Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?
UNCOMMON DESCENT ^ | July 27, 2009 | Cornelius Hunter, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/28/2009 4:33:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job. He writes that evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, “need to think about [their theological arguments] more deeply.” In one moment evolutionists make religious arguments and in the next they claim their theory is “just science.” Their religious arguments, they explain, really aren’t religious arguments after all. Gee, that was easy. In light of such absurdity, I don’t have much confidence that evolutionists are going to think more deeply about this. But it would be nice if they would stop misrepresenting science. And it would be nice if they would stop using their credentials to mislead the public. In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying...

(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aevojihad; ajihad; anevovoodoodance; avoodoodance; catholic; christian; creation; cretinevos; cretinism; cultofdarwin; darwindrones; darwindroolers; darwiniacs; dontevolvestuffgod; evocretins; evocultists; evolution; evoreligion; intelligentdesign; judaism; moralabsolutes; pseudoscience; pseudosciencevos; pufffthemagicvdragon; religion; science; spamevokeywords; templeofdarwin; thisisntjudaism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 07/28/2009 4:33:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Oh give us this day our creationist spam...


2 posted on 07/28/2009 4:35:11 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rationalist101; goodusername; allmendream; grey_whiskers; ElectricStrawberry; UCANSEE2; metmom; ...

Ping!


3 posted on 07/28/2009 4:36:18 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

That would be filet mignon. Sad you can’t tell the difference.


4 posted on 07/28/2009 4:38:36 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Even the commentators on the posted site call the whole thing a steaming pile.


5 posted on 07/28/2009 4:38:48 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

How old is the spam?


6 posted on 07/28/2009 4:39:03 PM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
evolutionists, such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne,

Just so we know exactly who we're talking about, how many "evolutionists" are "such as PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne"?

7 posted on 07/28/2009 4:39:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Oh give us this day our creationist spam...

And another example of projection.

8 posted on 07/28/2009 4:40:46 PM PDT by freespirited (Honk if you miss Licorice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Militant atheists with scientific credentials are exactly that, nothing more and nothing less.

They are no more indicative of the attitudes of scientists as a whole than militant creationists with credentials.

And the last thing they should do is delve into their “theological thinking” more deeply; they should abandon their pretense that they have any sort of privileged insight into religious belief at all.

Asking an atheist for information or insight about religion is like asking a virgin to give you information or insight about sex.

9 posted on 07/28/2009 4:41:27 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
Even the commentators on the posted site call the whole thing a steaming pile.

Yes. And finding a site the agrees or disagrees with thus-and-such is proof positive.

Isn't it?

10 posted on 07/28/2009 4:42:41 PM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

As reliable as using wikipedia as a primary source....


11 posted on 07/28/2009 4:44:20 PM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep
As reliable as using wikipedia as a primary source....

Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the inspired word of God.

12 posted on 07/28/2009 4:48:00 PM PDT by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; allmendream

Of the elite scientists who excert disproportionate control over tenure, the right to publish, and grant money?

The NAS and the Royal Society were both polled on their belief in God. Only 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences said they believed in God, whereas only 3.3 percent of Royal Society scientists said they believed in God.

Does that help to answer your question?


13 posted on 07/28/2009 4:54:26 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Does that help to answer your question?

Not quite. What percentage of the people you regularly and generally refer to as "evos" do those people constitute?

14 posted on 07/28/2009 4:57:17 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep; humblegunner

Unlike your Temple of Darwin co-religionists, Uncommon Descent allows their opposition to post there as well.


15 posted on 07/28/2009 4:57:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I like the quotes:

“the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument... No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections”

So arguing God wouldn’t have done it this way is “not a theological argument”. Hmmm....


16 posted on 07/28/2009 4:58:16 PM PDT by dan1123 (Gov't Healthcare Plan: Break it and Take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There is not much to say about these meaningless as hominem attack.

I’ll just say that evolution is natural history. Those who study natural history just go with what they get. They are not going to give up their work just because people think they are part of an anti-religion conspiracy.


17 posted on 07/28/2009 5:04:22 PM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

We all can’t be intransigent enough to believe in microbiological soup as you.


18 posted on 07/28/2009 5:13:05 PM PDT by kingpins10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

What ad hominem about them? Evolutionist are indeed in denial, delusional, or just plain dishonest about the theological underpinnings of their evo-religious creation myth. It about time scientists like Cornelius Hunter started pointing it out!


19 posted on 07/28/2009 5:16:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>> My friend Paul Nelson has the patience of Job.

That’s a pretty common misconception about Job. He started bitching pretty heavily after two chapters (out of 40-ish). Then God told him to butch up and stop his whining (that’s a paraphrase of Job 38). God may have even called him “Nancy” somewhere in there.

SnakeDoc


20 posted on 07/28/2009 5:21:59 PM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("Talk low, talk slow, and don't say too much." -- John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
In short, it would be nice if they would stop lying...

Christians of all people know how difficult it is to stop sinning. What makes this author believe non-Christians can stop it?

21 posted on 07/28/2009 5:28:51 PM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The point is, the very top positions of science are almost all occupied by evo-atheists. No wonder Creation/ID scientists can’t get a fair shake.


22 posted on 07/28/2009 5:29:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Yep. Evolution, like the moon landing, is part of history. And both have their deniers.

The main difference between the two groups of deniers is that only one of them has control of many school boards across the nation - and, consequently, access to or even virtual control over generations of young minds. Scary.

If America is in decline, a large part of the blame should go to the extremists on both sides who are pimping various forms of anti-intellectualism - ghetto/thug "culture" from the Far Left and religious extremism from the Far Right.

"Learning is a white man's thing!"

"Learning is an atheist's thing!"

Same rant. Same lie. Same consequences. I'm an evolutionist. I'm also not an atheist. One of the many billions of things that creationists fail to understand about evolution is that it is simply a way of explaining how different species arose. It is not a religious (or anti-religious) statement. It is not an argument for or against God. It's just biology.

23 posted on 07/28/2009 5:31:07 PM PDT by JillValentine (Drinking Kool-Aid leads to PDS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

It’s supposed to be built right into their code of ethics, as science cannot progress if everyone starts lying about their work...but your point is well taken.


24 posted on 07/28/2009 5:31:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

+1


25 posted on 07/28/2009 5:33:25 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
The real moon-howlers are those who observe super-sophisticated bio-nano designs in nature, and then turn around and attribute these obvious products of superior intelligence to random processes plus survival! No wonder so many Evos believe in little green men on Mars!!!


26 posted on 07/28/2009 5:43:23 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

It’s not Creationist spam, it’s ID spam.


27 posted on 07/28/2009 6:13:19 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (In Soviet Russia, Sarah Palin's house can see YOU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Why do you post here if it's ‘spam”? Did you read the article or are you just going to stand across the street and bray at what's taking place?

Coyne’s argument, however silly, is still his argument and can be dealt with pro and con since that's what the grownups here do.

Pay attention and learn, and we'll call you Oztrich Adult.

28 posted on 07/28/2009 7:39:47 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 07/28/2009 8:45:14 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
I'm an evolutionist. I'm also not an atheist.

Molecular evolution & The God of Abraham, Issac and Israel, form a nice theory.

30 posted on 07/28/2009 8:46:14 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The point is, the very top positions of science are almost all occupied by evo-atheists. No wonder Creation/ID scientists can’t get a fair shake.

What's the criteria we're using for "fair"?

31 posted on 07/29/2009 3:52:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Read “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” Then you will know what I mean by “fair.”


32 posted on 07/29/2009 8:31:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Read “Slaughter of the Dissidents.” Then you will know what I mean by “fair.”

I'm not playing your propaganda game. If you can't come right out and tell me what you mean by "fair" then it's a stone waste of time talking to you.

33 posted on 07/29/2009 8:48:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Are Creationists delusional?


34 posted on 07/29/2009 8:52:33 AM PDT by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Thank goodness for that!


35 posted on 07/29/2009 9:03:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: verity

No, creationists believe creation is as it appears to be—created; whereas the Temple of Darwin says creation appears to be designed for a purpose, but it’s all just an illusion. As such, the creationists are behaving rationally, whereas the evo-atheists are delusional.


36 posted on 07/29/2009 9:12:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Is evolutionary biology (the modern synthesis) a dogma? No, no more than the law of gravity. Is it an anti-religion religion? No. Evolutionary biology says nothing whatsoever about God. It says that we can adequately explain the observed fact of descent with modification without invoking God or a creator, but it by no means denies the existence of a creator. Some biologists think that evolutionary biology provides evidence against the existence of God, just as some think it allows for a god. I think you may with intellectual honesty believe anything you like regarding God, provided that your belief does not contradict known scientific fact.


37 posted on 07/29/2009 9:55:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You’re thankful that you can’t explain, in your own words, what you mean by “fair”, and that it takes a 450 page book, written by someone else to do it for you?


38 posted on 07/29/2009 9:57:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You’re thankful that you can’t explain, in your own words, what you mean by “fair”, and that it takes a 450 page book, written by someone else to do it for you?


39 posted on 07/29/2009 9:57:30 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

Outstanding post.


40 posted on 07/29/2009 9:59:59 AM PDT by Constitution Day (Eschew exclamatory abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Evolutionists like to make factual claims. One fact that is incontrovertible is that evolution is driven by theological claims—that is a matter of public record. Evolution is a religious theory. What is interesting is that the evolutionist denies any such thing. He may as well be denying the nose on his own face. This is truly a fascinating mythology.”

Evolution is science. The study of evolution relies on evidence and inference from the natural world. Thus it is not a religion. Now who is that has a problem with that facts?

A typical straw man argument, but when that is the best you have

But what I fail to understand is how “it is just too complicated to understand so that proves that God did it” can be considered as science?


41 posted on 07/29/2009 10:01:42 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine

Careful, here come the ...”Jesus taught Genesis. Is Jesus a liar?”.....comments.


42 posted on 07/29/2009 10:02:17 AM PDT by Pistolshot (Brevity: Saying a lot, while saying very little.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

That was one of your finest responses. Well said.


43 posted on 07/29/2009 11:29:39 AM PDT by FormerRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FormerRep

Just couldn’t resist the imagery.


44 posted on 07/29/2009 3:16:46 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels the way he does. The condescending nature of Darwinists is laughable and sad. Many of them truly believe that there is solid proof of species originating from a single species. The reality is, it's just a guessing game and those high ranking evolution scientists know it deep in their hearts that they are blowing smoke with a giant load of hope and faith. They know there is a chance that all species developed through evolution, but the chance is so absurdly small that it makes the word impossible seem positive.

Evolution of species from a single species is the capital city in the land of make believe.
45 posted on 07/29/2009 7:57:05 PM PDT by Jaime2099 (Human Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JillValentine
"One of the many billions of things that creationists fail to understand about evolution is that it is simply a way of explaining how different species arose. It is not a religious (or anti-religious) statement. It is not an argument for or against God. It's just biology."

Yes, it is a way of explaining all species' origins, but it is a highly unlikely way of explaining their origin due to its random nature. I don't like science that involves guessing, hoping, and wishing which is what evolution of the species from one species is.

In Genesis the Bible clearly says that God created man in His own image and he put man over the animals. That makes Human Evolution and the Bible 100% incompatible. According to the Bible, man was created and separated as greater than animals, and did not not evolve from another species. If Human Evolution is false, then Evolution itself all falls like a house of cards with very little intact. If Genesis is false, then the Bible falls apart like a house of cards. It is a religious issue, like it or not.

Biology is not only about Evolution. Creation can be and is part of Biology. Creation and Evolution are the two current possible scenario's in Biology for the origin of species. Biology simply studies the origin of species and no one can rule out creation scientifically. To rule out creation as a possibility of the origin of species is unscientific and makes absolutely no sense. Creation in Biology is just as legitimate, if not more, than Evolution in Biology.
46 posted on 07/29/2009 8:31:14 PM PDT by Jaime2099 (Human Evolution and the God of the Bible are not compatible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jaime2099

“no one can rule out creation scientifically”

Which is the very reason that creation is not science. In order to be considered as science it would have to be able to be falsified.

The belief in Biblical creation is a matter of faith.

The acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is based on empirical evidence


47 posted on 07/29/2009 10:09:34 PM PDT by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

OMG!!!! Scientists don’t beleive in God!!!!

Whoduthunkit???????


48 posted on 07/30/2009 8:12:10 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

There is no such thing as a Creation/ID scientist.


49 posted on 07/30/2009 8:14:49 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“Fair” means that any loon with a computer must be allowed to publish in respectable peer-reviewed journals “science” that says Man walked with dinosaurs...and that the Earth is only 6000 years old.....and that HIV does not cause AIDS.


50 posted on 07/30/2009 8:17:42 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson