Posted on 12/03/2018 8:36:54 AM PST by C19fan
Evolutionary biology has always been controversial. Not controversial among biologists, but controversial among the general public. This is largely because Darwin’s theory directly contradicted the supernatural accounts of human origins rooted in religious tradition and replaced them with fully natural ones. The philosopher Daniel Dennett has described evolution as a sort of “universal acid” that “eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.” Fearing this corrosive idea, opposition in the US to evolution mainly came from Right-wing evangelical Christians who believed God created life in its present form, as described in Genesis.
(Excerpt) Read more at quillette.com ...
However, when scientists began applying their knowledge of the evolutionary underpinnings of animal behavior to humans, the advancing universal acid began to threaten beliefs held sacrosanct by the Left. The group that most fervently opposed, and still opposes, evolutionary explanations for behavioral sex differences in humans were/are social justice activists. Evolutionary explanations for human behavior challenge their a priori commitment to “Blank Slate” psychology—the belief that male and female brains in humans start out identical and that all behavior, sex-linked or otherwise, is entirely the result of differences in socialization.
Evolutionary psychology is controversial because the output appears to be fitting observed behaviors into a preconceived world view. For example, some evolutionary psychologists believe that men like women's breasts because in primates a female flashing her buttocks is a sign she wants to reproduce so the thought is with humans walking upright the breasts serves the same purpose. There is no experimental evidence I am aware of to back that claim. It is just a conjecture.
Which is a nice way of saying they just made it up.
Here is a news flash.
I really dont care how we got here,
because there are already enough
different versions for movies till
the next millenium.
The truth is, we are here, now, in
this point in time, and what are we
doing with it?
I regard those evolutionists so certain in their theory that they pursue doggedly as just as errantly dogmatic as anyone on the planet.
The case is just as conclusive on one side as the other. So what? Get past the hubris please. I expect it all to be revealed on a timeline not of our making.
“This is largely because Darwin’s theory directly contradicted the supernatural accounts of human origins rooted in religious tradition and replaced them with fully natural ones.”
Except for that whole “missing link” business, Darwinism falls apart under its own weight.
Dr. Wright...you state the creationist case in the courts was proven to be just creationism being gussied up as intelligent design. The case was not made on a scientific basis? Now you state the leftwing is using nonscientific ways to foist gender fluidity. Why arent the leftists being challenged in court? As is demanding they stop telling lies.
Maybe there is no evolutionary explanation for sex differences is because the grand evolutionary picture is wrong. Why would asexually producing organisms which are extremely successful and long even need to develop sexes? Mitosis vs meiosis...two complex and different methods....what is the natural selection pressure on mitosis to get it to go meiosis?
“... opposition in the US to evolution mainly came from Right-wing evangelical Christians who believed God created life in its present form.”
Straw Man. Christians don’t believe that creation looks the same now as it did ~10k years ago. Lots of variation has occurred among all the “kinds” of creatures, some died out ...
It's a plausible conjecture. Female breasts can be used as a "ripeness indicator" visible a a distance.
No breasts = "Not a mature female".
Perky breasts = Sexually viable female at the beginning of her fertile years.
Saggy breasts = older female.
Correction...successful and long EXTANT...
Funny how evolution doesn’t account for the origin of life.
Not to mention that the substance of evolution theory has never been observed.
I tell you this....
No eternal reward will forgive us, now
For wasting the dawn....
-Jim Morrison
The problem with this is its implication: that what are called transgender people are simply delusional. Maybe perfectly nice people otherwise, but delusional. There are two sexes, male and female. If you are one, and sincerely believe that you are the other, then you are delusional. Not seeing things, not paranoid or psychotic, but delusional. As delusional as was the Man Who MIstook His Wife For A Hat. And so, you can’t stand firm for simple biological facts without blowing up the transgender delusion. And few even on the right will stand up and do that.
Darwin himself admitted before he died that his theory was wrong. I can’t remember off the top of my head what discovery led to him saying that, but be found evidence that refuted what he said earlier.
> I can’t remember off the top of my head what discovery led
> to him saying that, but be found evidence that refuted what
> he said earlier.
I believe it was the irreduceable complexity of the human eye.
All the parts have to be there at the same time for it to have any evolutionary value.
Of course, the same can be said for the cell, now that we know, somewhat, of the incredibly complex inner workings of it.
It takes a living entity to create a living entity. Period. That IS the Fact of Life.
Life neither springs nor "evolves" from non living matter.
It takes a living entity to create a living entity.
Yes Virginia, there IS a GOD!
Even Answers in Genesis doesn’t think he renounced evolution.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/darwins-deathbed-conversion-a-legend/
From The Origin of Species (1872), Chapter VI:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my [Darwin’s] theory would absolutely break down.”
If you’re waiting for science from the social sciences, please take a number.
What I want to know is what the heck are those things washing up on beaches all over the world? I think they are liberals evolving.
So you think liberal means ‘washed up’? You could be on to something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.