Question for Evolutionists - your view on....

I was following a couple of ATS evolution threads closely and noted that the commenting evolutionists continually referred to any one questioning evolution as “Creationists” and used it is a derogatory label. In fact, some on the other side of the argument cited they were NOT supporting a God based argument but that the science was not settled and were arguing from a skeptic’s perspective.

So my question to evolutionists is do you see everyone that questions evolution (and let’s cut to the chase, evolution to mean modern man biologically evolving from simians via randomness and natural selection) as backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes? Or is that sentiment reserved for just those that believe in a six solar day universe creation, young earth and humans/dinosaurs cohabiting world view? Or do you also include those advocating a broader intelligent design argument where evolution/adaptation occurs but that it was “guided” when it comes to the “evolution” of modern man?

Again, the question is not related to an argument of evolution vs. intelligent design but how you evolutionists view those that “question” ape-to-man biological evolution.

Evolution is not a complete picture yet. There will be questions, new discoveries, new data, etc coming in as we continue to learn about it. At the same time, incorrect data or segments of the theory could be discarded when new evidence comes to light. To question evolution is fine, it's how the scientific process works.

However, to question it with the intent of introducing any intelligent design narrative is willfully ignorant.

a reply to: VVV88

Again, the question is not related to an argument of evolution vs. intelligent design but how you evolutionists view those that “question” ape-to-man biological evolution.

I think one of the things that frustrates "evolutionists" the most is, debating someone who has not bothered to learn what it is, and makes ignorant comments such as "ape-to-man". Not aiming that at you, just using it as an example. Also, evolution has little to do with creation. Abiogenesis would be more the antithesis of creation. Evolution and creation can actually live together quite nicely.

a reply to: VVV88

There is no such word as 'evolutionist'. Creationists keep using it, but it doesn't exist.

a reply to: VVV88

Evolution is the science of #ing.

You have sex and pass on your traits(and possibly mutations which can exist at birth or happen later) to your offspring. Or if you have a bad mating strategy or if you're incredibly unlucky you don't live long enough to...or your offspring doesn't.

So anyone who doesn't understand at least that has issues in my opinion. People get stuck on the "Ape to man" thing and ignore what it's really about, which is just change over many generations of #ing like rabbits.



and



Think about the above videos in terms of "The Science of Sexual Reproduction"(evolution).

Questionning is part of the scientific process.
Adding god to the equation is not.
On the one hand you have a process of trial and error where data is discarded or updated as comprehension of the premise progresses. On the other you have a scenario and it's proponents, who are only interested in finding proof that validates their initial statement (the existence of creation), and who reject any data that contradicts it.

I don't view creationists as necessarily "backwards", more like delusional. Dangerous to some extent if they try to push their pseudo-science on others.

They are certainly anti-scientific (see above).
I'd also say intellectually dishonest (see above).

For me creationists are a bit like kiddies who aren't ready to admit that Santa isn't real, even though their parents just told them so...

Evolution explains the vessel and it's adaptation to the external world it exists in, is exposed too.

But how come we stop understanding the evolution of the mental thought processing? Why have we forgot about spiritual evolution or growth?

Oh yea we are monkeys

I guess let's not worry about physical evolution, and realize there is DE-evolution happening to our species:

- obesity
- Cancer
- heart and brain malfunction
- poor diet
- stupid and careless
- lying, deceit, chaos, destruction

Stop talking about the concept of our bodies evolution. Start realizing we are on a down spiral direction of devolving if the concept of evolution has any truth to it.

I have not seenan evolve, just his knowledge. But the body, is not evolving with linear time...

a reply to: VVV88
I view people who question evolution in the same way I view people who question a non-flat earth: ignorant at best, backwards and delusional at worst. That's not to say that every detail is completely understood but the broad strokes are undeniable.

Whether you like it or not, the question of whether it not life evolved is long settled. By this point to deny it is not skepticism but denialism.

originally posted by: Elementalist
Evolution explains the vessel and it's adaptation to the external world it exists in, is exposed too.

But how come we stop understanding the evolution of the mental thought processing? Why have we forgot about spiritual evolution or growth?

Oh yea we are monkeys

I guess let's not worry about physical evolution, and realize there is DE-evolution happening to our species:

- obesity
- Cancer
- heart and brain malfunction
- poor diet
- stupid and careless
- lying, deceit, chaos, destruction

Stop talking about the concept of our bodies evolution. Start realizing we are on a down spiral direction of devolving if the concept of evolution has any truth to it.

I have not seenan evolve, just his knowledge. But the body, is not evolving with linear time...

First, there's no such thing is 'devolving'. Second, the issues you listed come about because mankind evolved the 'society'. If the adaptation known as 'society' leads to our dying out, then that's just another example of natural selection at work.

originally posted by: VVV88
So my question to evolutionists is do you see everyone that questions evolution (and let’s cut to the chase, evolution to mean modern man biologically evolving from simians via randomness and natural selection) as backward, ignorant, anti-science troglodytes?

Not at all.

Questioning evolution (or pretty much anything) is fine, questioning leads to knowledge.

Declaring evolution as bunk (or rejecting cogent arguments and evidence) because a guy in a book said the earth is 6000 years old (and I don't mean the Bible, it does not make that claim) or demanding that creationism be taught in science class seems a bit... misguided.

I have no problem with creationism being taught in Humanities or Religion classes, however. That said, please teach many creation stories and compare them to each other rather than focusing on just the Christian/Jewish version of creation.

a reply to: VVV88

I have nothing against someone being skeptical of Evolution. I will take anyone's arguments and concerns into account. I have a problem with people who willingly deceive themselves and pretend things like that there is no evidence for evolution or any of the other fallacies about it. These people could easily educate themselves on the truth but instead wallow in ignorance then vomit these dumb opinions out like they are being insightful.

If you are going to argue against Evolution then you need to first be properly educated on what it says, and that doesn't mean educating yourself with anti-evolution sites (they are going to be the ones spreading the lies about evolution). You need to get your information from the horses mouth. That means science sites.

The reason Creationist is a deragotory term among our camp is because it is the Creationists that usually repeat these lies and misrepresentations of Evolution while trying to disprove it. There is a BIG difference between a skeptical evolution argument and the arguments that these Creationists put forward.

Now you CAN be a Creationist and actually put forth a compelling argument about evolution, so what I said above doesn't mean they don't exist. Though comparing evolution to creation is a failed argument anyways since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life or the universe.

a reply to: Elementalist

Devolution doesn't exist. All life is equally evolved for its environment. It is possible to go down one evolutionary path then possibly retrace that path to a previous one through newer mutations, but that isn't devolution. Those are all new mutations causing that.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: VVV88

Again, the question is not related to an argument of evolution vs. intelligent design but how you evolutionists view those that “question” ape-to-man biological evolution.

I think one of the things that frustrates "evolutionists" the most is, debating someone who has not bothered to learn what it is, and makes ignorant comments such as "ape-to-man". Not aiming that at you, just using it as an example. Also, evolution has little to do with creation. Abiogenesis would be more the antithesis of creation. Evolution and creation can actually live together quite nicely.

I am not a scientist and I am generally interested in this topic. But as you know, you can't debate if there is no mutual respect for the other. i'm not taking offense to this, but why is "ape-to-man" an ignorant comment in context of biological evolution?

originally posted by: VVV88
But as you know, you can't debate if there is no mutual respect for the other.

A debate implies both sides are informed and are adhering to certain rules regarding logic, evidence and intellectual honesty. Show me one single example of an evolution/science denier exhibiting these traits in this forum and I will eat my hat.

More to the point, what exactly is there to debate?

"I don't accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution being an explanation for biodiversity".

Oh, ok then. That's about as far as the discussion can go.

Evolution doesn't provide an answer for origin. A governing universal force that could be a catalyst for the existence of life is not mutually exclusive to evolution. No one knows the answer to how it all started. Agnosticism is the only defensible position; being that you don't have to defend it, IMO. And I'm not agnostic. So I don't go pushing my beliefs on others or think less of them because don't agree with me. I think it's extremely nassarcistic to do so.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Evolution doesn't provide an answer for origin. A governing universal force that could be a catalyst for the existence of life is not mutually exclusive to evolution. No one knows the answer to how it all started. Agnosticism is the only defensible position; being that you don't have to defend it, IMO. And I'm not agnostic. So I don't go pushing my beliefs on others or think less of them because don't agree with me. I think it's extremely nassarcistic to do so.

Evolution is not concerned with the origins of life......

a reply to: VVV88
There are members here that are way over my head on this topic, but if I understand what I've read correctly. Humans did not evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: VVV88

I have nothing against someone being skeptical of Evolution. I will take anyone's arguments and concerns into account. I have a problem with people who willingly deceive themselves and pretend things like that there is no evidence for evolution or any of the other fallacies about it. These people could easily educate themselves on the truth but instead wallow in ignorance then vomit these dumb opinions out like they are being insightful.

If you are going to argue against Evolution then you need to first be properly educated on what it says, and that doesn't mean educating yourself with anti-evolution sites (they are going to be the ones spreading the lies about evolution). You need to get your information from the horses mouth. That means science sites.

The reason Creationist is a deragotory term among our camp is because it is the Creationists that usually repeat these lies and misrepresentations of Evolution while trying to disprove it. There is a BIG difference between a skeptical evolution argument and the arguments that these Creationists put forward.

Now you CAN be a Creationist and actually put forth a compelling argument about evolution, so what I said above doesn't mean they don't exist. Though comparing evolution to creation is a failed argument anyways since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life or the universe.

This. SOOOOOO much of this.

Arguing from a position of ignorance and using that ignorance to discredit the opposing side is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty and the VAST majority of evolution-deniers are guilty of that sort of behavior.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: VVV88
I view people who question evolution in the same way I view people who question a non-flat earth: ignorant at best, backwards and delusional at worst. That's not to say that every detail is completely understood but the broad strokes are undeniable.

Whether you like it or not, the question of whether it not life evolved is long settled. By this point to deny it is not skepticism but denialism.

That's funny, cause I view anyone who claims that the modern paradigms are undeniable as ignorant spoon fed fools...lol

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

By all means enlighten us with your explanation for biodiversity, then.