New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

[madmatt621]

I just listened to the radio show Biblically Correct Tours in the series Soundprint. In it, I heard a creationist strategy new to me: appropriating "skepticism" and the demand for "evidence" to undermine evolution in a way that, well, makes me sick from its dishonesty. The following excerpts are paraphrased in good faith from memory:

We hear a creationist lecturing to small children. He tells the children to always ask, "How do you know this is true?" and each time, demands the children repeat the phrase as if it were some kind of religious service. Then he tells the kids they should be skeptical and demand evidence of whatever they are told. Sounds pretty Randi, but here's the twist:

He continues, "How do we know that life came about from non-living chemicals?

"Science involves collecting evidence and making observations. According to evolutionists, life coming from non-life happened only once, no one was there to observe it, and there is no evidence for it. Therefore, evolution is not science. On the other hand, what evidence do we have that god created life? We have the bible! Who was there to observe it? God was there to observe it! So, biblical creation is science."

In another part of the program the children, who have just been indoctrinated in creationist nonsense, get to ask an evolutionist any question they want. One kid asks, "Why do you teach false facts?"

The "Soundprint" web site promises the program will soon be online as an mp3.

Discuss...

[Kilroy_x]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Good. More stupid people means less competition in my line of work.

It's not hard to convince children or even the average person of things if you're good at it. All it would take to set these kids on the right track again is someone equally savvy as that guy who actually knows what they're talking about.

[Verruckter]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

That doesn't even make any sense.. Rofl.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

That doesn't even make any sense.. Rofl.

Yeah...Evolution is not the theory of where life came from. It's the theory that all living organisms change over time, favoring those organisms that are better fit for their environment.

Evolution != Spontaneous Generation/abiogenesis.

There is observable evidence that evolution takes place.

However, I applaud them for teaching skepticism. Hopefully, it'll back fire in their faces once they start questioning the validity of a magic spaceman who created the Universe.

[cry4eternity]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

God was there to witness it..... uhhh.... So can't i say that the first creatures that "came about from non-living chemicals" were there to witness their own creation? I'm not saying that i support either theory... but I smell faulty logic here.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

As a Christian I do not deny the theory of micro-evolution, as in the case of some finches on an island chain. However, there has been scientific evidence collected that proves Darwin's theory of evolution to be incorrect. And as for evolution not being a "science", considering that it was essentially scientists that proposed it, I cannot see it as being anything short of a science. Therefore, it can be scientifically disproved by scientific evidence, as has been proven true with other theories over the centuries.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Alright, I'll execute some of my skepticism:

Who observed God's observation(s), and where is the proven documented facts that his observations occured?

[Maid]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

If they didn't have this strategy*cough* what else you would have the creationists do?

[purebloodtexan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

For my fellow Christians out there, I've been comfortable with the belief (I said belief, not fact) that evolution occured, but under God's influence. You don't have to deny your faith, and you can realize that evolution was much more likely, given the piles and piles of evidence, compared to the followings of books that haven't been edited on a large scale for a few millenia.

I'll be back in a minute. I'm looking up defintions that will benefit us all.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Christianity is based on faith. The idea of such a divine being as God is extremely difficult for the human mind to comprehend. And therefore, most people turn to aetheist beliefs since they think that science can explain the origins of mankind. However, in the Christian faith we believe in the idea of a divine Creator. I guess we'll find out one day which viewpoint is correct, through Judgment Day or something else... that's your opinion.

[Reach]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

As a Christian I do not deny the theory of micro-evolution, as in the case of some finches on an island chain. However, there has been scientific evidence collected that proves Darwin's theory of evolution to be incorrect. And as for evolution not being a "science", considering that it was essentially scientists that proposed it, I cannot see it as being anything short of a science. Therefore, it can be scientifically disproved by scientific evidence, as has been proven true with other theories over the centuries.

There is currently no evidence against evolution. All of it is supportive, though there are still things left to be explained. If there was evidence to show it as false it wouldn't still be a theory =/ I'd like to see some of this 'scientific evidence' that proves the theory incorrect

And there is no theory of microevolution. Microevolution is just a way of describing evolution on small time scales. Micro and Macro evolution are the same thing and function based on the exact same mechanisms. You cannot believe one or the other. They're either both right or both wrong in some way.


As for the topic itself, I've heard plenty of things like this before. Common creationist tactics to try and confuse the minds of the young ;(

[purebloodtexan]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

I'll do my best to avoid discussion of the presence or absence of evolution and try to stick to the discussion of faith.

These are are straight from dictionary.com. No editing, no changing, no nothing.

faith - noun. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

Ah, belief; that so happens to be my next definition.

belief - noun. something believed; an opinion or conviction.

Opinion. Shall we delve further into these definitions?

opinion. noun. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

I'm sure that we've gone far enough into these definitions.

I know that I (among a handful of people) say it a lot, I know that it gets on peoples' nerves, but I still cling onto those words.

Trust me, these next paragraph was hard to explain, so feel free to question if you're confused:

The faiths, beliefs and opinions are, as you saw in the last definition, personal; I don't think that you need a dictionary to know what that word means. In a nutshell, this means that people have the freedom to believe what they want to*. So why do we force these beliefs on people if one side cannot prove the other false? We can't prove that God doesn't exist (Atheists), nor can we prove that he does (Chrisitans/Islams/Buddhists/Baha'i/Whatever the hell you are), but we act as if they're facts. To me, that's the reason why a lot of hate is generated from side to side - especially when one side hasn't even attempted to directly offend or claim the other side's argument false.

Considering the fact that I believe that evolution evolution occured, but was influenced by divine powers, I get this a lot:

Situation 1: The atheism extremists.

"Dude, evolution occured, science rules, there was no God."
My response: "I can't deny the evidence that science brings, but I believe that a higher calling influences us."
"That's bull****."

Situation 2: The overbearingly religious.

"Creationism occured, God is everything."
"I can't ignore the fact that there's a lot of evidence showing that [scientific theory/fact] is true and that [Unrealistic divine powers] is not."
"You shall burn in hell!"

So tell me honestly: Other than my actual friends, will I get any benefit from either side of the Faith Line if both sides keep attacking at each other, despite the words that couldn't be any clearer:

* Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, I lied. You can make it even simpler:

Believe whatever the hell you want, you don't get punished for it, we'll deem neither side wrong.

I'm going to leave CT for a while. Maybe I'll have better posts in the morning.

*Any American citizens that deny this need an ass-kicking.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

You can't say that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing. Micro-evolution is a small change that occurs within a species that may benefit the species. So evolution is present in that respect, yes. But macro-evolution suggests that almost everything you see around you is the result of a single celled blob that barely deserves the title of an organism. Forgive me if I seem to be forcing my Creationist beliefs upon you, I am merely stating what I believe.

[Ichiro_Suzuki_desu]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Microevolution doesn't change the identity of a species. Macroevolution does. Macroevolution involves adding information that the animal will benefit from. Microevolution involves selecting information from what is already present. Therefore, I believe the two are different.

Also, if you believe large-scale evolution has occured, you must necessarily deny the Bible's account of creation. There is simply no connection between the two. Reading Genesis shows you exactly what I mean.

edit: oops....ninja'd

[Reach]

Re: New Creationist Ploy: Skepticism, Demanding Evidence

Let's not let this go all offtopic. If you want to reply to me try a PM.

Kind of interested in the Mp3 of this program. Indoctrination of little children IMO is really unfair and I share dawkins view on this subject >_>

You can't say that micro- and macro-evolution are the same thing. Micro-evolution is a small change that occurs within a species that may benefit the species. So evolution is present in that respect, yes. But macro-evolution suggests that almost everything you see around you is the result of a single celled blob that barely deserves the title of an organism. Forgive me if I seem to be forcing my Creationist beliefs upon you, I am merely stating what I believe.

They function the exact same. They're just different ways of describing the same thing. Macroevolution is simply put, the compounded effects of microevolution over large periods of time. This is how it is agreed upon in the modern theory of evolution.

Macroevolution is just evolution at the species level. DNA mutations happen from one generation to the next, and there is no limit to how much a strand of DNA can mutate o_O

Microevolution doesn't change the identity of a species. Macroevolution does. Macroevolution involves adding information that the animal will benefit from. Microevolution involves selecting information from what is already present. Therefore, I believe the two are different.

Yes, microevolution does change the identity of a species. Compounded microevolutionary changes are how one species proceeds to the next. Everyone around you is an intermediate form of species that undergoes microevolutionary changes over generations. Macroevolution is just a way of *describing* these changes over a time scale that recognizes what we call a 'species' moving onto another.


Anyway, enough of this. It kind of deviates from the point fo the thread. This debate has been in CT before and you can probably still dig up that thread. >__>

The fact is, Modern evolutionary synthesis states clearly that micro and macroevolution are only different ways of describing evolution, and are NOT seperate functioning forms of evolution.

If you wish to claim otherwise, I'm sorry but the burden of proof is yours not mine. I'm not going to defend my position any more because it is already clearly defended by the science.