Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

[ChickenSoup]

I dunno, I've known just as many creationists/ID-ists that act the same way as these hypocritical evolutionists, and it's intellectually infuriating as a scientist to see anyone blatantly disregard evidence. I mean, I'm in health science, so it's not like I debate evolution with Christians, but I DO have a lot of heated discussions about things like vaccinations. General stubbornness and refusal to examine contrary evidence or rhetoric.

The other thing that gets me is calling something like atheism or "evolutionism" (as cringy as that word is) a religion. No, just stop. Yes, every belief requires faith, but then again you don't call "trusting the brakes on a car" a religion. It's an attempt to level the playing field ("WELL YOU REQUIRE FAITH TOO, SO NYAH") and it is incredibly embarrassing.

[ArcticFox]

The other thing that gets me is calling something like atheism or "evolutionism" (as cringy as that word is) a religion. No, just stop. Yes, every belief requires faith, but then again you don't call "trusting the brakes on a car" a religion. It's an attempt to level the playing field ("WELL YOU REQUIRE FAITH TOO, SO NYAH") and it is incredibly embarrassing.

I get what you're saying, but for some, it really IS like a religion. I'm not making a blanket statement about everybody who believes in evolution... but with certain people if you took the word "evolution" out of their arguments and substituted any god from any religion you can name, it would fit quite naturally.

I read an article recently that examined this phenomenon and the way some people approach it truly does fit the technical definition of a religion.

[ChickenSoup]

Yeaaahhh but it's pretty forced and not a particularly useful comparison. Like I said, by the same criteria you can define a lot of silly things as a religion. It's an incredible stretch to say that even as a " belief system", and I use that word VERY generously, it fits into the same category as organized religions such as Christianity+creationism. Additionally, it doesn't refute or reexamine any evidence. Rather, it just tries to pose an "everyone's opinion is valid" argument.

[ArcticFox]

I don't agree. A belief system doesn't have to fit the template of an organized religion to qualify. Science is supposed to be about evidence, objectivity and skepticism. Go out and debate a few die hard evolutionists sometime.

But don't take my word for it.

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today...

… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."

-Michael Ruse

[ChickenSoup]

You have to realize that for most of the world, calling an evolutionist a dir-hard believer is like a flat-earther calling a round-earther a die-hard believer.

Which is to say nothing of Christians who believe in evolution.

[ArcticFox]

You have to realize that for most of the world, calling an evolutionist a dir-hard believer is like a flat-earther calling a round-earther a die-hard believer.

I didn't say evolutionists were all die hards. I'm talking about the specific subset who do indeed treat it like a religion. Most people who believe in Evolution only accept it because it's what they were told in school. Very rarely do people make the effort to go off and look into it for themselves.

Funny how being open minded and skeptical are good traits for a scientists, and yet those who question evolution are accused of being un-scientific for not just accepting what they're told without question. That's where you start to see the zealotry.

Which is to say nothing of Christians who believe in evolution.

Like I said before, some people can reconcile it, and that's fine.

See, that's exactly why I can be objective in this, and I don't NEED to take a side. My spiritual life, my salvation by Jesus Christ, do not depend upon my believing in or against Evolution. It just doesn't matter. If Genesis is a symbolic representation of Evolution then fine, so be it. If it's not then that's cool too. I don't require either worldview to believe in God.

On the other hand, Atheists are pretty much tied to it because without Evolution there aren't any other explanations on the table besides ID (NOT the same as Creationism) which generates a bunch of eyerolls.

*EDIT: I don't want that to sound like I'm picking on Atheists. I don't mean to. In fact, I've seen a few Christians who are all zealot for Evolution too, because their fear is that if they don't walk the walk and tow the party line, nobody will take them seriously. That's even worse, IMHO because it means they're more worried about image than substance. (I am NOT saying all Christians who believe in evolution do this. Again, I'm talking about the subset who become zealots over the issue.)

[ChickenSoup]

I didn't say evolutionists were all die hards. I'm talking about the specific subset who do indeed treat it like a religion. Most people who believe in Evolution only accept it because it's what they were told in school. Very rarely do people make the effort to go off and look into it for themselves.

Funny how being open minded and skeptical are good traits for a scientists, and yet those who question evolution are accused of being un-scientific for not just accepting what they're told without question. That's where you start to see the zealotry.

Just as you could say that most creationists accept creationism without actually knowing the science behind their claims. It's a useless discussion.

Also, they're accused of being un-scientific because the arguments against it are rarely scientific and rarely involve the prerequisite knowledge necessary to hold these discussions.

There's a big misunderstanding in "open-mindedness" here. We aren't required to give flat-earth theory due consideration because there's no support for it. Also, pictures from space. Evolutionist scientists are not required to duly consider the argument "God did it." Because honestly, the extent of the evidence for a literal 6-day creation is "the Bible." Arch can probably say this better than I can, but "open-mindedness within reason" is a better requirement of scientists.

[ArcticFox]

Just as you could say that most creationists accept creationism without actually knowing the science behind their claims. It's a useless discussion.

Welll... remember that Creationism isn't science. It's theology. Why would they need to know any science for that?

Also, they're accused of being un-scientific because the arguments against it are rarely scientific and rarely involve the prerequisite knowledge necessary to hold these discussions.

Again, Creationism isn't science in the first place, and here's where I'm critical of Creationists for trying to make it so. Creationism is a matter of Biblical Scripture. What it represents may or may not be a scientific phenomenon.

Now, I'm replying to and I'm working under the assumption that you know the difference between Creationism and ID. If not, let me know so I can provide more useful responses.

There's a big misunderstanding in "open-mindedness" here. We aren't required to give flat-earth theory due consideration because there's no support for it. Also, pictures from space. Evolutionist scientists are not required to duly consider the argument "God did it." Because honestly, the extent of the evidence for a literal 6-day creation is "the Bible." Arch can probably say this better than I can, but "open-mindedness within reason" is a better requirement of scientists.

Hold on amigo. I didn't say "God did it." In fact, if you were to scroll back through this thread you will not anywhere see me saying that. The reason is that my problems with Evolution have nothing to do with any alternate beliefs, and everything to do with problems I see in the way evolutionary science is conducted. If I make that statement, and an Evolutionist responds by saying (as my friend did) "Anyone who doesn't believe in Evolution is either stupid or riding the crazy train." Does that sound to you like a person being reasonably open minded?

(It's true that I believe it was God, but I am very careful to exclude that from my points when I'm criticizing evolution science because it isn't relevant to the point I'm trying to make.)

[ArchAngel]

C$ is spot on. Evolution doesn't remotely meet the qualifications of a "religion." Michael Ruse, "philosopher of science," is full of it.

Religion, as it stands, is characterized both by the belief and worship of supernatural entities and and contain a system of teachings and dogmas. Evolution and Atheism do not meet either of these requirements.
It's possible there are small groups that do, but they are a negligible minority, of whom I've never actually met.

If you want to criticize some people for being narrow-minded and bigoted about their beliefs: fine. That happens. It happens in religion, but also in politics, sports, preference of cars, etc.
If you want to criticize some people for being unquestioning in their beliefs: fine. That happens. It happens in religion, but also in politics, sports, preference of cars, etc.

Those are all things I find to be often propagated by religions, but it's also not mutually exclusive to religion.

You can criticize people all day long, but at the core, they are very different entities. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a collection of supernatural teachings.

[ChickenSoup]

Welll... remember that Creationism isn't science. It's theology. Why would they need to know any science for that

This is why scientists don't have to take it seriously, man.

[ArcticFox]

You can criticize people all day long, but at the core, they are very different entities. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a collection of supernatural teachings.

Which is precisely why it's so hypocritical to be dogmatic about it. And yet... They do. To some, Evolution IS a religion in how they implement and react to it. It fills the role of religion in their lives. I know YOU don't do that, but WAY too many people do.

Ads for Dr. Ruse, he's spot on, and you're going to have to do a lot better than "[he's] full of it" to show otherwise. He's like you; former Christian, big believer in Evolution. He's in your camp and he's saying Evolution has become a religion.

This is why scientists don't have to take it seriously, man.

When have I suggested that scientists should take Creationism seriously?

[ArchAngel]

Which is precisely why it's so hypocritical to be dogmatic about it. And yet... They do.

It is hypocritical of them and they do not matter. They are literally irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Ads for Dr. Ruse, he's spot on, and you're going to have to do a lot better than "[he's] full of it" to show otherwise. He's like you; former Christian, big believer in Evolution. He's in your camp and he's saying Evolution has become a religion.

He's not in my camp. What we share in common is that we're not in your camp (theist) anymore. I have no cause to defend or relate to anything he has to say, and that quote from him is bonkers.
Promulgated as an ideology? What's the ideology? The only people who assert an ideology from evolution are creationists saying that we get to act like monkeys if we came from monkeys. We can study the nature of morality through the context of evolution, but nobody teaches an actual set of morality from it.
I don't even know where to begin to think he get off claiming that. Yeah, we all meet in biology classes and read from the holy text of the Origin of Species and heap praises upon the Prophet Darwin, holiest among the scientists of the Big Bang.

It's just...
..so..
stupid.

True from the beginning? ...just...
wat.

So, maybe I should retract a little what I said about "not in my camp." This is bothering me more because he claims to understand and accept evolution and approaches it from an agnostic perspective, but just goes off the deep end with this. I can understand a creationist touting that line because they simply have biased view of what they see as an opposition to their religion, but this guy. This freaking guy. He doesn't really get that excuse. IS it just blatantly lying? Every time I read that quote, it just gets worse. It's like James Joyce in reverse.
I don't know, I never actually read Joyce, to my apparent detriment.

Also, I missed your challenged for me to debate evolutionists as if I was somehow ignorant of what's it's like. Might I remind you, I was doing just so for longer than I was one. I'm still quite unbalanced by counts of debates.

[ChickenSoup]

When have I suggested that scientists should take Creationism seriously?

All of your harping about evolutionists and closed-mindedness?

[ArcticFox]

It is hypocritical of them and they do not matter. They are literally irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

That may be, but they're still the ones out there championing it and treating it as if it were absolute fact as opposed to scientific theory.

Let me ask you a question that serves as a litmus test for this:

Could Evolution theory possibly be wrong?

He's not in my camp. What we share in common is that we're not in your camp (theist) anymore. I have no cause to defend or relate to anything he has to say, and that quote from him is bonkers.

I think he's admitting what most people would refuse to. I don't say that everyone who believes evolution is doing so religiously, but many do, and they're batting for your team. Ruse sees it and he's at least addressing the problem instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Promulgated as an ideology? What's the ideology?

The ideology that says that all other theories MUST be wrong because this one is the accepted one. The ideology that says there's consensus and the debate is therefore over. The ideology that says all other explanations for the origin of humans, whether scientific or religious, are to be crushed.

The only people who assert an ideology from evolution are creationists saying that we get to act like monkeys if we came from monkeys. We can study the nature of morality through the context of evolution, but nobody teaches an actual set of morality from it.

...except Frans de Waal.

I don't even know where to begin to think he get off claiming that. Yeah, we all meet in biology classes and read from the holy text of the Origin of Species and heap praises upon the Prophet Darwin, holiest among the scientists of the Big Bang.

It's just...
..so..
stupid.

True from the beginning? ...just...
wat.

You have to admit that Evolution can be used to represent the opportunity let those who don't believe in God "off the hook" for explaining where life comes from. Before Darwin, atheists had no other theory. After Darwin, no doubt people swarmed to it like sharks to a shipwreck. Not everybody that adheres to it is an intellectual. For some, it's a spiritual lifeboat. An excuse to talk down to whatever religious traditions they may have known before.

So, maybe I should retract a little what I said about "not in my camp." This is bothering me more because he claims to understand and accept evolution and approaches it from an agnostic perspective, but just goes off the deep end with this. I can understand a creationist touting that line because they simply have biased view of what they see as an opposition to their religion, but this guy. This freaking guy. He doesn't really get that excuse. IS it just blatantly lying? Every time I read that quote, it just gets worse. It's like James Joyce in reverse.
I don't know, I never actually read Joyce, to my apparent detriment.

Well the guy knows more about the issue than either of us...

Also, I missed your challenged for me to debate evolutionists as if I was somehow ignorant of what's it's like. Might I remind you, I was doing just so for longer than I was one. I'm still quite unbalanced by counts of debates.

Then you ought to know how dogmatic people can be over it. Are you telling me you've never seen that?

All of your harping about evolutionists and closed-mindedness?

What does that have to do with Creationism?

And here's the same question I asked Arch: Can Evolution theory possibly be wrong?

[ArchAngel]

Could Evolution theory possibly be wrong?

Of course. I'm not holding my breath, but the unseating of a scientific theory is incredibly exciting and a monumental step.

The ideology that says that all other theories MUST be wrong because this one is the accepted one.

Well, yes. Everybody can't be right.

The ideology that says there's consensus and the debate is therefore over.

It is. It's not closed forever, but there nobody has brought anything substantial. It's been all spoons to a gun fight.

The ideology that says all other explanations for the origin of humans, whether scientific or religious, are to be crushed.

Nope, but "magic" isn't an appropriate explanation anymore than it was for why the sun went around the earth.
Bring something substantial on how our brains developed so greatly or if we don't share common ancestry, why we share both gene and phenotypical resemblances to apes?

except Frans de Waal.

Except that Frans de Waal is, like I said, studying morality, not giving a set of rules to live by. Very interesting video, thanks for sharing.

You have to admit that Evolution can be used to represent the opportunity let those who don't believe in God "off the hook" for explaining where life comes from. Before Darwin, atheists had no other theory. After Darwin, no doubt people swarmed to it like sharks to a shipwreck.

I had a huge tirade about all the wrong things about that paragraph, but on a fifth re-read, I realized you are talking about the possibility that somebody takes it that way.
Can be used? Yeah. And people can use pillows to kill people. That means nothing. It's a scientific theory that explains biodiversity and goodness of fit.

Well the guy knows more about the issue than either of us...

But evolutionary biologists don't?
Actually, going to assume you didn't mean to make an appeal to authority but trying to defend him from my allegations that he is one sandwich short of a picnic.

Then you ought to know how dogmatic people can be over it. Are you telling me you've never seen that?

I've used to think I've seen it, but in reality, I was assuming they were thinking just like me. That they were comparative concepts everybody was pretty much the same on it. Even during my many years as a self-proclaimed "skeptic," I always kept seeing things as sides, like liberals and conservatives. I was wrong.
They are not remotely comparable and creationists frequently project their own sins onto evolution advocates and condemn them for it. The reasons people accept the theory of evolution, whether it be convinced by evidence or that it's just taught to them as science, is different than why someone believes in creationism or ID.

I'm not denying the "dogmatic evolutionist" exists, but it's nothing something I see a whole lot of. You reference them all the time, but they don't matter. Evolution is not a rhetoric, it's a scientific theory. Keyboard warriors aren't the champions of evolution. I'm not the champion of evolution. The scientists are. People squabble about it, but it's the scientists who are doing the work.

At this point, I'm done talking about the people. I'll hear whatever rebuttal you want to make about my assertions of Creationism, but as for how people act, it's a Red Herring and an Ad Hominem. This isn't a group composed of people, nor is it the collective beliefs of self-proclaimed evolutionists. It's a theory. If you have problems with the theory, I'm happy to talk about it. In fact, I'd love to talk about why you think the theory of Evolution falls short, but I don't have the interest or ability to talk about people I don't know. I'd much rather talk about ideas.