Re: Evolution Deniers

On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "al"
<almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> CreateThis wrote:
>>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Grendel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beagle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry if this has been raised before, but wouldn't it be better to
>>>>>>>> formally categorise IDers and Creationists in their many, somewhat
>>>>>>>> confusing forms as Evolution Deniers? And, yes, I know it echoes
>>>>>>>> Holocaust Deniers, because I think their intellectual honesty is on
>>>>>>>> roughly the same level, not to mention the ideological nastiness
> that
>>>>>>>> lies (very thinly masked) behind their antics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evolution deniers (ED) are better EDucated
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why do they fail to exhibit any evidence of it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and tend to think for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except where religion is concerned, in which case it's all about
>>>>>> believing what you're told to believe like a good little boy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You seems to criticize those who reject evolution, but you obviously
>>>>> know nothing about religion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> We choose not to believe in evolution and accept what real science
>>>>>>> (puts
>>>>>>> on the moon gives us computers science) says about how life and
>>>>>>> organisms work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also blatantly lie about your reasons. Biology is real science -
>>>>>> hence modern medicine. Spacecraft and computers are engineering
> feats
>>>>>> *based* on science (and BTW, they tell us nothing about how life and
>>>>>> organisms work).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You choose not to believe in evolution because it crosses into your
>>>>>> cult beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some chose not to believe in it because of the incalcuable
> probability
>>>>> against it.
>>>>
>>>> ...like they're told to believe. Or are you trying to say you thought
>>>> up this 'incalculability' idea all by yourself?
>>>>
>>>> A little open minded reading would show you it's a bogus idea. But, of
>>>> course, to accept that you'd have to be, well... open minded. So never
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>> CT
>>>
>>> Since you put it THAT way, what are you talking about?
>>
>> If you have a probablility argument, it is likely that it has already been
>> falsified. So, your statement about probability shows that you either
> have
>> not read anything but creationist published arguments, or you have
> something
>> new on the subject to share. My bet is the former, but please share what
>> you have.
>>
>> JR
>>>
>> WISTAR DESTROYS EVOLUTION
> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

OK, I read the article linked to. Let me ask you. Did you understand what
you were reading? Was it all true? Are you expert enough in any field of
science or mathematics to comprehend the details, or are you convinced by
how it was written?

Although Pathlights has some good resources, and I have used them myself,
their understanding of science is abysmal.

I am not trying to be unkind, but the authors of those articles against
evolution show at the same time a lack of understanding of the real facts
and a penchant for quoting out of context.

Never at any time in the past century has the scientific community been
afraid that Evolution was about to be destroyed. The mathematical arguments
of probability are almost entirely based upon wrong assumptions -- one of
which being that the world that *is* was the desired objective and that the
creatures which *are* were the destined goal.

The probability that *you* as you are would exist would have been
astronomically low say, fifty years before you were born. Your parents would
have to be born as them, they would have to meet, and the exact egg and
sperm contribute to the genetic material making up *you*. On the other hand,
the probability that your ancestors would have children who would survive to
have children, and their children survive to have children would actually be
pretty good. Thus that someone should be born in your parents' generations
would be very good, perhaps approaching 1, while the probability that you
would be born (as you), would be awfully close to 0. So close to 0 that
there isn't any spitting distance.

Mathematically, you are impossible. Yet you exist. Out of all the millions
of sperm your father deposited in your mother, only one wound up becoming
you. And of the different times that your mother might have been able to
become pregnant, there was only one time she became pregnant with you. Just
think. One sperm difference and you wouldn't exist!

So you have to ask -- was it biology or God that guided that little wiggler
that became you? Be careful how you answer! Your answer has profound
implications, especially for everyone else. Are you willing to give God the
credit for uniting the very exact sperm and egg that became Hitler?

It is not mathematics that will destroy evolution. The fact is that
mathematics is a way to help us describe the physical world, but mathematics
does not rule the physical world. The laws of physics does that quite well.
Our mathematics has an inherent weakness -- we cannot control or model every
variable. We cannot even conceive of all the variables.

So in many ways, mathematics will always be wrong when it comes to complex
system analysis. The question is how close we can come.

Science has moved a long way since the discussions your Pathlights article
chronicles. So has mathematics and computers. Lots has happened, and guess
what? Despite the impossibility of you, you are here. Despite the
impossibility of evolution, evolution happens. It occurs. We see it. Yes, in
the grand scheme of things we aren't around long enough to see major changes
in the genome. But it still happens.

Like many things produced by people with an agenda, your Pathlights article
seems persuasive. Ask yourself -- could they have left out anything? Is
there a context they are deliberately excluding? What are their motivations
for producing the article? Is it an attempt to show you what is happening in
the here and now on the scientific front? Or do they make snippet-size
quotations from articles so old that it is well-nigh impossible to get the
source material in an attempt to make you ignore what is happening *now*?

Ultimately, you will have to choose what you believe, and why you believe
it. As for me, I am a Christian. I was a fundamentalist, until I discovered
that fundamentalism supported its positions with many things that were lies,
especially in Creationism. I am by no means an unbeliever. I can discuss the
Scriptures reasonably well and come to the point.

Yet I do not believe that God has chosen to cloak His Creation in deception.
The natural world is not evil. It is good. And we should learn about it. The
evidence the natural world presents for how it works is compelling. On the
other hand, the Scriptures give no physical facts we would not know without
investigation, and actually record the misunderstandings of the natural
world held by the people at the time.

My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the natural
world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about the TOE
-- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The sources
you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis, and any
other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.

Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why they
believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

.

Relevant Pages