Ignorance and evolution

[edwest2]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word. Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant. That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

It is an insulting assumption based on the premise that understanding evolution means believing in evolution. I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.” But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form. That if only your ‘ignorance’ were taken away you would finally see the light. Baloney.

There was not enough time for a-theistic evolution to have occurred.

There is evidence that the long ages were not that long.

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today, from apes to bacteria, and life in the sea.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mschrank]

As a fence sitter on the evolution issue, I can only say that I wish both sides would be more charitable with the other’s argument. It seems to me that both sides simply shake their fists and accuse the other of being ignorant.

 

[inthecloud]

The problem is that evolution, cosmology, geology, languages sciences, history and modern scholarship all call for a very old earth, and a older universe. And a at least 100,000 mankind.
Those who do not accept the evidence are under a stubborn blidfolds or ignorant. Period.

 

[Tedster]

I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.”

Count me in that group! I find it humorous that one of the first arguments an evolutionist responds with is “You must not know any thing about the theory…” or “you have not studied any science…” or the best one, “you are ignorant…”

Fact is, as you put, many folks have studied the Theory of Evolution and had very good reason to look at the theory as a very unsubstantiated. But man if you say that… look out for not agreeing with them! Watch how long it takes them to respond to this post!

Thanks Ed!

 

[rtconstant]

As a fence sitter on the evolution issue, I can only say that I wish both sides would be more charitable with the other’s argument. It seems to me that both sides simply shake their fists and accuse the other of being ignorant.

I agree as so often happens when one takes an extreme view of something they tend to become overly credulous.

 

[mschrank]

And a at least 100,000 mankind.

What?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Count me in that group! I find it humorous that one of the first arguments an evolutionist responds with is “You must not know any thing about the theory…”

When one begins to express all sorts of misconceptions about it, that happens, yes. Why would you be surprised?

Fact is, as you put, many folks have studied the Theory of Evolution and had very good reason to look at the theory as a very unsubstantiated.

Since you think so, it’s obvious that you know a great deal about evolutionary theory. So just to shut up those guys who think creationists are automatically ignorant (I’m not one of them, BTW), why not tell us what you think the important points of Darwin’s theory are, and what was modified in the Modern Synthesis?

That’ll show 'em.

But man if you say that… look out for not agreeing with them!

Well, let’s see what you’ve got, and we’ll take a look. What do you think the major unresolved question in evolutionary theory might be?

As in all sciences, there are entire journals dedicated to problems in evolutionary theory, chemistry, geology, etc. So it shouldn’t be hard to name a few.

Go for it.

Watch how long it takes them to respond to this post!

I’m quite sincere. I really would like to hear what you think the theory is about, and what the significant remaining problems are.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word. Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant. That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

How is it a rhetorical device?
Would a person who was mentally defective having below average intelligence and unable to grasp the scientific principles of evolution be termed ignorant of the truth?

Would a person who knew that most of the world accepted evolution but who by choice did not wish to and relied on creationist sites for arguments and did not fairly investigate all the evidence be termed willfully ignorant?

You know of course that you were not called ignorant Ed, you misquoted something that was addressed to someone else.

It is an insulting assumption based on the premise that understanding evolution means believing in evolution. I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.” But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form. That if only your ‘ignorance’ were taken away you would finally see the light. Baloney.

I personally don’t care what anyone wants to believe. They are certainly entitled to it. But I will object when anyone tries to imply that the Church stands for creationism and YEC when it clearly has moved from that position if it ever held it.

There is no such assumption of ignorance. What there is a very clear choice being made in the face of rather overwhelming evidence. That you are allowed to adher to it the Church agrees, but it is not where the Church is moving.

There was not enough time for a-theistic evolution to have occurred.

There is evidence that the long ages were not that long.

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today, from apes to bacteria, and life in the sea.
Ed

Yes Ed, you may believe any of that and a lot more. Just don’t pass it off as where the Church is heading. You are simply not in step with the Church and I think you know that. That may be unfair, but much of life is.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Count me in that group! I find it humorous that one of the first arguments an evolutionist responds with is “You must not know any thing about the theory…” or “you have not studied any science…” or the best one, “you are ignorant…”

Fact is, as you put, many folks have studied the Theory of Evolution and had very good reason to look at the theory as a very unsubstantiated. But man if you say that… look out for not agreeing with them! Watch how long it takes them to respond to this post!

Thanks Ed!

Then it would not be used world wide in tens of disciplines. Why on earth do you think it is? Scientists like to make discoveries and gain recognition. That can’t do that wasting a lifetime with a theory they know is no good.

The scientific community in mass disagrees with you. All we get are cites to creationists and “scientists” who are in fields having nothing to do with biology and sometimes not even science at all. To rely on what sounds good because its what you desire to believe is intellectually dishonest. Why would you do such a thing to yourself?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word.

So far, that seems to be what’s wrong. We’ve seen countless misconceptions about evolutionary theory is about. I asked you once before to outline what you think the theory is about, and you declined to do it. That doesn’t inspire much confidence in your understanding.

Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant. That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

We can test that, if you’ll just tell us what you think it is about.

It is an insulting assumption based on the premise that understanding evolution means believing in evolution.

Goodness, no. Kurt Wise, for example, is a YE creationist, and he is quite knowledgeable about the subject. Has a PhD in paleontology, no less. But you’ve given us reason to believe you don’t understand it at all.

I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.” But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form.

You aren’t? The moderators certainly seem inclined to do so here. You are entitled to speak your mind; you aren’t entitled to avoid critical inspection of your ideas.

There was not enough time for a-theistic evolution to have occurred.

Sounds like a testable argument. Show us.

There is evidence that the long ages were not that long.

Show us.

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today, from apes to bacteria, and life in the sea.

So, you’re telling us that if you’re alive, your cousins have to be dead? How so?

 

[Tedster]

When one begins to express all sorts of misconceptions about it, that happens, yes. Why would you be surprised?

I said it was humorous not that I was surprised.

Since you think so, it’s obvious that you know a great deal about evolutionary theory. So just to shut up those guys who think creationists are automatically ignorant (I’m not one of them, BTW), why not tell us what you think the important points of Darwin’s theory are, and what was modified in the Modern Synthesis? That’ll show 'em.

Well, let’s see what you’ve got, and we’ll take a look. What do you think the major unresolved question in evolutionary theory might be?

As in all sciences, there are entire journals dedicated to problems in evolutionary theory, chemistry, geology, etc. So it shouldn’t be hard to name a few.

Go for it.

I’m quite sincere. I really would like to hear what you think the theory is about, and what the significant remaining problems are.

If you feel you need to know where I stand or what I think, search my posts and find your answer. I am finished debating this subject in these forums. But thanks for the offer, I am sure you will find one willing soon enough. By the number of posts in these forums on the subject, my guess is you will be successful. God bless you in your search.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
When one begins to express all sorts of misconceptions about it, that happens, yes. Why would you be surprised?

I said it was humorous not that I was surprised.

For what it’s worth, such uninformed opinions amuse scientists, too.

Barbarian suggests:
Since you think so, it’s obvious that you know a great deal about evolutionary theory. So just to shut up those guys who think creationists are automatically ignorant (I’m not one of them, BTW), why not tell us what you think the important points of Darwin’s theory are, and what was modified in the Modern Synthesis? That’ll show 'em.

Well, let’s see what you’ve got, and we’ll take a look. What do you think the major unresolved question in evolutionary theory might be?

As in all sciences, there are entire journals dedicated to problems in evolutionary theory, chemistry, geology, etc. So it shouldn’t be hard to name a few.

Go for it.

I’m quite sincere. I really would like to hear what you think the theory is about, and what the significant remaining problems are.

If you feel you need to know where I stand or what I think,

I was just interested about your understanding of evolutionary theory.

search my posts and find your answer. I am finished debating this subject in these forums.

I think you’ve already told me what I wanted to know.

 

[edwest2]

This Pope is seeking to maintain continuity. Humani Generis, 1950, the Latin Mass. This is the direction the Church is going.

Man was a bit of slime, then an aquatic creature, then a land dwelling creature, then a hominid, and then, at some undefined point, a human being. The Church has not infallibly ruled on the age of the earth.

I have decided to get my statements about evolution from the Catholic Church. The science of origins is too important to be left strictly in the hands of scientists. Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

This Pope is seeking to maintain continuity. Humani Generis, 1950, the Latin Mass.

And his pronouncement that common descent is virtually certain.

This is the direction the Church is going.

Not bad.

Man was a bit of slime, then an aquatic creature, then a land dwelling creature, then a hominid, and then, at some undefined point, a human being.

Men were always human beings. We just evolved from other animals.

The Church has not infallibly ruled on the age of the earth.

Can’t. It’s a scientific question; God has given the Church no way to put a date on the Earth.

I have decided to get my statements about evolution from the Catholic Church.

I’m pleased to hear you now accept common descent of all living things.

The science of origins is too important to be left strictly in the hands of scientists.

The hook, of course, is that in order to make any changes in the theory, you have to understand it first. And for that, you have to be a scientist, or at least know as much as we do.

Of course, there were atheists in the past, evolution is just one more recruitment tool.

And for racists and murderers in the past, religion was just one more recruitment tool. The truth still matters regardless of the evil some people try to justify by it.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting how you can tell me what I accept. I am with Cardinal Schoenborn, common descent “might” be true. I am very skeptical. The number of happy accidents appears to be beyond the realm of probability.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word. Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant.

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today, from apes to bacteria, and life in the sea.

That objection has been answered hundreds of times; it is based on a common misconception about what modern evolutionary theory states.

It is true that anyone who says he or she doesn’t believe in evolution is unfairly stigmatized, but it doesn’t help to complain about it and then simultaneously perpetuate misconceptions about evolution.

There’s a reason that apes are around today, and have not also evolved into something else: they are not the same as the “apes” who evolved into us.

The creatures from which we evolved are not around anymore, because they evolved into us. That is, for example, why modern humans are the only living members of the genus homo on the planet right now.

So the standard objection against evolution that says, “Then why are apes still here?” ignores the fact that evolutionary theory doesn’t technically state that we evolved from apes - not if by “apes” one has in mind the kind of apes who exist today.

 

[freesoulhope]

Men were always human beings. We just evolved from other animals.

That was a nice observation. How can creationists critisize, when they don’t even know what they’re critisizing?

First of all. If they can prove evolution wrong, thats fine by me. But i find it repugnant when they claim that evolution is an atheist theory, and that it contradicts the faith; when the Pope, who they supposedly respect, has made it clear that it does not. These guys are not interested in real science at all. I sense an irrational phobia, fear and paronoia in the creationist camp. It is unecessary.

What i want to know is, can you prove evolution wrong? If so, then present you arguement and recieve your Nobel prize!

Peace.

 

[DWPC]

I have decided to get my statements about evolution from the Catholic Church.

Ed

No, Ed, you cherry pick ambigiuties from Church materials to support a creationist-leaning view that’s outside the position of the Church. Cardinal Schoenborn addresses the *ideology *of evolution; its presentation by secularist as a closed secular answer, he does not challenge the science of evolution found in the fossil record or the laws of physics (also God’s creation) that verify that record. In an earlier post, you clearly express distaste at the idea that man’s lineage would include slime, yet Genesis tells us God fashioned Adam from the soil. So what, then, is soil?

 

[Mersenne]

Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant. That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

Nope, it’s a fact. It’s calling a zebra a zebra. There’s an awe-inspiring amount of evidence out there for evolution, that anyone can find. If instead, you spout out the first anti-evolution thing you read on the internet without even trying to look for the scientific explination, then you are willfully ignorant.

It’s like saying the earth is flat. If you believe that then you are willfully ignorant, case closed.

But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form.

You’re allowed to, but that still doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.

There was not enough time for a-theistic evolution to have occurred.

And why do you think that? Some website tell you so?

There is evidence that the long ages were not that long.

There is much more evidence that long ages were that long. And the evidence that it “were not that long” is debious at best.

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today

Which doesn’t contridict evolutionary theory, again, proving your willful ignorence.

 

[steveandersen]

Ignorance is certainly the wrong word.

Agreed

Those who do not believe evolution occurred as written in biology textbooks are accused of being ignorant or willfully ignorant.

The case for it is perhaps the strongest in all of the sciences
So opposition to it is very puzzling.

That is simply a rhetorical device that has no bearing on that person’s actual knowledge.

I don’t know about that. Many of the objections/concerns that I hear from people who oppose (or merely don’t agree with) evolution sites seem to churn up the same old tired chestnuts.
“There is no proof”
“You can’t observe it”
“What about the eye”
“What if you found a watch on the beach?”
etc
That (at least to my mind and most scientists minds) have been answered quite thoroughly.

Like I said opposition is quite puzzling

I’m interested in what you think of those who support evolution. Do you think that they are ignorant in not accepting your objections or addressing your objections in a way that you find satisfactory?

It is an insulting assumption based on the premise that understanding evolution means believing in evolution.

Understanding evolution means understanding evolution
No belief required

I am writing this to support all of those people who have looked at the theory of evolution and said, “No. I will not accept this.” But much like the ‘tolerance’ issue, you are not allowed to speak against evolution in any way, shape or form.

Oh you can speak against it all you want
Just don’t be disappointed when it is taught in a science class
And don’t expect non-science to be taught in science class

Anyone is free to pursue a contrary position
But that is (by its nature) a minority position
So if you’re not feeling a lot of warm fuzziness that is just part of the territory.
Remember, your position is basically that tens of thousands of biologists are dead wrong in their field of specialization.
So don’t be surprised to be challenged on it.

That if only your ‘ignorance’ were taken away you would finally see the light. Baloney.

So are you saying that you will reject it regardless of what arguments for it are provided?

That does sound fairly willful to me.

There was not enough time for a-theistic evolution to have occurred.

How much time would be needed?
And what is the difference between atheistic and theistic evolution?
And what sort of timesaving does that provide?

There is evidence that the long ages were not that long.

And there is strong evidence that the ages were very long.

Blessed Steno noted as much in the 17th century

The types of creatures that man supposedly shares descent with are still around today, from apes to bacteria, and life in the sea.

And this is a problem how?

It is the data set on which the theory is built. It is statements such as that that make me wonder if you do in fact understand the theory that you are criticizing.

I’m not calling any one names but the distorted picture of evolution that I see implied in your statement does indeed make me wonder about what exactly you think “evolution” is.
And more importantly where did you get that picture.

God bless,
Ed

Thank you
You too