Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
WHY ARGUE ABOUT EVOLUTION?
Page 1 of 2 next>
Nov 1, 2015 11:08:20   #
LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley
 
Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary paradigm a waste of time? My Facebook friend Deb, an atheist, thinks so. After I posted a brief critique about human evolution, she left this comment out of frustration:


Instead of hitting each other over the head about evolution, maybe we could work together to solve some of this planet’s pressing problems (climate change, poverty, war, environmental degradation, wealth inequality, lack of health care and educational resources, prejudice, discrimination and so forth).


Does Deb have a point? Does the creation-evolution controversy detract us from more weighty concerns?

I would say no. In fact, I assert that our concern about humanity’s social ills and our planet’s environmental catastrophes—and our motivation to act—are deeply connected to what we think about human origins.

Let me explain.

Scripture teaches that God created human beings to bear His image (Genesis 1:26–27; 9:6). Accordingly, all human beings have intrinsic worth and dignity. All human beings are equal. The way we treat image bearers equates to the way we treat God. Serving others likens to serving God. These ideas—so clearly taught in Scripture—inspire Christians to good works. They rouse Christians to action against the injustices in our world.

On the other hand, while individual atheists are as capable of good deeds as Christians, atheism itself provides no genuine motivation for such acts. If human beings are the product of unguided evolutionary processes, then we are one among countless species that have existed on Earth. From an evolutionary standpoint, human beings are a historically contingent accident of an indiscriminate, natural process. Human life has no intrinsic value; there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to human life.

From an atheistic perspective, why should we care what happens to other human beings? In an atheistic framework, it really makes no difference if human beings suffer from poverty, lack of health care, or injustice. In fact, one could argue that an atheist showing compassion to the sick and weak is “immoral” because it disrupts the evolutionary process, in which survival of the fittest serves as the engine for evolutionary advance.

I’m not saying that atheists can’t be good or aren’t good. Many nonbelievers do good works, and I deeply admire and applaud the caring things that they do. It is wonderful to see people of different worldviews lock arms and work together to confront injustice.

But what features of an atheistic worldview justify good works? Deb explains that atheists “feel it’s the compassionate thing to do….We’re not doing this because we expect any reward in the afterlife, as we do not believe in anything beyond death. We do it because we love life in the here and now so much.” However, an atheistic worldview doesn’t require compassion or kindness or acknowledgement of human dignity. It is just as valid for an atheist to reject good works as it is to embrace them. In an atheistic framework, it is not clear what justice actually looks like; it is not clear what distinguishes a “right” action from a “wrong” one. There is no objective standard for good and evil in atheism. Without that standard, what is wrong for one society (or even one person) could be right for another.

In contrast, the biblical God, through scriptural teachings, clearly defines how and why we should live and how we should treat each other.

In my view, the reason that atheists can extend compassion toward others and place high value on human life arises from the fact that all human beings bear God’s image. We inherently know that all people have dignity and worth. We have a “law written on our hearts” that guides our behavior if we let it. The moral code many atheists adopt is designed into their DNA, as it is in all humans. Atheists are, unwittingly, borrowing from a Judeo-Christian worldview, when they express a commitment to combat poverty, end war, provide health care, and end discrimination. That is why believers and nonbelievers can work together to improve our world.

When atheists do good works, they are defying the logical outworking of their worldview. As a case in point, in The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins states emphatically:


Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.1


Again, if atheism is true, we should ask why we would want to “upset the designs” of our selfish genes, because to do so, would be to upset the evolutionary process. Why should we stand in opposition to biological nature? Like all atheists, Dawkins’ morality is at war with his worldview.

In the end, it is only the Christian worldview that provides the necessary framework to truly justify addressing the evils of this world.

And that is why it is important to “hit each other over the head about evolution.” What we think about human origins really matters. And the good news is that a scientific case can be made for credibility of the biblical account of human origins.


NOTES
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3.
http://tnrtb.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/why-argue-about-evolution/

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 13:28:11   #
green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
 
bs...total and udder!

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/64/6456/6SJH100Z/posters/ashley-cooper-a-dairy-cow-with-a-full-udder.jpg

you have exposed your ignorance for all to see. :lol:

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 13:42:07   #
LarJgrip Loc: The Fraser Valley
 
green wrote:


And your post has exposed yours. :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2015 13:57:14   #
Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana
 
LarJgrip wrote:
Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary paradigm a waste of time? My Facebook friend Deb, an atheist, thinks so. After I posted a brief critique about human evolution, she left this comment out of frustration:


Instead of hitting each other over the head about evolution, maybe we could work together to solve some of this planet’s pressing problems (climate change, poverty, war, environmental degradation, wealth inequality, lack of health care and educational resources, prejudice, discrimination and so forth).


Does Deb have a point? Does the creation-evolution controversy detract us from more weighty concerns?

(Delated to save space... Jim)

Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary... (show quote)


Your friend Deb has her agenda and she does not want you to have yours so as not to distract you from her's. One can have multiple concerns such as the concerns that she has but to be truthful with you, I don't share many of her (liberal) concerns. Education, maybe, depending on which way she is leaning but then, I don't care which way she is leaning since I am not concerned with her list of problems as she would not be concerned with mine... such as, how to keep people like her from ruining this country with her liberal, socialist agenda.

I am sure that Deb and Rac would not get along together.

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 14:03:54   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
green wrote:
bs...total and udder!

you have exposed your ignorance for all to see. :lol:

Hey Greenie, why don't you tell us how you really feel....

I am an agnostic and I have always thought that the evolutionary argument was interesting, though a waste of time from both sides. From the Atheist's perspective I've thought that Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the practicalities of modern science. Some will argue that all of biology is based on Evolution, but I say that is "Bu11$#1T." Whether or not Evolution is true, it has no bearing on what goes on in the lab when a scientist is testing the accuracy of any theory.

From the Religious believer's perspective, I've thought that there is no scripture verse that denies Evolution, so even if it was true, it does not contradict the Bible. What if God employed Evolution to carry out his plan? Maybe.

You bring up some good points about the nature of people who are Religious vs. Non-Religious (though you don't cover the Agnostics like myself). I tend to support Religious Communities and people more than I support Atheists because I generally don't trust mankind to keep order by himself. The biggest reason to be suspicious of Atheistic order lies in the 20th Century's birth of Communism and the unbelievable carnage left behind by Atheistic Dictators. The death toll of people killed by their own governments is much larger than the total killed in wars in the 20th Century. Add to that the massive poverty and lack of freedom under which the survivors had to live.

There is one more reason to be skeptical of trusting everyone's natural compassionate nature. Their are some people who do not have compassion, period. They are known as sociopaths. This is a real phenomenon often accompanied by a lack of fear from physical punishment. I don't know if it is genetic or the result of psychological traumas, or both.

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 14:16:35   #
green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
 
unfortunately for your points of views, biological evolution is the underlying basis for all modern biology... remarkable discoveries are being made, amazing products helping millions of people, and literally tons of money earned because the evolutionary theory describes biological systems accurately.

From a theological sense, evolution is just a fantastic idea for populating an ever-changing world with a multitude of different life-forms... Of all of God's inventions, evolution is probably her best one.

And regarding moral imperatives, it is pretty naive to think people only act good because they are afraid of being punished by God. There has been as much evil done in the name of religion as done by atheists...probably a lot more since atheists makeup only 2% of the population. I believe everyone has a moral barometer inside them... maybe some don't work well, and some are broken.

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 14:57:00   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
green wrote:
unfortunately for your points of views, biological evolution is the underlying basis for all modern biology... remarkable discoveries are being made, amazing products helping millions of people, and literally tons of money earned because the evolutionary theory describes biological systems accurately.

From a theological sense, evolution is just a fantastic idea for populating an ever-changing world with a multitude of different life-forms... Of all of God's inventions, evolution is probably her best one.

And regarding moral imperatives, it is pretty naive to think people only act good because they are afraid of being punished by God. There has been as much evil done in the name of religion as done by atheists...probably a lot more since atheists makeup only 2% of the population. I believe everyone has a moral barometer inside them... maybe some don't work well, and some are broken.
unfortunately for your points of views, biological... (show quote)

I would differ with you on the importance of Evolution to modern Biology. I don't think it makes a wit of difference in his competence whether or not a biologist believes in Evolution. It would be like saying a Rocket Scientist for NASA cannot do a good job getting to the Moon if he does not believe in the big bang theory.

The percentage of actual Atheists in the U.S. is a little murkier
than your 2% would indicate. In surveys, the people who profess to be actual Atheists is around 2%, but it is confounded by another 8-10% who say they do not believe in God or any higher power. Perhaps people don't know the strict definition of Atheist - One who definitely believes there is no God. The U.S. still ranks as one of the most religious countries in the Western World.

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2015 15:16:12   #
Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!
 
green wrote:
unfortunately for your points of views, biological evolution is the underlying basis for all modern biology... remarkable discoveries are being made, amazing products helping millions of people, and literally tons of money earned because the evolutionary theory describes biological systems accurately.

From a theological sense, evolution is just a fantastic idea for populating an ever-changing world with a multitude of different life-forms... Of all of God's inventions, evolution is probably her best one.

And regarding moral imperatives, it is pretty naive to think people only act good because they are afraid of being punished by God. There has been as much evil done in the name of religion as done by atheists...probably a lot more since atheists makeup only 2% of the population. I believe everyone has a moral barometer inside them... maybe some don't work well, and some are broken.
unfortunately for your points of views, biological... (show quote)


The science of Biology can continue to progress without any reference to Darwinian evolution, as a matter of fact it would most likely further scientific process without the thought of darwinian evolution.

"Is Evolution Really So Central to Biology?"

by Richard Peachey

A well-beloved mantra of the secular scientific establishment is: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." This was the title of a classic article by geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973 [Mar.]. The American Biology Teacher 35[3]:125-129). But . . . how realistic is this oft-repeated slogan?

As A. S. Wilkins set out to introduce a special issue of BioEssays on the topic of "evolutionary processes," he wrote: "The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. 'Evolution' would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one." [Bold print in the quotes indicates emphasis added.]

"Yet," Wilkins suggested hopefully, "the marginality of evolutionary biology may be changing" (2000. BioEssays 22:1051).

After interviewing Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, and author of that museum's general text on evolution), Tom Bethell wrote: "Patterson told me that he regarded the theory of evolution as 'often unnecessary' in biology. 'In fact,' he said, 'they could do perfectly well without it.' Nevertheless, he said, it was presented in textbooks as though it were 'the unified field theory of biology,' holding the whole subject together—and binding the profession to it. 'Once something has that status,' he said, 'it becomes like a religion.' " (1985 [Feb.]. "Agnostic Evolutionists: The taxonomic case against Darwin." Harper's 270[1617]:52).

Nobel laureate Francis Crick, though an ardent evolutionist, wrote in his autobiography: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood" (1988. What Mad Pursuit. New York: Basic Books. pp. 138f.).

Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe, in his now-famous book Darwin's Black Box, showed that the day-to-day work of his fellow biochemists is carried out with virtually no mention of "evolution." As he observed, "There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations" (1996. New York: The Free Press. p. 185).

A hostile reviewer of Behe's book felt obliged to agree: "Most biochemists have only a meagre understanding of, or interest in, evolution. As Behe points out, for the thousand-plus scholarly articles on the biochemistry of cilia, he could find only a handful that seriously addressed evolution. This indifference is universal. Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution" (Andrew Pomiankowski. 1996 [Sept. 14]. "The God of the tiny gaps." New Scientist 151[2047]:45).

While advertising a 2007 conference focusing on "Evolutionary Biology and Human Health," the American Institute of Biological Sciences claimed: "Principles and methods of evolutionary biology are becoming increasingly important in many aspects of health science, among them understanding the human genome, the normal functions and malfunctions of human genes, and the origin and evolution of infectious diseases" (2007 [May]. BioScience 57[5]:456).

But biologist Peter Armbruster, while sympathetic, had to splash cold water on such enthusiasm: "Evolution receives scant attention on the U.S. Medical College Admission Test (the MCAT) and almost no coverage in medical school curricula, a situation with a pervasive canalizing effect on undergraduate biology curricula in the United States. The status quo was challenged in 1991 when G.C. Williams and R.M. Nesse published a paper with the optimistic title 'The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine.' Seventeen years later, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the sun has been rising only slowly. . . . one of the central arguments of evolutionary medicine has always been that evolutionary concepts should be emphasized in the education of clinicians. Unfortunately, this proposition has not been well received by medical schools thus far, probably in part because evolutionary insights have led to relatively few clinical applications" (2008 [Aug.]. "The sun rises [slowly] on Darwinian medicine." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23]8]:422).

Pennsylvania State University chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences, wrote an article titled "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology" (2005 [Aug. 29]. The Scientist 19[16]:10). After quoting A. S. Wilkins (see above), Skell stated: "I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

Skell concluded: "Darwinian evolution—whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs." (This article by Skell generated "a tremendous response from readers." For Skell's rejoinder to the critical letters, see <http://www.discovery.org/a/2950>.)

P.S.: The quote below forms a nice supplement to the article above.

Columbia University evolutionist Walter Bock, reviewing a book by Ernst Mayr (This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997), criticized Mayr as follows:

"Unfortunately, the book's discussion of functional biology—a major part of biological activity—is largely lacking. This is the result partly of Mayr's desire to cover what he considers to be the core of biology, namely that part of the biological sciences falling under the heading of organicism, and partly of considerations about the structure and length of this work. Functional biology is restricted mainly to the eighth chapter, "'How?' Questions: The Making of a New Individual," but even this chapter deals largely with evolutionary matters. Other material on functional explanations originally included in the manuscript was omitted at the last minute.

"Clearly no explanation in biology is complete in the absence of an evolutionary explanation that holds for all levels of biological organization including the molecular and cellular. Yet functional explanations are essential prerequisites for any evolutionary explanation, a fact that has been ignored by most evolutionary biologists. Moreover, the statement Mayr quotes from Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," is simply not true. Functional explanations in biology, even in the complete absence of any evolutionary consideration, make a great deal of sense, as is apparent every time you get a diagnosis from your doctor about what ails you. These diagnoses may not be complete biological explanations, but they do make sense and are of much concern to you, the patient." ["The Preeminent Value of Evolutionary Insight in Biological Science." American Scientist 86(2):1, 1998 (Mar/Apr)] <http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/the-preeminent-value-of-evolutionary-insight-in-biological-science>

http://www.creationbc.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D135%26Itemid%3D54

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 15:37:00   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
Thanks for the explanatory article Rac. It Puts a lot of things in perspective. :thumbup:

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 17:51:32   #
Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!
 
Steven Seward wrote:
Thanks for the explanatory article Rac. It Puts a lot of things in perspective. :thumbup:


No problem :thumbup:

Reply
Nov 1, 2015 18:03:22   #
Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!
 
What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much

On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all. Listen in to learn how, in Dr. Ewert's words, "evolutionary theory doesn't contribute to experimental biology."

Donald L. Ewert is a research immunologist/virologist who spent much of his career studying the molecular and cell biology of the immune system, as well as theories about its evolution. Dr. Ewert received his Ph.D. from the University of Georgia in 1976. As a microbiologist, he operated a research laboratory at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia for almost twenty years. The Wistar Institute is one of the world's leading centers for biomedical research. His research, supported by National Institute of Health, National Science Foundation, and Department of Agriculture grants, has involved the immune system, viruses, and cellular biology.

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2012-09-21T16_47_13-07_00

Reply
 
 
Nov 2, 2015 09:03:29   #
slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again
 
LarJgrip wrote:
Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary paradigm a waste of time? My Facebook friend Deb, an atheist, thinks so. After I posted a brief critique about human evolution, she left this comment out of frustration.....
Next time, just post a link.....http://www.reasons.org/articles/why-argue-about-evolution

Reply
Nov 2, 2015 09:21:26   #
OldDoc Loc: New York
 
Steven Seward wrote:
I would differ with you on the importance of Evolution to modern Biology. I don't think it makes a wit of difference in his competence whether or not a biologist believes in Evolution. It would be like saying a Rocket Scientist for NASA cannot do a good job getting to the Moon if he does not believe in the big bang theory.


True enough, but misleading. A rocket scientist at NASA cannot do a good job getting to the moon if he/she does not believe in mathematics, which is the underpinning and unifying concept in engineering. It is also true that modern biologists do not, in the course of their everyday research activities, constantly invoke evolution any more than a carpenter invokes physics every time he/she swings a hammer. Nevertheless, unifying concepts are important in the long run, and the theory of evolution is certainly one such concept. In my own work on nutrition and longevity we do not check in with evolution on a daily basis, but we do frequently question how some response we observe might render an animal more fit to survive to reproduce, and this gives us insight into where to look for answers.

Reply
Nov 2, 2015 13:10:38   #
green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20
 
OldDoc wrote:
True enough, but misleading. A rocket scientist at NASA cannot do a good job getting to the moon if he/she does not believe in mathematics, which is the underpinning and unifying concept in engineering. It is also true that modern biologists do not, in the course of their everyday research activities, constantly invoke evolution any more than a carpenter invokes physics every time he/she swings a hammer. Nevertheless, unifying concepts are important in the long run, and the theory of evolution is certainly one such concept. In my own work on nutrition and longevity we do not check in with evolution on a daily basis, but we do frequently question how some response we observe might render an animal more fit to survive to reproduce, and this gives us insight into where to look for answers.
True enough, but misleading. A rocket scientist at... (show quote)
exactly... science is an integrated, interconnected belief system, not a pick and choose buffet.

Reply
Nov 4, 2015 21:13:32   #
James Shaw
 
[quote=LarJgrip]Is debating about the validity of the evolutionary paradigm a waste of time? My Facebook friend Deb, an atheist, thinks so.

And the good news is that a scientific case can be made for credibility of the biblical account of human origins.
And just what might that "scientific case" be?

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.