this question makes no sense... but even using a very crude definition of 'primitive' the answer is still no. Since humans originally evolved in eastern Africa the people living in South America would represent a 'later' stage in human evolution .
So no... total: 0
"*Did dinosaurs live before humans?"
Yes.
total: 1
"*Were the people who lived in caves and used simple tools not very intelligent?"
If we take people to mean modern Homo sapiens sapiens then we can say that they were likely as intelligent as the people about today. They used simple tools because they did not have the knowledge base to build more advanced ones.
Interestingly I'm not sure where evolution plays into this.
total: 1
"*Did Noah lack special tools or equipment to build the Ark?"
This question does not make a great deal of sense... presuming that Noah existed and that there was a flood (as described in the Bible) then he would have to have what ever tools were needed. If Noah did not exist then that question makes about as much sense as asking if Wyle E. Coyote had the tools to catch the Road Runner.
I'll give myself 0.25 pts for this one so my total is now 1.25
"*Are the stars older than the earth?"
If I recall most stars are older then the earth, but not by a large margin. Depending on your definition of when the earth was formed the Sun would be older (having initiated fusion before the earth finished accumulating matter).
another yes answer... total 2.25
"*Does it take millions of years to form fossils, oil , coal , or diamonds?"
under natural conditions yes, it requires a significant amount of pressure for organic matter to turn into oil or coal. Diamonds are a bit trickier... they can form rather quickly under the right conditions (extreme heat and pressure are required) and the presence of diamonds in meteor impact craters indicates that under the right conditions diamonds can form very quickly.
I'll give myself 0.75 here so total of 3
"*Did Adam have to learn how to speak, read, and write after he was created?"
Again, presuming the existence of Adam as described in the Bible ... If he did exist as described then first there is no indication in the Bible that he knew how to read or write so it would be reasonable to say that he was illiterate. Since there are no descriptions of him learning to speak, but he is depicted as communicating in the Bible it would be reasonable to say that he was created knowing how to speak.
I'll give myself another 0.25 for this one so my total is 3.25
"That is why it is more important than ever for Christians to be discerning and weigh every thought against the truths revealed in God’s Word. If you examine each question more closely, you will see how your answers must be different from evolutionists’ if you start with God’s Word."
I've got no problem with this... If one presumes that the Christian Bible is an accurate description of events then you are very soon going to have issues with ToE (and Science in general).
"It is the duty of Christians to “demolish arguments ... and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV)."
take captive? I <3 you AiG for being so stereotypically close minded.
- MrBook
October 11, 2009 3:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Two Corinthians Ten-Five
Pretty much sums up the position in Christianity that a true follower must not think for themselves, must not seek truth, and most not question the dogma foisted upon them by their ancestors. Which is why it should be extinguished from society .
Even without my taste for debate and my own position that there is no reason to believe in god , I would never be willing to accept someone denying Evolution with impunity.
There's a good book or two on this subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref =sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255300728&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248/ref =sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255300728&sr=8-2
There's literally tons of manuscripts on these topics, particularly the latter. But I like Richy-D for his modernity and Oxford wit. Highly reccomended.
Or, for something in line with the OP:
http://www.stellaparker.com/funny1/pics/1999/head_up_ass.jpe
This article is just baiting beyond the pale. I mean, what does the word Dupe mean to these people? It's not even applicable to a scientific theory put forth with any sincerety. However, it is highly applicable to any one religion, and necessarily it applies to all but one at least, since the others certainly have been duped if they failed to find the one true faith.
Anyway, I would like to take this oppurtunity to poll the OV community:
What other explanation for a natural phenomena that stands today (amongst experts, such as http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve ) is grand as Evolution?
I ask that we consider usefulness, explanatory effectiveness, supporting evidence, acceptance, and parsimoniousness in answering.
Parsimony, in particular, strikes me as a wonderful criteria to judge natural selection by. For those unfamiliar, it is essentially a cost -benefit perspective; the ratio between how much is explained and what is required for it to be the case.
An example of high parsimony might be the Pythagorean Theorum, and Special Relativity might be less, and String Theory somewhere fair to midland, perhaps (I am not a physicist, just a fan).
The bible is the negative infinitessimal in this case, as it requires a suspension of nearly every criteria of accredition, textual criticism, physics, chemistry, cosmology, geology, ethics , metaethics, epistimology, and certainly biology, to name a few. In return, having unexplained most of known science with these requirements, we get a recipe for indentured servitude thinly veiled as a provincial origin myth.
It requires that nearly everything known in the universe to have been staged with an intent to mislead anyone in search of the truth of things. A perfect deception with absolutely no cause. Let alone the harm done in the name of these faiths, this is still sociopathy by definition.
A deity responsible for such near infinite deceit and devaluation is not worthy of worship.
So anyway, there are certainly other great theories in Science, but I am would put Darwin at least tied for first with Einstein in this poll, and this might be biased by the application of the latters work to so much technology in the last century. But what does everyone else think?
- Submariner October 11, 2009 6:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Greatest
I'll echo that recommendation for Dr. Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth"... I'm about 50% of the way through and so far it has been a rock solid read.
- MrBook
October 11, 2009 9:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
He's one of my fav's
Having lost Asimov and Sagan, I was in mourning till I found Dawkins and Pinker.
We've beem showing the Royal Institute's Christmas lectures to the kids this weekend (since the state is broke and hardly has school in session). It blows me away how much he gets villified. His bedside manner is direct and dry somewhat, but quite gentle and light humored at the same time. And I should say quite humble enough given the environment of Academics today.
- Submariner October 11, 2009 10:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reply
Have you read all of 2 Corinthians? Or just the parts that, taken out of context, try to help you prove a point.
2 Cor. 10:5 is in a book written to a church - specifically 10:5 is referring to teachings from some in the church at Corinth that were not based on the teachings of Paul. Those teachings were not accurate and Paul is talking about being certain of salvation in Christ, and he did want to demolish the arguments against the knowledge of God, which is that Christians should be "confident that he belongs to Christ." (2 Cor 10: 7 NIV).
I'm very glad that you like Einstein - I do, too. Here are a few of his quotes you might not have read:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world..."
And a link to a book on Amazon you might find interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-Evolution-Dr-Jonathan-Safarti/dp/0949906735/ref =sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255539003&sr=8-1
- headache62
October 14, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quoting = False Witness
When you quote out of context with the intent to deliver a message in opposition to the quotation.
Spinoza's god was one did not actually exist. Einstein was outspoken about his disbelief in a personal diety. Whatever was real was the panthiest/deist "God", which disqualifies the mythical creatures of virtually all religion. Neither of these men would refute Evolution. They were scientists.
Incidently, the basis of athiesm is not from the scientific method, though it is not opposed to it or by it either. Still, it is a philosophical position based on a great deal of other postulates and proposition.
Sarfarti is a PhD Chemist (could not handle the math to be a real scientist). He has no more authority on evolution than you, me, or the average guy Leno finds on the street. And that much he discredits with work like this.
There is no opposition real opposition to evolution in biology.
- Submariner October 14, 2009 4:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
I was very interested to learn that chemistry has no relation to biology, particularly the biology of life. I guess when I was taught that there are millions of chemical reactions going on in living creatures (for example, humans), and that even minor variations in the balance of those reactions can cause major problems, I was taught incorrectly, right? :)
Atheism is a very interesting statement of faith - it is basically saying that you are 100% certain that there is no god , which implies that you know 100% about all parts of the universe (but that discussion is for a different time, I think).
Some historical scientist who believed in six day creation: Louis Pasteur; Sir Isaac Newton; Johannes Kepler; Robert Boyle; Carl Linnaeus; Leonhard Euler; Michael Faraday; Charles Babbage; William Thomson (Kelvin); James Clerk Maxwell
Some modern scientists who believe in six day creation: Michael Behe; Henry Morris; John Morris; Larry Vardiman; Steve Austin; Duane Gish; Andrew Snelling; Donald deYoung; Kurt Wise.
I'm certain that none of those are "real" scientist, however, and I'm sure that you have some opposition to each of them.
Yes, there is no real opposition to to evolution in biology, or any other science .
- headache62
October 15, 2009 6:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
in our own way
"Atheism is a very interesting statement of faith - it is basically saying that you are 100% certain that there is no god , which implies that you know 100% about all parts of the universe (but that discussion is for a different time, I think)."
Everyone is an atheist in their own way, because nobody believes in every possible deity.
"Some historical scientist who believed in six day creation:"
Most of those scientists lived before there was a scientific theory describing the formation of the earth or the universe. Would you say that not believing in General Relativity was sound because the scientists you listed did not believe in it?
"Some modern scientists who believe in six day creation:"
You've got some bottom of the barrel guys there. Can you lay claim to a majority of scientists believing in a six day creation?
Consider 'Project Steve'... A list of Scientists supporting evolution was compiles with the following restrictions on who could sign:
1) the scientist had to have a name that was some variant on Stephen.
2) live in the United States.
The list acquired more signatures then lists by creationists organizations. It had more eminent scientists then the Discovery Institute's list (which sparked Project Steve), as well as a higher number of biologists.
"Yes, there is no real opposition to to evolution in biology, or any other science ."
There is no serious opposition, just as there is no serious opposition to the heliocentric model of the solar system.
- MrBook
October 15, 2009 8:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What happened to Einstein?
That's not what I said at all. My point is that a PhD Chemist can only add facts to the discussion, everyone one of which in biochemistry is the vehicle that transformed the theory of evolution from elegant hypothesis to working body of science . But this is not an authority on it's validity or "truth", just it's mechanics. At best the chemist is excused if he fully supports natural selection of emergent DNA as the origin of species. The things that would disprove evolution are not to be found in chemistry, short of us being completely wrong about genetics on the whole.
I am not atheist out of faith, nor are any atheist's necessarily so. While certainty that there is no god is arguable(see Epicurus, for example), it is the position that there is no reason to believe in a god or gods, much less worship them, that defines atheism. I can describe with qualified truth claims myriad postulates and propositions on this subject that rely not one at all on "faith".
A room full of "scientists" that believe in "six day creation" is a room of lunatics and liers and nothing else. The only theory from academia, much less hard science, that is congruent with 6-Days-Crazytionism is as follows:
The universe we live in was created with complete perfection of position, motion, and physical laws such that the more we learn about it the more we are convinced of a consistent holistic natural universe that is arbitrarily not the true case, but has this appearence out of coincidence or deceit.
Such a creator is either horribly unlucky and powerless to change this, or maximally deceptive; in either case, unworthy of recognition, much less worship.
If he or she disagrees, I welcome his or her explanation on this thread. But I expect some apologies in return for my hospitality here.
- Submariner October 15, 2009 10:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to both above
“Everyone is an atheist in their own way, because nobody believes in every possible deity.”
Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no God. Princton.edu
Believing in NO GOD is different from NOT believing in EVERY GOD.
“Most of those scientists lived before…You've got some bottom of the barrel guys there.”
Thank you for proving my statement that you would find something to disagree with for the lists posted. However, for one minute please remove the criteria of “does not believe in evolution ” from your judgment – now please post why these people are not qualified to provide scientific insight and testing .
“There is no serious opposition, just as there is no serious opposition to the heliocentric model of the solar system.”
I’m glad you brought up the heliocentric model of the solar system – I was going to be the one to point out that scientists were once abused, defamed, and black listed for believing that the sun was the center of the solar system.
“I am not atheist out of faith, nor are any atheist's necessarily so. “
But atheism is a statement of faith – you have faith that there is no god .
“A room full of "scientists" that believe in "six day creation" is a room of lunatics and liers and nothing else. “
You are entitled to that opinion, just as I am entitled to the opinion that scientists, who believe that the almost infinite complexity that exists between the smallest subatomic particle and the whole of the universe and the design inherent in all systems is dependent on the roll of a die, are ignoring the evidence before them because it does not fit with their ideological preference.
“The universe we live in was created with complete perfection of position, motion, and physical laws such that the more we learn about it the more we are convinced of a consistent holistic natural universe that is arbitrarily not the true case, but has this appearence out of coincidence or deceit.”
I must be misunderstanding this statement – the universe has “complete perfection of position, motion, and physical laws,” but it all happened by accident or coincidence? I see a contradiction there.
- headache62
October 16, 2009 4:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Problems in thought
Actually, they are the same:
Believe not God = not Believe God.
But you are equivocating anyway. Atheism is a philosophical position on the idea. So, I agree that it is just clever humour to equate each believer with a 99% athiest. But within the (philosophical) arena, there is not more ethical validation or evidence of one religion 's 'God' than another. Yet, evolutionary biology is not in this arena as theory or as a science .
So, in the real world, what have we?
Behe - his own school disavowed his position and he ended up being a detriment in both the intelligent design court cases he appeared in (for thousands of dollars) because he had the admit how preposterous his employers were being.
Morris - complete evangelical tool. And a civil engineer. None of his claims on geology have held.
His son - no higher education and he makes $90k a year to just hold up the tent. Really not worthy of response, but you brought him up.
Vardiman - just works for the above, and also has not credentials germaine to the topic.
Gish - he IS physical evidence of the missing link, if you have seen him. He works for the same place. Embaressment to UC for sure, especially as he literally ignores evidence in his otherwise entertaining debates.
Snelling - one of the blatant liers. Libelously, so, when he and AIG manipulated video to make real scientists look confused over some questions. No credentials known.
Kurt Wise - Another AIG tool that does not believe evidence should sway belief, which is contrary to the scientific method from start to finish.
Have never heard of the rest...
Basically you listed a handful of paid assets that prey on the uneducated in very disengenous ways. Most of them have no science work background. Even if the corruption and conflict of interest were not enough to disqualify them, the evidence, just in geology, against this young earth idea is limitless accept in its completeness.
"Faith there is no God" - this is textbook equivocating. I do not believe in any god, nor do I believe anyone else should. I am not certain there is not any god. I am certain the definition of god is paradoxical and there are other area's to discuss the impossibility of "god". None of this is grounds to say 'I have faith there is no god".
Do you need to put words in someones mouth to have something to effectively refute?
What evidence do you refer to that is not being considered by scientists?
Yes, you fail to understand. Whatever the universe is, for the claims of AIG and any creationists I have heard of to be true, we have to believe a great deal more than Big Bang and some observations.
We have to believe that everything was positioned Matrix-style to give us the appearence of an age contrary to scripture in an extremely consistent and convincing manner.
The only motive for this is to maintain grand deception. It is ridiculous to accept this idea, and more so to want to worship a being with so little regard for truth.
That is the only contradiction. It is not newly idenfified here, either. Again, see Epicurus, et al.
And again, perhaps this petulant tribal mythological creature should explain it himself.
- Submariner October 16, 2009 7:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are Christians who use simple tools not very intelligent?
It's a fact that the average IQ one hundred years ago was ten points lower than it is today. Unfortunately, when you look at averages one must keep in mind that averages necessarily include the fact that some are far below average.
As humans evolve, more and more of them become intelligent enough to realize what a half baked farce the bible really is. The throwbacks of sub normal intelligence tend to remain with the church .
There's a simple acid test to identify a false religion . Does the religion ask the members of its cult for money ? If the answer is yes, the religion is bogus. What possible use would an entity capable of creating universes have for fiat currencies issued by the local tribes of its creations?
You have to appreciate the beauty of the scam, though. It's beyond the average conman's wildest dreams of averice to work one hour a week, have the marks come to him, and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in tax free cash. That's about as good as it gets for anyone who doesn't get nausious at ripping off so many people.
- Don Earl
October 11, 2009 8:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One point response
Do you know why Christians are supposed to tithe (give money to the church )? It is a way of acknowledging that everything we have comes from Him anyway. Some "churches" do ask for money in inappropriate and unnecessary ways - those, I do not consider Christian.
- headache62
October 14, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One point reply
I have some lovely vacation lots in Florida you may be interested in, or perhaps I may be able to interest you in a bridge? Cash only, no checks please.
- Don Earl
October 14, 2009 1:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
So...do you actually have a response based on facts and evidence? Or are just trying (unsuccessfully) to make a (very old and unoriginal) joke about people being gullible?
I will be the first to admit that people who ask for money under the auspices of a "christian church " are not at all christian. However, for every one "televangelist" who is trying to become rich, there are many more honest, sincere believers who understand the truth: that we are fallen people that need to be saved.
If you think you are a good person, I would like to honestly ask you a few questions: Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever done anything dishonoring to your parents? Are these things that a good person would do?
- headache62
October 15, 2009 6:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
good people
Yes, sometimes good people do bad things (for a number of reasons)... because nobody is perfectly good (or perfectly bad).
- MrBook
October 15, 2009 7:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Have You Been Duped...?
OP Says: "Evolution can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don’t even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in evolution , from biology to philosophy and even English class. There is no escaping evolution after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television , and in blockbuster movies."
I would ask, have you been duped by mathematics? It's FULL of theories and theorems. Mathematics can become so ingrained in our thinking that we don't even notice it. Our government schools and universities are entrenched in mathematics, from physics, to chemistry, and even in music class. There is no escaping mathematics after we graduate, either. We encounter it in the newspaper, on the radio, on television, and in blockbuster movies.
It's heinous, really, how insidious mathematics is, how it inserts itself into our minds and will not leave us to ponder less logical ideas of how we interact with the world.
- Babaroni
October 11, 2009 8:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tickles
1+1=3!
Freaking math. Xeno's Paradox explained with differential calculus? How could we be so gullible?
Seriously, what "theoretical" science in modernity is actually "refuted" by the fundamentalists as evolution ? Is it really that hard to accept natural, humble origins?
- Submariner October 19, 2009 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evolution and religion can coexist
There is far too much data supporting Evolution. Remember, Gravity is a theory too, yet nobody bothers to dispute it, because it doesn't run counter to their ideological beliefs, beliefs that existed when science was unknown.
To preach against Evolution is to give your faithful a disservice and to make them unmarketable in a career oriented world.
Better to do what most Christians do, and what even the Pope does, and incorporate Evolution into your faith. If God created the earth and heavens in 6 days, then certainly the concept of a 24 hour day didn't exist yet, since there was no sun and no earth to rotate around it. Perhaps one of Gods days is a billion years. Then suddenly Evolution fits in perfectly with a higher power.
- SteveSinCa
October 12, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
What evidence do you refer to? The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, that most scientist say look it was "just planted there"? Or the fossil footprints of the Tyrannosaurus Rex that are one the same geologic strata and six feet away from the human footprint?
"Preaching" against evolution is debating a scientific theory - just like some people are beginning to re-define gravity and mathematicians question and debate mathematical theories.
However, I don't see mathematicians saying that "the debate is over" when someone questions a mathematically theorem - we only see that when it comes to evolution. Why do you think that is?
- headache62
October 14, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My response
I've never heard any scientist say the debate is over in regards to evolution . We learn more about evolution all the time, just as we learn more about gravity all the time, yet we know they both exist.
I have no more interest in debating whether evolution exists than I do in debating that the world is flat.
- SteveSinCa
October 14, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
I've heard it before: every time a scientist or "scientific television show" makes a comment or produces a show that assumes that evolution is true (example: the National Geographic shows "Morphed").
And do you not want to debate evolution because you do not want to hear the arguments against it?
Fossil records do not show ancestor-descendant relationships. Yes, some creatures are similar in structure to others, but that does not mean that they are related in any way.
Microbiology: Flagellum on bacteria have 42 proteins - if even one does not work as it should, the flagellum does not work. And all 42 just happened to appear, functional, at once?
A few questions: Which evolved first: The skeleton, or the muscles to move the skeleton? Male or famale?
- headache62
October 15, 2009 6:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
which came first.
"I've heard it before: every time a scientist or "scientific television show" makes a comment or produces a show that assumes that evolution is true (example: the National Geographic shows "Morphed"). "
Yes, the fact of Evolution is said to be true (just like the fact of Gravity or continental drift)... the theory that describes / models that fact is what changes over time.
"Fossil records do not show ancestor-descendant relationships."
The lines of decent are rather clear actually
"Yes, some creatures are similar in structure to others, but that does not mean that they are related in any way."
So there is another explanation for how creatures, when arrayed chronologically, clearly show the changing of traits from an ancestral species to their modern form?
"Flagellum on bacteria have 42 proteins - if even one does not work as it should, the flagellum does not work. And all 42 just happened to appear, functional, at once?"
It no longer operates as a flagellum, but it does become a very nice 'needle' which is seen in use by other species of bacteria.
"A few questions: Which evolved first: The skeleton, or the muscles to move the skeleton? Male or famale?"
mobility came before the formation of rigid structures (like bones and shells)... so 'muscles' would have come first.
The evolution of sexual reproduction is a very interesting subject, though we can see the various forms that it could have taken in the transition from asexual to sexual.
The earliest form of reproduction was the asexual reproduction of bacteria... cells simply dividing and going their separate way. Yet bacteria have also been observed undertaking a 'kind' of sexual activity in that they sometimes exchange genetic material.
We can see the next stage in hermaphroditic species. These species have both 'male' and 'female' reproductive organs. From there it would be a rather simple step for a member of that species to be born without one set or the other.
- MrBook
October 15, 2009 7:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Calling it like it is, it's not a debate
"And do you not want to debate evolution because you do not want to hear the arguments against it?"
I can only speak for myself. I believe in evolution because it has been the accepted reason, and the understanding of evolution has been open to evolving as well. We know that we learn more about it all the time. I believe in science and intellectualism. Our society has grown greatly because of science, our life spans have increased and we learn from our mistakes and we learn more. There may be mistakes in our understanding of evolution, but that certainly does not mean evolution does not exist. I have doctors in my family, intellectuals who believe in evolution and who believe in God.
I see the only opponents of evolution as other people of religion and I believe that their opposition to religion is based more on ideology (and an outdated one at that), than anything logical. So I do not care to debate opponents of evolution. I know it is an unwinnable argument, neither side can convince the other side, because I believe those opposing evolution are doing so to further an ideological agenda and when that is the case, debate is futile.
I'm not a scientist, and because I'm not, there is nothing in it for me, to spend hours upon hours researching. I will go with what the scholars and scientists tell me. My observation in life and through history has shown them to be far less likely to have an ulterior motive than religious people.
The fact that this "debate" is categorized under religion and put forth by a 'ministry' seals the deal.
If you study human and monkey behavior, it's obvious we are related.
- SteveSinCa
October 15, 2009 8:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
one correction
I mean, I believe that their opposition to ( evolution ) is based more on ideology
- SteveSinCa
October 15, 2009 9:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
“I believe in science and intellectualism. “
I do, as well.
“I see the only opponents of evolution as other people of religion and I believe that their opposition to religion is based more on ideology (and an outdated one at that), than anything logical.”
I would say the same about evolutionist – are they not trying to espouse an ideology? Aren't evolutionary scientist simply espousing the belief that man is just an animal and they are trying to use science to prove it? That sounds like an ideological stance to me.
"If you study human and monkey behavior, it's obvious we are related."
Based on what? Can similar, but unrelated, creatures have similar behavior? Of course. Do similar patterns of behavior define a linked relationship? No. People see patterns where they choose to - that does not mean those patterns are correct.
Consider this pattern: If you eat ice cream, you are more likely to commit rape. Did you know that? There is a positive correlation between the amount of ice cream consumed and the number of rapes that occur, so that means that eating ice cream makes you more likely to commit rape. Of course that is foolishness. But more ice cream is consumed in the summer, and more rapes occur in the summer.
Similar patterns do not mean that the pattens are related, whether we are talking about ice cream or behavior.
"I will go with what the scholars and scientists tell me."
Congratulations - I would rather think about what I read and hear and then reach my own conclusions.
"My observation in life and through history has shown them to be far less likely to have an ulterior motive than religious people."
I disagree, especially when you follow evolution to it's logical conclusion: that those who are "more fit" should survive while "the weak" should not. I know it's been brought up before, but the nazis justification for genocide was that the aryan race was "more fit" than others.
- headache62
October 16, 2009 4:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I disagree
"I would say the same about evolutionist – are they not trying to espouse an ideology?"
For what ulterior motive? The motive to promote religion is obvious, what is the scientists motive then? Someone does not try to teach an ideology without a motive.
"Congratulations - I would rather think about what I read and hear and then reach my own conclusions."
Congrats for you having so much free time on your hands. The majority of us are trying to pay bills, build a career, raise families, we don't have time to analyze archeological digs, we leave that to the scientists and listen to what they tell us.
Just like I leave the claim if water is safe to drink or not to those who are the experts in the field. Just like I leave the studying of car crashes and the best way to avoid them to the experts, and I will just listen to them. I don't have time to analyze everything and come to my own conclusion. That is what we rely on society for.
I competely understand the motive behind religion trying to debunk evolution . I have never been given a realistic reason why science would want to promote a known falsehood. It makes no sense.
As far as 'survival of the fittest' no scientist is promoting that Nazi theory so it weakens your claim to bring up Nazism. We can look at nature to see that evolution HAS given us a survival of the fittest theme, it's the way of (wild)life. We can also see that with technological advances, we are able to medically prolong life and to cure illnesses, etc. and so we can see that evolution supporter believes in maintaining a survival of the fittest scenario. We aim to beat it and give the best quality of life to all, that we can. That is true morality that beats any morality I see from evolution deniers.
- SteveSinCa
October 16, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why we call them experts
Consider why you want so desperately to not listen to the experts and come to your own conclusion.
A doctor goes to medical school for at least 8 years, to learn and to be able to diagnose. I would be a fool, to think that in the evenings I could read a book or two and then be enough of an expert to come to my own conclusion, disregarding a doctors advice /opinion.
Similarly, those who study evolution , study for years upon years. Going back to my reference of not having the time, IF I was going to take seriously any evolution doubter, I would want to see some SERIOUS credentials, other than just some guy on the web who reads a book and comes to a different conclusion.
Think about how that sounds. You are certainly more than free to read and think and come to YOUR own conclusion. But what makes you think others are going to be receptive to your belief that you have come to a more enlightened decision than someone who has studied for years upon years?
- SteveSinCa
October 16, 2009 6:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Final word
It's interesting how the opponents of evolution always come from the religious field. Other than the occasional scientist who is usually quickly discredited, there are no scientists who believe in creationism over evolution. I do not believe that all scientists are atheists or anti-God.
This right there, tells one that the 'debate' is not based on facts but on ideology.
Science is always trying to learn more, and trying to correct mistakes, yet nobody in science even remotely believes in creationism. Because there is no logic in it. They are not anti-God.
If half the science community said "hey wait a minute, we were wrong" then that's one thing. When somebody who uses a book written by men thousands of years ago says "hey wait a minute" that's an entirely different thing. Sorry.
- SteveSinCa
October 15, 2009 9:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
proven
"The fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion, that most scientist say look it was "just planted there"?"
Can you source that statement? I've never heard it said that the fossils from the Cambrian Explosion looked like they were planted there.
""Preaching" against evolution is debating a scientific theory - just like some people are beginning to re-define gravity and mathematicians question and debate mathematical theories."
There is a vast difference between ' preaching against evolution' and debating the facts of evolution. Evolution is much a fact as Gravity (no matter what changes are made to the Theories describing gravity a ball dropped will still fall to the ground).
"However, I don't see mathematicians saying that "the debate is over" when someone questions a mathematically theorem "
Actually once you prove something in mathematics it is largely seen as 'the debate is over'... If I proved that Pi was actually finite then I would have proven it and the debate would be over (unless a flaw in my proof was discovered).
Scientific theories are debated because new observations can demonstrate incompleteness in current theories.
- MrBook
October 15, 2009 7:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
"Can you source that statement? "
Sure - it was Richard Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker."
Quote: "... the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution , the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986)
Darwin himself also addressed the problem of the Cambrian fossil record:
Quote: "...the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. ...The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Darwin, the Origin of Species, 1872)
Re-read that last part: "may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views [of natural selection] here entertained." Darwin himself says that there is at least one "valid argument." Yet scientists don't want to debate evolution? Why would that be?
Full disclosure - I have not read Darwin or Dawkins yet, but they are both on my list of books to read.
"If I proved that Pi was actually finite then I would have proven it and the debate would be over (unless a flaw in my proof was discovered)."
You hit the nail on the head with your parenthetical statement: unless a flaw is discovered. Creationist and Intelligent Design scientists, regardless of whether they are in the minority of scientists or not, have presented flaws in the "proof" of evolution. But they are denigrated, maligned, and ridiculed for reporting on their own observations of the facts they see (for examples, see some of the responses to this column).
Open debate is not allowed, and anyone who opposes "the majority of scientists" is ignored. How does that contribute to a better understanding of the THEORY of evolution?
- headache62
October 16, 2009 5:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
quote mining?
If you have not actually read the source material then how can you be sure about the context of those quotes?
Darwin offers the following explanation, which is the sentence right after your quote ends:
"To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America."
So he did not just say 'well there is no explanation for it' he offered a hypothesis that explains why there were so few fossils.
However that passage was first written one hundred and fifty years ago... and since that time fossilized multicellular life HAS been found from pre-Cambrian times.
Quote mining Dr. Dawkins is even more dangerous... because he is unequivocally not a supporter of ID. Oddly I happen to own a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" and with a bit of digging online have gone and read that passage (found at the bottom of page 229 and the top of 230)
"without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago."
"Re-read that last part: "may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views [of natural selection] here entertained." Darwin himself says that there is at least one "valid argument." Yet scientists don't want to debate evolution ? Why would that be?"
The argument, lack of fossils, that Darwin put forth has been answered through the discovery of fossilized multicellular life from before the Cambrian explosion.
"Full disclosure - I have not read Darwin or Dawkins yet, but they are both on my list of books to read."
It is rather important to read the source material before quoting it it, or at least be familiar with the context. It is also important when quoting older material (150 years in the case of Darwin, 13 years in the case of Dr. Dawkins) to be familiar with more recent discoveries.
- MrBook
October 16, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
debating
"Creationist and Intelligent Design scientists, regardless of whether they are in the minority of scientists or not, have presented flaws in the "proof" of evolution . But they are denigrated, maligned, and ridiculed for reporting on their own observations of the facts they see (for examples, see some of the responses to this column)."
They have yet to present anything approaching a serious flaw. Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be incorrect, as has similar statements about complexity and information. If your only arguments rely on information that can be refuted with a basic grasp of biology, physics, or information theory then you really don't have much of an argument.
"Open debate is not allowed, and anyone who opposes "the majority of scientists" is ignored. How does that contribute to a better understanding of the THEORY of evolution?"
And should astronomers listen to geocentrists or flat-earthers?
- MrBook
October 16, 2009 10:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
response
"They have yet to present anything approaching a serious flaw."
Is that why evolution is re-designed whenever a new problem with the theory arises? Such as the "punctuated equilibrium" response put forth by Steven Jay Gould to explain the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.
"And should astronomers listen to geocentrists or flat-earthers?"
Are there any around? Then no.
Are there scientists that are presenting arguments against evolution? Yes. Then they should be listened to.
- headache62
October 18, 2009 12:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Puncuated equilibrium.
is nothing but the 19th century fundamentalist idea of Catastrophicism dressed up in scientific terminology.
- mike1948
October 18, 2009 1:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
geocentrists
"Is that why evolution is re-designed whenever a new problem with the theory arises? Such as the "punctuated equilibrium" response put forth by Steven Jay Gould to explain the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record."
Punctuated equilibrium is far from a 'redesign' of ToE. Rather it is an adjustment of the part of ToE that described the rate of evolution. Early on it was believed that evolution proceeded at a somewhat constant rate over the generations. However new evidence / observations appeared that showed that evolution could occur rapidly, and thus the theory was revised to better model the \observed facts. Punctuated Equilibrium describes how evolution can be relatively slow over long periods where environmental pressures remain the same, but then undergoes a rapid shift when the environmental pressures undergo a sudden change .
"Are there any around? Then no. "
Yes there still geocentrists around.
"Are there scientists that are presenting arguments against evolution? Yes. Then they should be listened to."
I am not a trained biologist, but still the flaws in the arguments made by those opposing evolution are exceptionally obvious... as such I would expect that they would be even more obvious to those who are professional biologists.
If you are going to argue against evolution then you are going to need some better arguments.
- MrBook
October 18, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wait a sec
Quit asking for a debate if you are not going to apologize for liblous quoting out of context.
This is the whole point. Religious refutation of Evolution is baseless, even in a dearth of evidence.
The fact that theory and work with fossils, genetics, and embryology (let alone astronomy, geology, and general zoology) give us windfall after windfall of consistent evidence is just daily work for scientists, and unecessary comfort for everyone that already discounts religious authority.
- Submariner October 19, 2009 5:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Creative Writing
How can over a billion Christians be duped by literature that says that a powerful Creator took nothing (a void) and in six days turned it into a living universe. Then, the same Creator had to resort to the womb of a Jewish maiden, grow there as an embryo and fetus, go through the birth process, be circumcised eight days later, become a man who was a carpenter, experience a midlife crisis to become a rabbi, be denounced by some folks, sentenced to death, die, and then become G-D again. That is a most unbelievable tale of creative proportions. The Creation de novo, and the creation in vivo just do not jive, unless you are absolutely deluded.
- Rashi18
November 5, 2009 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response
Jesus Christ had to be born a man so that he could be tempted as every man is but still fulfill the Law of God (ie, never sin). The only way that he was able to do that was because he was fully God and fully man, and he willingly died to take the place for our failures and sins. He didn't "become God again," he always was God. Does it make sense? No - I'm a fallen man and I've done some terrible things - but God still loves me so much that he sacrificed his Son, who did nothing wrong, to pay for my punishment.
How about this: If natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," why do we spend resources protecting and caring for those who obviously are not "fit" - those with genetic defects, or birth defects, mental and physical handicaps, and degenerative diseases?
In a world of "survival of the fittest," how did morality evolve?
- headache62
November 5, 2009 7:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
fit
"How about this: If natural selection is based on "survival of the fittest," why do we spend resources protecting and caring for those who obviously are not "fit" - those with genetic defects, or birth defects, mental and physical handicaps, and degenerative diseases?"
A variety of reasons... the first of which is that Natural Selection is not based on "survival of the fittest". It is also important to remember that Evolution is a predictive theory, not an ethical theory (it tells us what happens, not what we should do).
"In a world of "survival of the fittest," how did morality evolve?"
Fitness is an interesting term... since there is no strict definition on what exactly fitness is it can be very hard to say what promotes fitness.
In a social species morality supports the group, which supports the survival of the individuals and enables the perpetuation of the species.
To put it in another way, by acting morally you promote the stability of the group you are in... which increases your chances of finding a mate in that group (who also acts morally). By acting morally and contributing to the stability of the group you also add an additional layer of protection to your offspring, increasing their chances of survival.
Morality is a survival tactic... and a rather successful one at that.
- MrBook
November 5, 2009 8:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Son sacrifice
This concept is based on the destruction of the Second Temple. There was no place for the traditional sacrifices to be accomplished. The people were at a loss for what to do. Some created what is blasphemy to make up for the absence of a place to sacrifice as penance. The created the concept, inconsistent with real Judaism (and one that Jesus the Jew who also say is blasphemy) that G-D lowered himself to the status of being a human by fathering a child. Again, the same people did another thing that Jesus would say was blasphemy, they lowered G-D to the status of High Priest - a human - so that he could sacrifice his son . Child sacrifice was frequently practiced by the pagan cultures of Greece, Rome, and others so it was okay for them. Not for Jews. That is why Jews, as the fittest, will always survive.
- Rashi18
November 6, 2009 6:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.