Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | August 28, 2002 | Cal Thomas

[gdani]

You find these things difficult to believe, but you're just fine believing that all the complex diversity of life, and the ordered existence of the universe was just some freaky accident? You need not be a Christian to believe in a higher form, or a supreme being. Open your mind. You either believe in creation, or just a big coincidence. Personally, I find the latter to be quite ridiculous.

Unlike Cal Thomas, creationists & ID'ers I make no claims as to how life & the universe came about. I simply don't know and neither does anyone else.

However, I reject any kind of notion that woman sprung from man's rib, etc. and don't think it should be taught in public schools as fact, which is what Cal Thomas is arguing for.

[Dimensio]

However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.

Those atheists are stupid. I'm an equal-opportunity mouth-shooter :)

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way."

I'm an atheist. When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities. I do not appeal to any physical properties of the universe, I do not appeal to any biological facts and I do not appeal to 'why did bad thing X happen' because doing so would assume specific properties of a deity, but that only works if it can be demonstrated that a deity must have those properties. To my knowledge, no such limitations have ever been demonstrated, thus the structure of the retina is not a proof that no gods exist.

Just because some people erroneously equate evolution and atheism does not mean that they are really linked. Demonstrating the existence of a deity (and Thomas doesn't even do that, he simply asserts that some 'intelligent' people believed in one) would not invalidate evolution.

I've other problems with Cal Thomas as well. Not too long ago he wrote a lovely diatribe against atheists and in doing so he employed at least six logical fallacies in three paragraphs. To date he has never addressed any criticism of his work, even though atheists and theists alike trashed it for the tripe that it was. He has no credibility with me.

[Dimensio]

That's nothing new. Many Creationist-published lists of 'famous Creationists' include Gallelio, Issac Newton and various other scientists who lived before Darwin's time.

[elephantlips]

To the contrary; the author is answering the claim in the statement that "no creditable scientist holds to ..." he is mentioning credible scientists.

[moneyrunner]

”Well anyone who asserts that germs are invisible is a nut. Germs are visible, you just need a powerful magnifying lens to detect them.”<

That is a “red herring” as you well know. I could have been more precise by stating that germs are invisible to the naked eye. During the early days of medicine bloodletting was common and there was an elaborate practice and theory behind it. It makes for interesting reading. In terms of the practice, many people recovered after bloodletting, “proving” the validity of the theory behind it. As an interesting sidelight, bloodletting using leeches is practiced again today based on modern scientific theories. At this time I can’t remember exactly what ailments leeching is designed to cure. The theory and practice of bloodletting was so prevalent as the answer to virtually everything that early physicians were known as “leeches.”

”Of course, you're just throwing that out as a red herring, because comparing the scientific method that brought about germ theory to "scientific creationism" is apples and oranges.”

Before making assertions, it would be well to do research on the genesis of the knowledge that germs cause infections. It is not a theory, but an established fact. It was established by the ability of scientists to create and reproduce infections using the germs that caused them.

The problem with evolutionary theory is that is does not appear to be reproducible – at least until now. Therefore, alternative hypothesis regarding the development and creation of living things should be entertained. The refusal to entertain alternative theories, but to dismiss them with ridicule, is the mark more of a true believe than of an objective observer.

[gdani]

Since the events were overseen by God who, if you believe in Him, would naturally have powers infintely beyond man, why should any of us expect to comprehend Him? If we could, we wouldn't need Him for we would be equal to Him.

That's faith, not science.

[Dimensio]

Before making assertions, it would be well to do research on the genesis of the knowledge that germs cause infections. It is not a theory, but an established fact.

Everything in science is theory. Many creationists like to ignore that because it makes "evolution is only a theory" sound like a more meaningful statement.

[Dimensio]

The problem is that the question of whether or not any gods exist is irrelevant to the subject of evolution.

[elephantlips]

See post nineteen.

[f.Christian]

To: Dimensio
As I see it, evolution is an ideological doctrine. If it were only a "scientific theory", it would have died a natural death 50 - 70 years ago; the evidence against it is too overwhelming and has been all along. The people defending it are doing so because they do not like the alternatives to an atheistic basis for science and do not like the logical implications of abandoning their atheistic paradigm and, in conducting themselves that way, they have achieved a degree of immunity to what most people call logic.

488 posted on 7/29/02 5:18 AM Pacific by medved

[Dimensio]

Do you have any original thoughts that aren't inane and meaningless babble, or do you think that medved, the man who believes that Earth once orbited Saturn, is a credible source of scientific information?

[Khepera]

Juat because you have not seen the evidence does not mean there is none.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND

Date: 12th century

1 a

(1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

(2) : a branch or variety of logic

(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS

(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY

c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason < the logic of war >

- lo·gi·cian /lO-'ji-sh&n/ noun

[narby]

[letter sent to WashTimes]

There's no faster way for a newspaper, or a syndicated columnist, to loose the respect of huge numbers of people than to take on the creation vs. evolution argument. Cal Thomas wrote up the subject in "Making Monkeys out of Critics", and the Washington Times published it on Wednesday.

So which creation story should be used to "balance" Evolution? I'm not an expert on creation stories, but I think there's one about the earth being carried on the back of a huge tortoise. And another one with people popping out of Gods belly button. I think maybe some of the American Indian stories might be particularly poetic, but I don't remember any of them right now.

My point is that there is no serious scientific disagreement about the basic principles of Evolution. There ARE some creation hustlers out there, making a buck with pseudo-scientific arguments against Evolution. They remind me of the environmental hustlers that spin new scientific sounding theories how big business is destroying the planet. Both kinds of scientific hustlers are in the business to create emotional pleas to segments of the population in order to get funding for their "research". Both are frauds.

Who is Cal Thomas to say that an omnipotent God didn't create the universe, knowing in advance that it would eventually produce humans through the process that we call Evolution? It doesn't make it any less a miracle if He created life instantly by some mysterious snap of his fingers, or patiently through eons of time using the natural laws He created.

Science, through "scientific creationism" will not prove the existence of God. And science will likewise never be able to prove that God doesn't exist. You have to believe in Him by faith alone. There is no "proof" in either direction.

(narby)

[elephantlips]

You cannot imagine that there is knowledge beyond what is in your mind? Your first paragraph defies your second. You reject! Who are you? The speed of light WAS a constant, now it seems not to be. What else will we discover? Golly, man is SO smart.

[r9etb]

Those atheists are stupid.

Be that as it may, those atheists are the ones to whom Thomas, et al, are responding. And they notably include such influential evolutionists as Messrs. Dawkins and Gould.

When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities.

To my knowledge, no such limitations have ever been demonstrated, thus the structure of the retina is not a proof that no gods exist.

And yet it is offered as just that sort of proof -- by Dawkins himself, I believe.

When questioned, I defend my lack of belief in any deities on the fact that I've not seen any solid evidence for any deities.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of evidence would suffice for you to conclude otherwise?

[A2J]

You either believe in creation, or just a big coincidence. Personally, I find the latter to be quite ridiculous.

Well said.

In fact, it takes far more faith to believe in evolution that it does to believe in the Biblical view of creation.

[jim35]

Alchemy is disprovable, astrology is a religion, so you're half right. Intelligent design is as provable as evolution based on what data we have. You found old bones, so we're descended from apes? Prove it. The point is, you can't. There are cogent arguements for creationism, using logic and deduction, which is a basis for many of our sciences that explore things which can't be seen or touched. You either believe in a great coincidence accidentally causing all of the wonders of the universe, or you believe these things were created. What is that special thing that makes you a thinking being? A big collection of matter and chemical reactions? Put everything you're made of in a bag, and see if it starts to walk and talk. Or evolve.

[Sabertooth]

We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)

Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.

On the "theistic" side of the fence, believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic. (God reveals His existence to us individually.) They instead attempt to argue the atheist's "proof" -- which amounts to a requirement to attack evolution.

This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.

"Blanche, I think we have a bingo over here on the crevo thread!"

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the...

SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 dumb downed crime FOOL ridden America---