Hypothesis on rejection of evolution

JerryLove · 10-19-2007, 09:02 AM

I found this essay linked from Slashdot. It's long but a good read and I think the essayest might be on to something. It discusses why self-organizing systems are actually counter-intuitive and how that might lead to a rejection of evolution.

http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-...of-crowds.html

+SEAL+ · 10-19-2007, 04:05 PM

Of course self-organizing systems are counter-intuitive...one of my major beefs with atheistic evolution.

ApparentlyNothing · 10-19-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +SEAL+

Of course self-organizing systems are counter-intuitive...one of my major beefs with atheistic evolution.

Did you read the article?

JerryLove · 10-19-2007, 10:18 PM

He offers an entirely anticdotal but very compelling support for the hypothesis of the article. He's just asserted exactly what the article hypothisized... perhaps we are taking the wrong approach to convincing the creationists to the reality of evolution.

Danny · 10-20-2007, 03:54 AM

Thanks a lot for the link, Jerry. Very good read. I look forward to checking back on Wednesday to see if he puts up those graphics he talked about. As someone who eventually wants to teach high school biology, this is definitely a very useful and informative essay.

Dark Tofu · 10-23-2007, 06:36 PM

I quite liked the article myself, though I found his insistance that evolution is the reason people hold onto faith rather annoying and absurd. I have long stood in favor of evolution, and am also a 6-day literal creationist. I don't see why people abandon their faith when they understand evolution...

Insane Drummer · 10-23-2007, 06:52 PM

Ok, the second he started talking about Wikipedia I started cracking up.

Dark Tofu · 10-24-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Ok, the second he started talking about Wikipedia I started cracking up.

Do you realize how accurate wikipedia is? Read the article, go to wikipedia sometime and compare its accuracy to some other online source. You might be surprised.

Danny · 10-25-2007, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

Ok, the second he started talking about Wikipedia I started cracking up.

Care to back up your disdain with some actual substance? Wikipedia has been found to be more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica on average, and any articles of sub-par quality are clearly tagged (If it lacks appropriate references, if its neutrality has been disputed, etc., etc.). If you think it's so bad, why don't you edit the sections that are inaccurate? That's the whole idea.

Danny · 10-25-2007, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I quite liked the article myself, though I found his insistance that evolution is the reason people hold onto faith rather annoying and absurd. I have long stood in favor of evolution, and am also a 6-day literal creationist. I don't see why people abandon their faith when they understand evolution...

I'm not sure I understand you...how can evolution be the case if all animal species were created exactly as they are now in six literal days? And furthermore, how can evolution be the case if life on earth is only 6,000 years old? Perhaps this should be split to a different thread, though.

nate95366 · 10-25-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

I have long stood in favor of evolution, and am also a 6-day literal creationist.

By "in favor of evolution," do you mean that you see no reason to dispute the main tenets of the current theory? You've placed yourself in an intellectually "tricky" spot, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. How do you account for that?

I think the article being discussed is interesting and holds some truth. First, that many who adhere to fundamentalist religion (especially fundamentalist Christianity) basically make no effort to understand what the theory of evolution is and is not. This lack of understanding is not enough to keep many of their sermons on the subject from being given and/or published online. That only serves to make evolution more confusing than it really needs to be. Which only makes the voices of the fundamentalists seem more meaningful.... This much is true.

Nate

Dark Tofu · 10-25-2007, 05:25 PM

Creationism is not incompatible with evolution. Let me explain.

I believe that evolution is a working process of nature, just like I think that man grows older, that entropy is increasing, etc. I understand evolution to be another 'law' of nature.
On the other hand, I believe that the Book of Genesis is quite literal. I believe that God created the world in 6 literal days, and created them in essentially the same state that they are in now.

How are these two theories compatible? Well, just like I believe God created Adam with the look of age (a.k.a. he was created as a functioning man not an incoherant baby), so I also believe that God created the universe with the look of age (a.k.a. life supporting not temporarily useless). It's a very simple idea. So yes, I believe in evolution, and yes I am a literal creationist.

It's not the best explanation, but I think you get it.

JoelWildtree · 10-29-2007, 03:23 PM

So you accept the following on Evolution from Wikipedia, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

But you don't accept this on Common Descent:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[128] Current species are a stage in the process of evolution, with their diversity the product of a long series of speciation and extinction events.[129] The common descent of organisms was first deduced from four simple facts about organisms: First, they have geographic distributions that cannot be explained by local adaptation. Second, the diversity of life is not a set of completely unique organisms, but organisms that share morphological similarities. Third, vestigial traits with no clear purpose resemble functional ancestral traits, and finally, that organisms can be classified using these similarities into a hierarchy of nested groups.[5]

Sure you can hold such a position within your mind, but you are compartmentalizing I would argue. You understand how Evolution works, and thus acknowledge the process in nature. But you also acknowledge the literal truth of the Bible, thus you effectively discontinue your acceptance of biological understanding at the point in which is causes conflict with your religious beliefs, otherwise you'd be in a constant state of discomfort about the reality of either side. You made a big sacrifice of reason to get to the position you are at, which is probably why most Christians deny evolution altogether because it invariably leads to an incompatibility with the Genesis account.

shakeybill · 10-30-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Creationism is not incompatible with evolution. Let me explain.

I believe that evolution is a working process of nature, just like I think that man grows older, that entropy is increasing, etc. I understand evolution to be another 'law' of nature.
On the other hand, I believe that the Book of Genesis is quite literal. I believe that God created the world in 6 literal days, and created them in essentially the same state that they are in now.

How are these two theories compatible? Well, just like I believe God created Adam with the look of age (a.k.a. he was created as a functioning man not an incoherant baby), so I also believe that God created the universe with the look of age (a.k.a. life supporting not temporarily useless). It's a very simple idea. So yes, I believe in evolution, and yes I am a literal creationist.

It's not the best explanation, but I think you get it.

I have to agree with Joel's previous response to you.

I have a fundamental problem with the "appearence of age agrument" as it makes God into a deceiver where the scripture repeatedly tells us that God does not lie. Even the creation itself tells of God's glory (Psalm 19:1-2). If creation is not what it appears to be (young appearing to be old) then we are getting the wrong information from what we see in nature. This seems contradictory to God's truthful nature.

I am a theistic evolutionist and a Christian. I am not a six-day 6,000 year ago creationist. I accept Genesis as non-literal yet inspired scripture in the same way that much of Revelation is non-literal. I do not believe the two views (creationism and evolution) are in any way compatible.

Regards, Bill

**slap_j** · 10-30-2007, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakeybill

If creation is not what it appears to be (young appearing to be old) then we are getting the wrong information from what we see in nature. This seems contradictory to God's truthful nature.

I won't throw my hat into the ring here, however I don't think this is accurate. How would that be any more deceitful than when god performs miracles--which means suspension of an otherwise observed uniformity in nature.