Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?

[stu]

Religion obviously inculcates contentment in not wanting to understand the world.

Quote from Eight:

Science is a lot of people's religion. They believe it with all their hearts... The books say that the Geological Column is calibrated by the Strata, and then somewhere else in the book they say the strate is calibrated by the Geological Column... since the word "calibrate" means "compare to a known standard" they are lying.. nothing in that system is calibrated. So they have a belief system, not science. Further, they throw out any scientific readings on age that don't fit their belief system. 75% of readings are discarded because they don't fit their belief system... then they keep telling us all that we better believe their belief system because it's science...

A modern student can take an argument that merits a failing grade in Philosophy101, that of circular reasoning as demonstrated above, and march it down the hall to Anthropology101 and get an "A" with it...

 

[Debaser82]

I'm a creationist as well.

I believe once Dinosaurs and people walked this earth together.

And I have proof.

Look, there's Sammy Davis Jr swimming with one.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Teleologist:

Are Evolutionists Delusional (or just in denial)?
Posted by Cornelius Hunter Monday, July 27, 2009

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.

I don't like to think that people are liars. Perhaps evolutionists are merely delusional or in denial. I know they are smart people so this isn't just a case of acting stupidly. Whatever the case, it is a fact that evolutionists engage in substantial misrepresentation of the facts. Here's how Coyne attempts to explain why his religion isn't really religion after all:

the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved. No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”

Should we laugh or cry? According to Coyne the design "makes no sense under the idea of special creation" and this "is not a theological argument, but a scientific one." Coyne's misrepresentations and sophistry are, frankly, astonishing. Let's have a look in more detail. First, here is what Coyne writes about this design in his new book, Why Evolution is true:


One of nature's worst designs is shown by the recurrent laryngeal nerve of mammals. Running from the brain to the larynx, this nerve helps us speak and swallow. The curisou thing is that it is much longer than it needs to be. ... In giraffes the nerve takes a similar path, but one that runs all the way down that long neck and back up again: a distance fifteen feet longer than the direct route! ... This circuitous path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not only poor design, but might even be maladaptive. That extra length makes it more prone to injury. It can, for example, be damaged by a blow to the chest, making it hard to talk or swallow. But the pathway makes sense when we understand how the recurrent laryngeal nerve evolved. ... But the particular bad designs that we see make sense only if they evolved from features of earlier ancestors. If a designer did have discernable motives when creating species, one of them must surely have been to fool biologists by making organisms look as though they evolved. [82-5]

This, of course, is a classic example of the theological naturalism which is the heart of evolutionary thought. Design X must have arisen naturalistically because it would not have been designed. Such assumptions about design, and what counts as acceptable and unacceptable design, are metaphysical--they are above science. They do not derive from science, but rather drive the science, as we can see so vividly here in Coyne's example.

Coyne also employs the classic evolutionary argument that it would be deceptive for God to have created the design, because this would mean he created organisms to look as though they evolved.

But nature's organisms do not look as though they evolved. Except, that is, if one assumes that God would never have designed the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Again, we're back to assumptions about design. Evolutionists are so deep in their own metaphysics they don't even realize it.

Evolution has no scientific explanation for how the recurrent laryngeal nerve, or any other nerve for that matter, evolved. It is a vacuous theory. But it knows they must have evolved because God would not have done it that way.

In fact, evolution has no solid basis for even thinking these designs are necessarily poor. This is more religion making its way into the argument, as the assumption of poor design is itself a motif of evolutionary thought. When in doubt, evolutionists assume lack of function or poor design. It is not a scientific finding so much as a consequence of the belief that evolution is true.

In fact, evolution's track record is terrible. Its many "findings" of lack of function or poor design are typically found to be false when more understanding is gained. In the case of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, it and associated nerves are complex and we by no means are in a position to declare the state of the design's goodness at this time.

Finally, Coyne makes a standard evolutionary appeal to a famous paper by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky. Dobzhansky was one of the twentieth century's leading evolutionists and he wrote a paper entitled "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

The title itself reveals the metaphysical message and, not surprisingly, the paper was a tirade against divine creation. It is now a classic example of theological naturalism in action. The paper's title has become one of the most memorable and quoted phrases for evolutionists--another constant reminder of the theology embedded in their thinking.

Coyne makes the usual appeal to this iconic paper, but as if sensing a problem Coyne carefully edits the title. He writes that such imperfect designs "as Dobzhansky said, 'make sense in the light of evolution.' "

It may sound similar, but Coyne's redaction is a not too subtle attempt to hide the metaphysics. Dobzhansky's message was that imperfections make no sense except in evolution. That is, imperfections make no sense in divine creation.

Coyne inverts the message to say that imperfect designs make sense in evolution. Of course, but so what? So do perfect designs, and everything in between. All these make sense in evolution just as my bad day yesterday makes sense in astrology and warp drive makes sense in science fiction movies. When you can make up whatever just-so stories come to mind, then everything "makes sense."

The bottom line is that it is precisely from theology and metaphysics that evolution derives its power. Evolution is proclaimed to be a fact by Dobzhansky, Coyne and the evolutionists not on the basis of speculative science. As Elliott Sober has pointed out, evolution's truth status comes from the assumed unlikeliness of design, and all the theology entailed therein. It is, as Sober put it, Darwin's Principle.

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.

Whether evolutionists are liars, delusional or in denial is difficult to say. What is obvious is that evolutionary thought is bankrupt. Religion drives science, and it matters.

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
The Clergy Letter - from American Christian clergy
– An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.


Christian Clergy Letter
(11,942 signatures as of 7/31/09)

 

[trendlover]

Quote from Debaser82:

I'm a creationist as well.

I believe once Dinosaurs and people walked this earth together.

And I have proof.

Look, there's Sammy Davis Jr swimming with one.

Aaaahahahaha, that is so funny! I am still laughing!

 

[peilthetraveler]

Quote from saxon:

Science is fact-based.

Nice try.

Really? All Science is fact-based? Lets look at the big bang theory then. It goes something like this.

There was nothing..then a singularity appeared and exploded and put everything in the known universe and everything evolved from there.


The problem with this is that Zero+ Zero = Zero. It does not equal 1. A singularity can not just appear out of nothing. Something would have had to put it there.

So how do you explain this fact? I thought you said science is all fact? Looks like you dont have any idea what you are talking about.

I'm 100% sure nobody will answer this question, but instead start coming up with their own theories now of how the universe started which they cant do because the big bang is the accepted scientific theory (I'm sorry...I mean scientific fact because ALL science is fact based, right) If you start trying to explain the way the universe started now and its different than what the scientists believe, then you are starting a new theory which means you are not basing it on current scientific "fact"


Now do you see that science is not all facts, but a bunch of beliefs. They trick you by finding facts on certain instances and then telling you that the fact that they did find is related to the theory that they cant prove and you evolutionists eat it up.

 

[stu]

Your question was answered back in 1948.
So your 100% certainty is obviously 100% misplaced.

Virtual Particles spontaneously jump into and out of existence in a vaccuum, from nothing, as observed by the Casimir Effect.
The problem with Zero+ Zero = Zero is, there is no Zero. But you clearly hadn't thought of that.

Classic demonstration of how Creationists are content to understand zero but are if necessary content to remain 100% ignorant and wrong against any science or facts.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from stu:

Your question was answered back in 1948.
So your 100% certainty is obviously 100% misplaced.

Virtual Particles spontaneously jump into and out of existence in a vaccuum, from nothing, as observed by the Casimir Effect.
The problem with Zero+ Zero = Zero is, there is no Zero. But you clearly hadn't thought of that.

Classic demonstration of how Creationists are content to understand zero but are if necessary content to remain 100% ignorant and wrong against any science or facts.

I think the only reason its classified as nothing is because the source hasn't been discovered yet. Even if the math is telling you so its counterintuitive to describe something as originating from nothing. If you're going to abandon cause and effect you're coming full circle into the realm of miracles. I'm just advocating that any ultimate answer for all our questions will always be one step ahead of our pursuit of it and that bedrock a mystery.

 

[jem]

I am glad someone pointed out that clergy letter.

Why is anyone worried about what religion has to say on this subject.

Some Christians believe God created the universe 6000 years ago - but it does not say that in the bible so we wonder why they believe a monk from the middle ages should be the source for the age of the earth.

Most who believe in Christ do do not see evolution as inconsistent with their beliefs.

However Before we get worried about time and dating.

I wonder who the hell has ever proved time is a constant.

All this is complete bullshit until you can prove time is not a constant.

If time is a constant - there is no fricken way life evolved as fast as some evolutionists claim. (which is why they no longer claim evolution comes about through random chance. If it were random it there was not enough time. )

I was just at the wild animal park the other day.

She talked about all the adaptations Giraffes have made.

I asked how many years did they have to make all those changes? No way. Either time was different or giraffes made big changes every generation.

 

[stu]

Quote from omegapoint:

I think the only reason its classified as nothing is because the source hasn't been discovered yet. Even if the math is telling you so its counterintuitive to describe something as originating from nothing. If you're going to abandon cause and effect you're coming full circle into the realm of miracles. I'm just advocating that any ultimate answer for all our questions will always be one step ahead of our pursuit of it and that bedrock a mystery.

I don't think you can negate the curiosity in humanity, nor dismiss the ability to discover ultimate answers by assuming they cannot be found.

I do think you've misunderstood what I said. Virtual particles come from nothing. They don't need a source. No miracles required.

Talking of bedrocks, virtual particles or quantum fluctuation is a bedrock on which quantum mechanics stands. Were the science incorrect on this, the whole of quantum mechanics would not scientifically exist. There would be no known physical reality at the atomic level. We wouldn't be communicating this way.

I suggest there is nothing counterintuitive here. Creationists are always imagining God came from nothing or was always there.
Either way because of virtual particles, it seems God will turn out not to be the all knowing all seeing fantasyfigure, but rather a quantum fluctuation - a particle fart at singularity.

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from stu:

I don't think you can negate the curiosity in humanity, nor dismiss the ability to discover ultimate answers by assuming they cannot be found.

I do think you've misunderstood what I said. Virtual particles come from nothing. They don't need a source. No miracles required.

Talking of bedrocks, virtual particles or quantum fluctuation is a bedrock on which quantum mechanics stands. Were the science incorrect on this, the whole of quantum mechanics would not scientifically exist. There would be no known physical reality at the atomic level. We wouldn't be communicating this way.

I suggest there is nothing counterintuitive here. Creationists are always imagining God came from nothing or was always there.
Either way because of virtual particles, it seems God will turn out not to be the all knowing all seeing fantasyfigure, but rather a quantum fluctuation - a particle fart at singularity.

"Negate the curiosity in mankind" is a quantum leap from what I
suggested in my orginal statement. I seem to be more in awe of the Universe/Life/Existence than you since to my way of intuiting, and I might add some of the greatest scientists in history, the question of how or why can always follow any discovery that
science breaks through on. Inquiry never stops. My curiosity is
intact. Even the vaunted quantum mechanics is handmaiden of Truth and simply incomplete when it arrives at a conclusion that
something comes from nothing. Wait a couple thousand years, by then the puzzle will be closer to complete when more of its pieces are added. If you can feel content with saying the virtual particle comes from nothing then the creationist saying that God comes from nothing is no less rigorous in his beliefs. All this brings into question, are our ideas about cause and effect being a necessary ingredient in our way of making sense of the world valid? Maybe not but they're surely intuitive. Is what we believe to be bedrock real or virtual?

Please don't tell me I misunderstood what you said then repeat the same thing, that does nothing to advance the discourse.