Marko Kloos
Inactive
It's really interesting how the same folks who take Liberals to task for ignoring evidence in preference of their feelings then turn around and say stuff like "evolution is just a theory, and believing in it takes as much faith as believing in the creation story."
Evolution is not "just a theory." Evolution is a fact. It occurs, and science has a hundred years of evidence piled up to support that claim. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply scientifically illiterate. (Any geneticists, molecular biologists, biochemists, or other practitioners of the hard sciences present who can, or have, put forth an argument against evolution on scientific grounds? No?)
A plumber or patent lawyer or English teacher or photographer posit a scientific argument against evolution from the base of their education is like an accountant criticizing the static design of his new neighborhood skating rink because "it doesn't look right."
The theory of evolution is our way of explaining the natural phenomenon observed (evolution) using the facts and evidence uncovered thus far. It is a scientific theory, not "just a theory", and people who don't know the difference ought to look it up. (Wikipedia is just a click away.) There is no controversy about evolution or its existence in the scientific community--denying that it takes place is about as pointless as trying to argue against the existence of gravity (and positing an "Intelligent Falling" theory in its place.) We're still trying to figure out exactly how it works, but there's absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone willing to take a look at the accumulated data of a hundred years of observation that evolution occurs.
Now, I have two issues with the folks who argue against evolution and in favor of biblical creationism.
First, it's disingenuous (dare I say "dishonest"?) to claim opposition to evolution on scientific terms. You argue against evolution because you oppose the concept on religious grounds, not scientific grounds, and no evidence for evolution or against creationism will ever be enough to overcome your emotions on the issue. Therefore, a debate on the subject is as fruitless as a debate with an anti-gunner who "feels" that guns do more harm than good, and who will not be swayed by hard data if it contradicts their most dearly held emotions.
Second, you're giving credence to the scientific side of the argument when you try and argue against evolution with the convincing-sounding pseudo-science put forth by the creationists (or "Intelligent Design" proponents.) If you reject evolution (and, by extension, hard factual evidence) based on your faith, then that ought to be enough for you. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." No debate necessary. If, on the other hand, you try and support your position with scientific-sounding arguments, then you admit to yourself and to your audience that the scientific point of view has more credence these days. You also acknowledge that your own faith isn't quite as rock-solid as you'd like it to be, since you're satisfying your own (human) desire to back your beliefs with hard evidence.
The problem is that there is no proof for creationism/ID. (There can't ever be any proof, because you're supposed to take the creation story on faith, and you can't have proof and faith at the same time.) All the scientific-sounding criticism of evolution put forth by the ID crowd is merely a religious argument clad in pseudo-science to make it more palatable for introduction into the classroom. It has no basis in observable facts or scientific methodology. It's not science because the claim at its core cannot be falsified.
Now, Glenn summed up my point of view so well that I feel one of the very rare temptations to just add a "+1" to his post. I don't want a President who is unwilling to make decisions based on the evidence before his eyes, and who goes by warm fuzzy feelings instead. If I wanted that kind of President, I'd elect Hillary, thank you very much.
Evolution is not "just a theory." Evolution is a fact. It occurs, and science has a hundred years of evidence piled up to support that claim. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply scientifically illiterate. (Any geneticists, molecular biologists, biochemists, or other practitioners of the hard sciences present who can, or have, put forth an argument against evolution on scientific grounds? No?)
A plumber or patent lawyer or English teacher or photographer posit a scientific argument against evolution from the base of their education is like an accountant criticizing the static design of his new neighborhood skating rink because "it doesn't look right."
The theory of evolution is our way of explaining the natural phenomenon observed (evolution) using the facts and evidence uncovered thus far. It is a scientific theory, not "just a theory", and people who don't know the difference ought to look it up. (Wikipedia is just a click away.) There is no controversy about evolution or its existence in the scientific community--denying that it takes place is about as pointless as trying to argue against the existence of gravity (and positing an "Intelligent Falling" theory in its place.) We're still trying to figure out exactly how it works, but there's absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone willing to take a look at the accumulated data of a hundred years of observation that evolution occurs.
Now, I have two issues with the folks who argue against evolution and in favor of biblical creationism.
First, it's disingenuous (dare I say "dishonest"?) to claim opposition to evolution on scientific terms. You argue against evolution because you oppose the concept on religious grounds, not scientific grounds, and no evidence for evolution or against creationism will ever be enough to overcome your emotions on the issue. Therefore, a debate on the subject is as fruitless as a debate with an anti-gunner who "feels" that guns do more harm than good, and who will not be swayed by hard data if it contradicts their most dearly held emotions.
Second, you're giving credence to the scientific side of the argument when you try and argue against evolution with the convincing-sounding pseudo-science put forth by the creationists (or "Intelligent Design" proponents.) If you reject evolution (and, by extension, hard factual evidence) based on your faith, then that ought to be enough for you. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." No debate necessary. If, on the other hand, you try and support your position with scientific-sounding arguments, then you admit to yourself and to your audience that the scientific point of view has more credence these days. You also acknowledge that your own faith isn't quite as rock-solid as you'd like it to be, since you're satisfying your own (human) desire to back your beliefs with hard evidence.
The problem is that there is no proof for creationism/ID. (There can't ever be any proof, because you're supposed to take the creation story on faith, and you can't have proof and faith at the same time.) All the scientific-sounding criticism of evolution put forth by the ID crowd is merely a religious argument clad in pseudo-science to make it more palatable for introduction into the classroom. It has no basis in observable facts or scientific methodology. It's not science because the claim at its core cannot be falsified.
Now, Glenn summed up my point of view so well that I feel one of the very rare temptations to just add a "+1" to his post. I don't want a President who is unwilling to make decisions based on the evidence before his eyes, and who goes by warm fuzzy feelings instead. If I wanted that kind of President, I'd elect Hillary, thank you very much.
- and I enjoy the conversation but I don't want to debate evolution per se. I would also not support Romney on the same basis - I feel that the tenets of his faith fly in the face of what I think is a rational view of the Judeo-christianity. I might disagree with a faith on a personal level but think that it is plausible. If one holds truly implausible beliefs (like Tom Cruise, for instance), I must question their ability to analyze other situations.
