Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident, and they harshly criticize those who do not agree. But with amazing consistency their criticism is hypocritical—it applies to evolutionary thinking. Consider this recent paper about creationist movements:
In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life, and the claim that science must acknowledge special creation or dire consequences for society will follow.
Dire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists. Skepticism is routinely characterized as anti-science. Diseases will flourish and crops will fall prey to insects without evolution to guide our science. Indeed, the very premise of this paper is that evolution skepticism must be countered. It is a hazard which seeks to return the world to centuries past.
And the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings. And more recently, the urgings of Enlightenment thinkers laid the groundwork for Darwin and can be found throughout the post-Darwin literature. The essence is the rejection of miraculous divine intervention for a variety of religious and metaphysical reasons. They are repeated ad nauseam today as though they are scientific findings, but they are no different than the evolutionary genre from ... Read more
Evolutionists say it is a fact that all of biology just happened to arise by accident
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm pretty sure they say that the species arose through naturalistic processes. An accident needs someone to have it.
I have been getting increasingly interested in the planet, being a christian and seeing so many alignments between events like solar flares, tsunamis, pollution and how they correlate with prophecy.
ReplyDeleteI am writing about these on my blog at
http://chasong.blogspot.com
I used to be atheist and I am still sceptical. I will go to a church (denominational) service with my thinking cap on – BUT maybe its apophenia or maybe I’m just a looney, but I really think things are winding down for our green planet.
I’d be really honoured if you come by and drop your thoughts – and rants on my blog at: http://chasong.blogspot.com
Thanks for your time
Dan
ReplyDeleteDire consequences for society? This is precisely the sort of rhetoric used by evolutionists.
Huh? Isn't it you creationists who are constantly blaming all sorts of societal ills on the supposed "consequences" of evolution? When "evolutionists" are complaining that creationists say that "special creation" must be acknowledged or "dire consequences for society will follow", they're just pointing out the rhetoric that you people actually use.
Read the AIG "Creationwise" or "After Eden" cartoons for instance.
All that I know of that we "evolutionists" say is that people will be more ignorant if they listen to that stuff and make stupid decisions based on their belief that "god" will be coming soon, so why care about the environment?
See the Rapture Ready or Prophecy Fellowship forums for examples of that weird-ass thinking.
Creationists seem to be a part of a larger group of denialists who deny evolution, global warming, peak oil, and in some cases (ie. Philip Johnson), the fact that the HIV virus causes AIDS.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot eat that cake also, selfish. You say that evolution is a "good thing" and we are "evolving" to be better, more evolved, creatures. Nature, thus far, has created us and the future can only be good from an evolutionary standpoint. Unless you are trying to postulate that evolution is "getting it wrong" then you should welcome the creationists as a "natural" part of nature. We "evolved" into creationists and that was a great thing for societies. To chastise evolution for creating us is spitting in your mothers face. She knows what she is doing, right? She is getting it right for nature, right? If we are indeed "parasites" for nature then this earth will shrug us off without a problem, like Carlin says. Why do evolutionists want to mess with evolution? They believe in it so much, they want to get in the way of it? Thus the "H" (hypocrisy) in evolutionists.
When I say shrug us off, I do mean all of us as a species, not just the creationists. That may be something atheists wants, but not nature.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it's rude not to openly attribute somebody else's work. It wasn't until I got to the end and "read more" that I discovered that you're borrowing from Darwin's God
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying you shouldn't use it, I'm saying you should mark it better. Personally, I reprint other people's stuff when I think it's worth a read, but I mark it as such, at the very beginning. (Here, for instance - you might also find that article of interest.)
Just my opinion, of course.
Now, I found it interesting that a blog calling itself "Darwin's God" knew enough history to know that evolutionary history goes back before Darwin. But then he wrote:
"...the fundamental essence of evolution has remained unchanged for centuries. Passages from Lucretius read like modern evolutionary writings..."
And my faith in his ignorance was restored.
See, while evolutionary history does, in fact, stretch back to ancient China and Greece, it has (heh) evolved over time.
Plato, for instance, came up with "essentialism" (everything is a reflection of a few "essential" forms, and variation is due to being a poor copy - this theory influenced the development of early Christian thought). Aristotle developed a "Ladder of Life," with an early attempt at taxonomy.
Way to the East, the Taoists supported the idea that things change in response to their environment, but this was all wrapped up in their personal flavor of mysticism.
And Lucretius, who he mentions, wrote "The Nature of Things," which was a very influential six-volume poem (affecting thought up through the Renaissance), but he supported reincarnation, geocentrism, and a number of other ridiculous concepts.
So, you know, not so "unchanging." And the rest of his arguments break down, too. He's using the old "evolution is a religion" argument.
To quote Dara O'Briain: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."
Dan
ReplyDeleteYou cannot eat that cake also, selfish. You say that evolution is a "good thing" and we are "evolving" to be better, more evolved, creatures.
Where did I say that evolution was a "good thing"? It's just a process of nature, just like any other.
Organisms evolve to better suit their environment, that's it. If the environment changes, then they either change to, move away, or die out.
There is no "better, more evolved" creatures. The lion is as evolved to fit in it's environment as we are in ours.
Dispense with the strawmen about evolution and maybe you'll be worth talking to about it.
And of course, Dan ignores every point I had brought up in my first post, other than to say some incredibly stupid shit:
ReplyDeleteUnless you are trying to postulate that evolution is "getting it wrong" then you should welcome the creationists as a "natural" part of nature.
Huh? So a person's opinion is part of a biological process? At this point I decided not to read any more until I've gotten a good amount of alcohol in me. I may comment more then.
But for now, ignoring just how weird that is, then if I play along with that uh, idea: then "evolutionists" evolved from creationists due to the selective pressure of the physical evidence around us.
So what?