Why do so many proponents of creation or ID believe evolution is a “dangerous” theory?

[emiliano]

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Could you please explain what you mean by animalistic practices? And as for animals not having a concept of morality I supposed that depends on your definition of morality, in social animals societies there are almost always rules and limits set by the group and when those rules are broken there is almost always some form of punishment. For example in wolf packs there are punishments for not eating in the correct order “the punishment normally comes as a quick snap on the neck”. Another example of animal morality is when an elephant herd comes across a dead elephant the will almost always take the time to “bury” the body with branches and rocks. There are also instances of dogs and horses with no training and without being told to, risking their own lives to save a person that was drowning. These actions seem to me at least, to show some level of morality in animals.

Could you please explain what you mean by animalistic practices?
Morality
1. accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are accepted as right or proper
2. how right or wrong something is: the rightness or wrongness of something as judged by accepted moral standards
3. moral lesson: a lesson in moral behaviour
Let use this to measure morality in brutes, “in social animals societies there are almost always rules and limits set by the group and when those rules are broken there is almost always some form of punishment” These behaviours are related to dominance by brute force that very few human would consider Moral, most of this is driven by the right to propagated and ensure continuation of a particular genes pool (the strongest), this is not accepted moral standards in humans, is it? Should we copy cat this behaviour? As for as I can tell this isn’t resolve by the establishment of rules, but a fight to determinate who the alpha male is, animal behaviour are ruled by instinct, instinct to perpetuate a particular genes pool. Animal do not communicate by language so this “in social animals societies there are almost always rules and limits set by the group” Is a bit of a stretch. Most of the human behaviour that human justify by a comparison to animal are unnatural sexual practices eg. Homosexuality, oral sex, sodomy of females, bestiality, these behaviour are observe in animal (dogs are the best examples) the irrational part of it is that this behaviour are due to a battle for dominance and they don’t have the purpose that some give to them (pleasure and show of some kind of love)

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am referring to creationist and ID proponents in general (honestly its pretty much the same thing I don’t know why I state them separately) and their assertion that evolution is a dangerous theory, and that somehow this assertion makes evolution any less a valid theory. Atomic theory – now that is dangerous and has actually killed scores of people but that does not make it any less valid, so why is “evolution is dangerous” supposed to be a compelling argument about why evolution is untrue? Moreover where do creationists get the idea that evolution is a dangerous theory from?:conf used:

When I read Genesis, I see room for evolution. If Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, then why was Cain afraid of encountering other people when he was banished from his current area? Personally, I find people who promote Creationism only to be the same people who attack other people for their sins while not admitting their own. Selective reading is the problem with these people.

[Laughing Man]

I just personally don’t understand why it seems that these creationists feel they must try to disprove evolution at all cost. I don’t care if your personal belief is creation or ID but the fact that they want this taught in a science class is what is disturbing. From everything I have seen the “science” of creation or ID relies on trying to disprove evolution without offering evidence that supports their ideas.

It is not enough to say “we simply don’t understand everything about evolution and don’t have all the answers yet with that theory so my theory must be just as valid”. Science requires you back up your own theory with evidence. Just because we don’t know everything about chemistry does that automatically mean we must give alchemy equal time in the class room, or even touch upon it? The same for astronomy and astrology, and embryology and the stork & cabbage patch story.

Faith does not need science to back it up since it is just faith. But faith should not be taught in a science classroom, why is it a mission of so many creationist to present their beliefs as science?

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by emiliano

Animal do not communicate by language so this “in social animals societies there are almost always rules and limits set by the group” Is a bit of a stretch.

I disagree.
And I present the definition of the word language as the reason why:

lan·guage (lnggwj)n.

1.

a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.

2.

a. A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra.
b. Computer Science A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.

3. Body language; kinesics.
4. The special vocabulary and usages of a scientific, professional, or other group: "his total mastery of screen languagecamera placement, editingand his handling of actors" Jack Kroll.
5. A characteristic style of speech or writing: Shakespearean language.
6. A particular manner of expression: profane language; persuasive language.
7. The manner or means of communication between living creatures other than humans: the language of dolphins.
8. Verbal communication as a subject of study.
9. The wording of a legal document or statute as distinct from the spirit.

[Middle English, from Old French langage, from langue, tongue, language, from Latin lingua; see dgh- in Indo-European roots.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[emiliano]

Science requires you back up your own theory with evidence. Just because we don’t know everything about chemistry does that automatically mean we must give alchemy equal time in the class room, or even touch upon it? The same for astronomy and astrology, and embryology and the stork & cabbage patch story.

I think you’re on to something here, the problem appears to be that many people think that science demand atheism, that science is the enemy of creationism, but science only tell us how creation (what we see all around us) may have come to pass, and this does not injure the ID doctrine, on the contrary, it supports the idea of a wise, all powerful, loving creator, there are many scientist that are theist , theirs belief does not stop their search for scientific answers, science will never prove that what we see, our environment is the result of a mindless, random or fortuit event, that there is a design and a will in all that we can see it in our environment.

Faith does not need science to back it up since it is just faith. But faith should not be taught in a science classroom, why is it a mission of so many creationist to present their beliefs as science?

This is your very personal opinion, but this is what ID addresses, the atheist’s demand for evidences, are you proposing that creationism is banned from the class rooms? What would be your argument for such ban?

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by emiliano

science only tell us how creation (what we see all around us) may have come to pass, and this does not injure the ID doctrine

I.D. as a doctrine or as a philosophy is perfectly reasonable. It is when I.D. tries to pretend that it is a science that I have a problem. I.D. adds absolutely nothing to our scientific understanding, it explains nothing in a scientific manor. It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it is not science. In fact it is the exact opposite of science. It seeks to draw conclusions based on lack of understanding, lack of evidence, lack of explanations. Teach I.D. in a philosophy class, mythology class, religion class, whatever. But bring it into a science class and you will do irreparable harm to scientific education. There will no longer be a science class, it will have become a pseudo-science class.

[emiliano]

I.D. as a doctrine or as a philosophy is perfectly reasonable. It is when I.D. tries to pretend that it is a science that I have a problem.

I don’t believe that the ID doctrine is a scientific treatise, what it says to me is that science is not an enemy of Theology, it actually help it, the more that science discovers the more that the truth of creationism is established, it is actually a good evangelizing tool.

I.D. adds absolutely nothing to our scientific understanding, it explains nothing in a scientific manor.

Correct, but it does a good service to theology, when we see the complexity of the environment in which we live and the wonderful way our body works, we can but stand in awe of God, to fall on our knees and prise and worship God.
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, which is your reasonable service.

It is not testable, it is not falsifiable, it is not science.

What evidence do we have of the big bang that supposedly started the whole thing?
In fact it is the exact opposite of science. It seeks to draw conclusions based on lack of understanding, lack of evidence, lack of explanations. Teach I.D. in a philosophy class, mythology class, religion class, whatever. But bring it into a science class and you will do irreparable harm to scientific education. There will no longer be a science class, it will have become a pseudo-science class.

I didn’t get the impression that laughing man was referring to science classes, if that the case I see no problem, I agree that ID fall in a separate discipline.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am referring to creationist and ID proponents in general (honestly its pretty much the same thing I don’t know why I state them separately) and their assertion that evolution is a dangerous theory, and that somehow this assertion makes evolution any less a valid theory. Atomic theory – now that is dangerous and has actually killed scores of people but that does not make it any less valid, so why is “evolution is dangerous” supposed to be a compelling argument about why evolution is untrue? Moreover where do creationists get the idea that evolution is a dangerous theory from?:conf used:

Eolution is dangerous to YEC. I know several people who first began to question religion becuase evolution disproved YEC, and ultimately lost their faith.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Mestemia

Really?
What 'bad' things has the Theory of Evolution 'justified?'

Eugenics, which informed the Holocaust.

Not that that's ToE's fault, of course, but it should be remembered.