should "Evolution" be considered a sign of Ignorance ?

Here's some more trees for those who want proof of older trees. News story from yesterday on PhysOrg.

Ancient forest emerges mummified from the Arctic

Ellesmere Island National Park in Canada. Ohio State University researchers and their colleagues have discovered the remains of a mummified forest that lived on the island 2 to 8 million years ago, when the Arctic was cooling.

reply to post by snowspirit

Neither creationism or evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Or maybe they both have. The big bang created something, and apparently the chicken came from something prehistoric. There is a missing link though, no one knows anything for sure........ Maybe both strict evolutionists and creationists have a deficiency of vision....... and sadly, a lack of awe and wonder and curiousity

Yes this is true maybe both religion and science are meant to help each other find the missing link. This creationism and evolutionism just seems like it is dividing people from finding the real answers. Like the wise Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Originally posted by Torgo
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Op, I could've sworn I just read a post written by you whining to the moderators that thread titles like the one posted here

yes if you read that whole topic which is now closed because of 'stalkers' you will see my reasoning behind what I did, I feel embarrassed because of it... not everyone is a veteran poster here, even though my profile reflects several months being registered.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
If you cannot comprehend given information unless the technical words are removed and it is a video less than 9 minuntes long, then you are never going to understand evolution.

I understand evolution well enough, I paid close attention in school...

I also do not expect all to understand where I am coming from when I say that the majority of the planet (including non-anglophone countries) may need, as you say... some kind of 9:min video.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Tetrarch42

 

Well just look at this thread for one
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evolution isn't the opposition of creationism, no where in evolutionary theory does it ever state that creationism is a sign of mental illness. You're misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issue with that thread.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

that whole topic which is now closed because of 'stalkers'

No, it was closed--by the site owner himself--because the argument was over. You lost.

I feel embarrassed because of it

And so you should. You have made yourself look very small and foolish.

Now, for the third time of asking, what is it exactly that you think 'evolutionists' are ignorant of? Come, at least try to defend your thread title!

Originally posted by RayTheWizardLiotta
reply to post by snowspirit

 

Neither creationism or evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Or maybe they both have. The big bang created something, and apparently the chicken came from something prehistoric. There is a missing link though, no one knows anything for sure........ Maybe both strict evolutionists and creationists have a deficiency of vision....... and sadly, a lack of awe and wonder and curiousity

Yes this is true maybe both religion and science are meant to help each other find the missing link. This creationism and evolutionism just seems like it is dividing people from finding the real answers. Like the wise Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

That is a misrepresentation of what Einstein was driving at. He actually believes in a "Spinoza concept" of God and stated he was filled with a wondrous, quasi-religious feeling when examining the harmony and scale of the universe. here is another quote by Einstein explaining his feelings towards God;

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.".

He uses the word "God" and "religion" in an almost metaphorical sense when speaking about the universe, much like Stephen Hawking does. Ultimately Einstein was at most a deist and probably an agnostic if not atheist.

You want some proof of evolution? Ok, go look up one of the numerous pictures of George W. Bush compared to a chimp.

Originally posted by Astyanax

No, it was closed--by the site owner himself--because the argument was over. You lost.

mkay, everyone here is free to go read and judge for themselves...

and here it is, www.abovetopsecret.com...

the topic from which I got my first applause and then was closed because of, yes... (3) stalkers.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


It was closed because it had deviated from the topic.... For example, madness was turning it into an evolution debate, and you were consistently slating Canada, based on what sounded like a very upsetting experience with Canadian hockey-players. As much as those individuals are doubtlessly worthy of your anger, I find it highly unlikely that even people living in Canada have met enough canadians to know what the majority of them are like, personally.

It occurs to me now that you may have been joking, but it's generally best to make that clear when slurring another nation, rather than just repeating the slur.

Back on point, I don't think that the closing post really says that you had stalkers on ATS (although I guess this post shows that you do... muahahahahaha...), more that it had wandered off topic.

Is that cleared up for you, my dear?


(In my view, people tend to feel a little patronised when they're called "my dear", regardless of whether they are old or young, male or female. It's most socially acceptable for elderly women to call the young to very young my dear, but it's always patronising when you're not in a close relationship)

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

It was closed because it had deviated from the topic....

yes and if you read the last 2 and 3 pages of the topic you will see some followed me there from this section trying to debate Evolution with me, the Moderator said in his final statement why the topic was closed.

Now lets get back on topic here in this thread too please...

Should Evolution be considered a sign of ignorance ?

Today I feel not much different, Evolutionist only use the theory to attack religion, namely Christianity. I am trying to have a discussion about why evolutionist would rather use it as a weapon instead of a learning tool ?

I accept evolution, albeit I have never seen it actually happen in a petri-dish... I have seen evidence for diversity and adaption, I also believe evolution does not erase religion or creation theory. All people have a tendency to feel the creation theory it would seem because we are created/conceived by our parents, this is a very natural train of thought that about 99% of humans on this planet automatically know... even if they are strict nazi evolutionist.

I believe I have found evidence that strict evolutionist would rather turn the science of evolution into religion and then turn around and attack everyone else who has a religion because it does not conform to their religion of evolution.

In essence, non-conformist Evolutionist can be considered a sign of ignorance... because there are some who would rather use it for something other than an educational tool.

discuss...

Well, no more than those who believe in god.
I find those who believe in god ignorant not those who believe in Evolution.

I find conspiracy theorists quite ignorant to some degree.

Originally posted by c0ldPhr34k
Well, no more than those who believe in god.
I find those who believe in god ignorant not those who believe in Evolution.

I find conspiracy theorists quite ignorant to some degree.

well there is another thread that may be suited to you... it is titled very similar to this one

dictation in anyway can be considered a sign of ignorance, and I do not see any one trying to convert anyone else to a certain religious faith here on ATS except for evolutionist trying to make everyone else denounce their beliefs and accept their evolutionist beliefs.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42

Originally posted by RayTheWizardLiotta
reply to post by snowspirit

 

Neither creationism or evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Or maybe they both have. The big bang created something, and apparently the chicken came from something prehistoric. There is a missing link though, no one knows anything for sure........ Maybe both strict evolutionists and creationists have a deficiency of vision....... and sadly, a lack of awe and wonder and curiousity

Yes this is true maybe both religion and science are meant to help each other find the missing link. This creationism and evolutionism just seems like it is dividing people from finding the real answers. Like the wise Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems.".

He uses the word "God" and "religion" in an almost metaphorical sense when speaking about the universe, much like Stephen Hawking does. Ultimately Einstein was at most a deist and probably an agnostic if not atheist.

I always felt that Einstein's views on religion really resonated with me. My ideas of the possibilities of a higher order come from nature itself for the most part. I've read a lot of biographies on Einstein's life and one of my favorites was his life in quotes. I'm a kind of quote hoarder, and love searching for philosophy in the words of those who weren't necessarily considered philosophers. You can tell he did struggle with reconciling the beliefs he was raised on with his own findings and thoughts.

I think whether or not he believed in a biblical creation, he was a very spiritual man and his is a good example of an attitude that more atheists/agnostics could benefit from adopting. He was reserved and respectful, sometimes spiritual, but skeptical all at the same time.


Some more good quotes of his that could be applied to the topic of this post:


"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."

"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

"I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

- Albert Einstein


We could ALL, creationists, atheists, and agnostics alike, take a cue from these wise words!

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Now lets get back on topic here in this thread too please...

Readily

Should Evolution be considered a sign of ignorance ?

No.

Today I feel not much different, Evolutionist only use the theory to attack religion, namely Christianity. I am trying to have a discussion about why evolutionist would rather use it as a weapon instead of a learning tool ?

Would it not have been better to make that clear in the OP?

"Evolutionists" do not use evolution to attack religion, and they do not use it to attack Christianity in specific. If you read most of the OPs of the "anti-creationist" threads, I think it is easy enough to see that the creationism being objected to is not creation-through-intent underlying natural processes, but creation in the manner that Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and other pseudo-scientists are feeding to the international youth. If you read SaturnFX' sparkling OP for "Should creationism be considered a sign of insanity?" the creationism in question was YEC, taking a literal interpretation of the bible to be superior to scientific research within the domain of science, and one of the major questions of the post was whether YEC type creationism should be taught in schools (as science).

I accept evolution, albeit I have never seen it actually happen in a petri-dish... I have seen evidence for diversity and adaption, I also believe evolution does not erase religion or creation theory. All people have a tendency to feel the creation theory it would seem because we are created/conceived by our parents, this is a very natural train of thought that about 99% of humans on this planet automatically know... even if they are strict nazi evolutionist.

I believe I have found evidence that strict evolutionist would rather turn the science of evolution into religion and then turn around and attack everyone else who has a religion because it does not conform to their religion of evolution.

If evolution did become a religion, it is easy to imagine that fundamentalists would launch attacks on other religions and destroy evidence that contradicted their strict world views... however, it is my understanding that evolution has not been turned into a religion. I am curious as to precisely what your evidence is, though... you always seem to be holding "evidence" just out of reach, and it can get frustrating.

In essence, non-conformist Evolutionist can be considered a sign of ignorance... because there are some who would rather use it for something other than an educational tool.

That makes very little sense.

On a brighter note, I think I'm getting better at this flash-notes thing!

Fun fact:

Evolution is only technically a theory.

reply to post by MaximumTruth


Please read this OP and then tell me which of those points is incorrect. If none of them, evolution is (sufficiently approximate to equal) fact, and theory, as always, has a rather different meaning in science than it does in day-to-day use.

The term theory in day-to-day use would be more applicable to a hypothesis in science. A theory, in current science, is the logical (not just a logical, but the logical) interpretation of observable facts, and assuming that neither logic not observation is flawed, a theory is an applied fact.

reply to post by MaximumTruth


Fun fact: So is gravity, germ theory, circuit theory, relativity, etc. It must just be luck that we're not floating around, our medicine works, and you're using computer.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Now lets get back on topic here in this thread too please...

Excellent idea.

Should Evolution be considered a sign of ignorance ?

First, I'm assuming that you mean, "Should belief in Evolution be considered a sign of ignorance?" I'm going to move forward under the assumption that you do. But if you don't, please correct me and I'll rethink my answer.

If I can begin my answer with a question - do you mean the the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution? They are two distinct things. I realize that the distinction may seem trivial but it is, at it's core, a very important one.

Evolution, the fact, is an observable process characterized by a change in the inherited traits of a population stemming from a change in allele frequency within a gene pool. I don't think belief in something that's observable and verifiable should be considered a sign of ignorance. Quite the opposite, in fact. I think outright denial of something that can be observed and verified would be one possible definition of ignorance.

Evolution, the theory, is the framework for explaining by what mechanisms evolution occurs, the relative importance of those mechanisms, the results of the evolutionary process, etc. Evolution, the fact, is subordinate to the theory of evolution. While I think you could argue certain facets of evolution, e.g. the relative importance of natural selection vs genetic drift as evolutionary mechanisms, I think it's difficult to argue against the entire theory as a model. No other theory has the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that evolution has and no one has been able to poke a legitimate hole in the theory of evolution yet. Or, to phrase it another way, no one found pre-Cambrian bunnies. I don't think belief in the best possible explanation for something like the origin of species would constitute ignorance. Or at least, in the case of the theory that's overturned later on, being willfully ignorant.

Does that answer your question as I understand it?

Today I feel not much different, Evolutionist only use the theory to attack religion, namely Christianity. I am trying to have a discussion about why evolutionist would rather use it as a weapon instead of a learning tool ?

I have to say that my experience has been completely opposite - the only times I've ever seen evolution used to "attack" religion are the result of efforts to keep science education or science-related public policy firmly rooted in the realm of science. The prime example of this from my lifetime is the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. This one is particularly near and dear to my heart because I'm a graduate of Dover and was a student of Bertha Spahr's. A school board with an agenda was trying to ramrod an inherently unscientific curriculum into a science classroom. I've never seen evolution used as an attack on religion. If you have examples of this occurring, please share them. I'd be interested to read about it.

And please, using the phrase "evolutionist" is ridiculous. It's like calling a proponent of the theory of gravity a "gravitationist". It's thinly veiled name calling and is beneath the conversation at hand.

I accept evolution, albeit I have never seen it actually happen in a petri-dish... I have seen evidence for diversity and adaption, I also believe evolution does not erase religion or creation theory. All people have a tendency to feel the creation theory it would seem because we are created/conceived by our parents, this is a very natural train of thought that about 99% of humans on this planet automatically know...

Why would evolution erase religion? They aren't at odds. There are many scientists that can fully reconcile their faith with evolution. Take Ken Miller as an example - he authored a book called Finding Darwin's God, which is about how faith and evolution are wholly compatible. As far as erasing "creation theory", it's tough to put them in the same arena. "Creation theory" isn't a testable scientific theory, it's a religious doctrine masquerading as one, most recently in the guise of "intelligent design theory". Further, "creation theory" is really about the origin of life, which evolution is (if you'll excuse a turn of the phrase) agnostic about. If you had to pit two competing hypotheses against each other regarding the origins of life, they would be "creation theory" vs abiogenesis. And, for the record, abiogenesis hasn't reached the scientific theory stage either.

I disagree with your assessment that "creation theory" is somehow hardwired into us because we're come from our parents. I would be willing to bet that if you raised children in a neutral environment with regard to the origins of life, they wouldn't come up with either "creation theory" or the theory of evolution without any prompting. The former is self-perpetuating via religion and the latter is based on scientific observation and testing.

even if they are strict nazi evolutionist.

Again, this is just baiting and has no place in a discussion like this.

I believe I have found evidence that strict evolutionist would rather turn the science of evolution into religion and then turn around and attack everyone else who has a religion because it does not conform to their religion of evolution.

Please present that evidence.

In essence, non-conformist Evolutionist can be considered a sign of ignorance...

Keep in mind that the United States is anomalous when compared to the rest of the world regarding people who believe in evolution being non-conformists. In fact, the only developed country that has a lower rate of people who subscribe to evolutionary theory is Turkey. Further, it would only take a increase in three or so percentage points to shift evolutionists from the minority to the majority.

because there are some who would rather use it for something other than an educational tool.

Again, please provide your proof of this.