A Leauki's Writings
What's the cost of being honest?
Published on May 15, 2009 By Leauki In Biology

In a reply to an article about fake evolution linked to above...

 

I think the "question" should not be "Why is evolution so important to some people?" because that is easily answered. ("It's science.")

The question should be "Why is fake evolution so important to some people?" whith "fake evolution" being whatever lie Creationists can tell about what evolution is.

Is it really so difficult for people "critical" of evolution at least to write an article about the subject that does not mispresent evolution? (And I am referring here to the multitude of articles written by Creationist "scientists" on the Web.)

Being "critical" of evolution because of the big bang or because one doesn't believe that "one species turns into another" is about as useful as being critical of gravity because of the colour blue or the fact that invisible pink unicorns don't, apparently, exist.

 


Comments (Page 1)
on May 15, 2009

...

on May 15, 2009

Is it "okay" to say that I'm an agnostic as far as evolution is concerned?

Because my jury is still out -- I haven't seen definitive proof of evolution yet. Scientists can still keep trying to prove it to me.

on May 15, 2009



Is it "okay" to say that I'm an agnostic as far as evolution is concerned?



As long as you don't misrepresent what evolution is, you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject.

Not sure if the word "agnostic" is the right choice, as it has a meaning in a religious context. Being "agnostic" with regard to evolution is as useful as being "agnostic" with regard to a city you have no intention of visiting very soon. It's out there but you haven't yet verified its existence yourself.




Because my jury is still out -- I haven't seen definitive proof of evolution yet. Scientists can still keep trying to prove it to me.



There won't be definitive proof, as even experiments consistently showing that evolution happens (and those experiments are done often and have been mainstream for decades) will not prove that this is what happened in nature.

Evolution is not supposed to be true, it just serves as a useful explanation for what it attempts to explain. That's what a scientific theory is.

Newton's theory of gravity is quite useful, although we now know that it wasn't complete. Perhaps we will learn more about the world and one day we will see that Darwinian evolution is not the complete explanation or that it is wrong.

My point is that IF we lern more about the world and IF we then reject Darwinism for a better theory, we will reject Darwinism and not a caricature of Darwinism.

Darwinism is not wrong because it's "atheism" or because it teaches that "one species turns into another", because it simply doesn't do either of these things. But that's what the Creationists are telling us. They are telling us that Darwinism is wrong based on lies about what Darwinism is. And that is unacceptable.

on May 15, 2009

My point is that IF we lern more about the world and IF we then reject Darwinism for a better theory, we will reject Darwinism and not a caricature of Darwinism.

I think the key, for everyone, evolutionists, and creasionists alike, is having the ability to keep an open mind.  Taking one explaination, of anything, and basing your entire philosophy, or system of beliefs, on that, and that alone, and never being open to the possibility of more, is extremely short-sighted.

 

 

on May 15, 2009

you confuse creationists with people who promote the beleif that god created man. The movement that calls itself creationsts are concerned with lying about evolution to discredit it because they beleive it leads to atheism which leads to evil.

Just like "scientology" has nothing to do with "Science", so does "creationism" has nothing to do with "god created humans"

on May 15, 2009

If there is a misconception, then why don't you start a thread which details exactly what evolution actually is and enlighten us all?

on May 15, 2009

there is no "misconception", there are only intentional lies.

on May 16, 2009

Okay, well considering I'm one of those "intentional liars" I sure don't have much of an idea which parts are lies.

Again, enlighten me.

on May 16, 2009

Evolution---scientific fact or fiction?

Darwin's Evolution Theory...theory still being scientifically explored or atheistic philosophical worldview?

This debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution, what evolution is/does and how that's accomplished and the same with the definition of Darwin's Evolution theory.

on May 16, 2009

This debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution, what evolution is/does and how that's accomplished and the same with the definition of Darwin's Evolution theory.

Lula is correct in the sense that the burden of proof always rests with a theory's proponents.  Such is always the case when dealing with science.  The problem, as I see it, is that this particular 'debate' is not between two competing scientific theories, both with biological or scientific plausibility.  Rather, one is a scientifically valid, testable* theory.  The other is not.

Lula's completely wrong that this 'debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution' - it will go on interminably simply because those who hold Lula's position cannot accept any alternative to their beliefs.  Doesn't matter what 'you all' decides, there can be no alternative to the Word of God in their view (ignoring all the secondary debates about the validity of the Word).  No matter how much the theory's proponents may indulge these particular opponents with evidence, it won't matter - it is a false debate, with one side unwilling to even agree to the rules, much less accept the weight of any offered evidence.

*By that I mean the ability to test a theory against the observed evidence, not the ability to turn a cat into a dog.

on May 16, 2009

it will go on interminably simply because those who hold Lula's position cannot accept any alternative to their beliefs. Doesn't matter what 'you all' decides, there can be no alternative to the Word of God in their view (ignoring all the secondary debates about the validity of the Word). No matter how much the theory's proponents may indulge these particular opponents with evidence, it won't matter - it is a false debate, with one side unwilling to even agree to the rules, much less accept the weight of any offered evidence.

*By that I mean the ability to test a theory against the observed evidence, not the ability to turn a cat into a dog.

Daiwa proves my point!

on May 16, 2009

If there is a misconception, then why don't you start a thread which details exactly what evolution actually is and enlighten us all?

I wrote a dozen articles about that, the last one three days ago.

Why don't you check the forums first and THEN ask why someone didn't write something?

 

on May 16, 2009

This debate will go on interminably until you all decide to agree upon a definition of Evolution

Scientists already agree on the definition, but the liars don't.

I think it is up to you to "decide" to stop lying about evolution if you are so worried about the "different" definition.

 

on May 16, 2009

Scientists already agree on the definition, but the liars don't.

I think it is up to you to "decide" to stop lying about evolution if you are so worried about the "different" definition.

Phew...you need to take some "chill out" time.

 Bye.

on May 16, 2009

Lula is correct in the sense that the burden of proof always rests with a theory's proponents. 

Yes, but that was never questioned by anybody. The discussion here is whether making up a fake story about a theory and then pretending to "test" that fake version constitutes "testing the theory".

 

Such is always the case when dealing with science.  The problem, as I see it, is that this particular 'debate' is not between two competing scientific theories, both with biological or scientific plausibility.  Rather, one is a scientifically valid, testable* theory.  The other is not.

True.

 

Meta
Views
» 1292
Comments
» 51
Category
Sponsored Links