Phony Theory, False Conflict

Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

[raj bhatia]

A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

[Theo]

God says Adam will die the moment he eats from the tree

"The moment"? Where does Scripture say that? Nowhere does it say that Adam's death would *immediately* follow Adam's sin. Scripture says that if Adam sins, he will surely die. And he did. See Romans 6:23 and James 1:15 for more detail.

[MeanWestTexan]

"This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown."

I have two theories:

1. The anti-science crowd are actually Democrats pretending to be Republicans to make us look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from the Republican Party. (It's working.)

2. The anti-science crowd is actually agents of the Devil pretending to be Christians to make Christians look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from Christianity. (It's working.)

[MeanWestTexan]

Google "Y-Chromosome Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve."

[Theo]

Or are we starting from the assumption that you are infallible and your interpretation of Scripture must be correct no matter what anyone proves to the contrary?

That's a strange thing to say. Of course I'm fallible, daily in need of a Savior. Does that mean all my points are moot?

[Dimensio]

This is a baldfaced lie. MOST evolutionists (In the USA at any rate) are Christians.

Remember creationist lie #423: anyone who accepts evolution is an atheist. By that reasoning, there are no Christians who accept evolution, even when they say that they do.

IOW: No True Scotsman Fallacy

[Theo]

Nice Straw Man there, Dimensio.

No, people can have misunderstandings of creation and still be saved. It's ultimately not about "correct doctrine," it's about Who you know.

[Dimensio]

But some, when they see a gap in a theory, want to fill in that gap by quickly saying "IT WAS GOD!" instead of offering up one or scientifically based theories that may hold up or may be proven false.

It's worse than that. Many here don't even look for real "gaps". They use their personal incredulity without even studying the underlying science, or rely upon bogus claims such as arguments involving the second law of thermodynamics. They don't insert God into gaps that they find, they assume from the start that all of the science is wrong and that their God is the right answer, then refuse to do any research for fear of finding out how weak their objections are.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud."

I agree that Intelligent Design is a scientific fraud. It is also a theological fraud. No more so a xcientific fraud, however, than "Evolution" in its pure, unadulterated form that claims it as absolute scientific fact.

[Dimensio]

You don't say whether these repeated tests need to have proven anything.

What would you expect to be proven? Theories in science are never proven.

Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species.

You are incorrect here.

So in order to go from hypothesis to theory, you need a wide acceptance of scientists, not actual proof.

Nothing in science is proven. Theories are either found to be consistent with all observations or falsified through contradictory observations.

So there's a political element?

Not as such. More of a consensus based upon actual testing.

[GOPPachyderm]

Evolution is a fact. If you isolate two dogs on an island, after a period of time they won't resemble the original dogs. There will be adaption and modification; however, I don't think you should expect to find they evolved into a cat (obviously higher in the evolutionary ladder) or another species. Evolution, in my humble opinion based on my a priori belief in God and supported by creation physicists and scientists, not adequate to explain how single cells organisms could have evolved into my adorable grandson. Viruses that acquire the capability to infect humans are still viruses. As an adaptation, is it beneficial to kill off your host?

[Dimensio]

That's why it's called the THEORY of evolution.

Not the "LAW" of evolution.

This is a common misunderstanding of scientific terminology. Laws are no more "proven" than theories. Theories do not become laws. Laws are generalizations about observations from which future predictions of similar observations can be made. Theories are a formal attempt to explain the cause of observations. The "law" of gravity is a mathematical formula that expresses gravitational force as the gravitational constant of the universe multiplied by the product of the masses of the two attracting objects divided by the square of the distance between their respective centers of graviy. The theory of gravity -- also called relativity theory -- attempts to explain what causes that force to occur. It should be noted that the "law" of gravity is not only "unproven" but actually inadequate in relativistic scales and even across extremely long distances within the same relativistic frame (because the equation assumes instantaneous force when it is really constrained by lightspeed).

[GOPPachyderm]

I admit I only read a part of the referenced link, but I thought it humorous when they were trying to show speciation by referencing blue gills in Wisconsin. As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

There may be better arguments at the site, but this one hit my funny bone.

[Dimensio]

Teach it as a theory, and don't incorporate it as a law, like Webster's seems to, and like so many of our HS graduates believe.

Theories and laws are two different kinds of statements in science. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories.

[Dimensio]

As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

Are you under the mistaken impression that "fish" is a single species?

[Dimensio]

Nice Straw Man there, Dimensio.

Actually, it's an observation derived from the misstatements of many creationists around here. Would you like me to provide you with direct references?

[MeanWestTexan]

"No, people can have misunderstandings of creation and still be saved. It's ultimately not about "correct doctrine," it's about Who you know."

All true. But Dimensio is correct that YEC repeatedly baldly state one cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution, that I (a sincere Christian) am a "Diest" "Satanist" "Doomed to Hell" "worship Darwin" (all actual accusations) or various other flavor of heretic because I do not agree with how they interpret Genesis.

[MeanWestTexan]

"Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species."

There was an example posted yesterday, actually.

Search for "lizard" in the title.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I admit I only read a part of the referenced link, but I thought it humorous when they were trying to show speciation by referencing blue gills in Wisconsin. As far as I know, the blue gills they examined in the beautiful clear water lakes of Wisconsin were all still fish.

Yup, and humans and chimps are both mammals. You do know the difference between "species," "phylum" and "order", don't you?

[Dimensio]

There was an example posted yesterday, actually.

Search for "lizard" in the title.

But...but they're still lizards!

That scraping noise you hear is the creationist moving the goalposts.

[Antonello]

I wonder why we all don't sit around and wonder what kind of animal is going to come out of our cat when it gives birth. How come we don't see totally new animals being born?...But I've never seen a cat give birth to a new non-cat creature.

Did my last post in our previous discussion help clarify this for you, or do you still think this is how the ToE says things work?