The Theory of Evolution, Misunderstood.

[+Xausted]

I don't recall exactly, and I don't have the book with me, but I know at one point it was refuting the idea that embryos went through stages of evolution in the womb as they developed, such as a "lizard-like stage" and a "bird-like stage" and there was something else, but I honestly don't remember what it was... If I can find the book again later, maybe I'll quote something from it.

Oh! I remember that it was saying stuff about scientists who believe some organs are "useless left-overs" from evolution are wrong, because they used to think tonsils were useless left-overs and would remove healthy ones, even though they do have some sort of use. They made no mention of the appendix, however, whose only use is to possibly rupture and kill you...

Call me stupid, but dont the scientists actually have scan photos of embryos passing through these stages? If so how do the refute it? Silly people!
As far as the appendix goes, there is new evidence somewhere that it actually does have a purpose...I just cant remeber what it is or where I read it, sorry!

 

[whereismynotecard]

Call me stupid, but dont the scientists actually have scan photos of embryos passing through these stages? If so how do the refute it? Silly people!
As far as the appendix goes, there is new evidence somewhere that it actually does have a purpose...I just cant remeber what it is or where I read it, sorry!

Well, the point about the stages of the embryo is that how they wrote it made it seem like the scientists actually believed the embryo was a fish or lizard or whatever and then evolved into a human. One person doesn't evolve to another species; it is a slow process, and I don't think some people understand that.

The way I see it, if your organs can be taken out and you'll still be able to function normally and be healthy, they don't really have a purpose. If there are side affects of removing it, like you'd get sick more or something, then it does have a purpose, but if you live exactly the same without it as with it, I don't think it really has a purpose. Like hair, for example. You could live with or without it. If you lived in a sunny place, however, you would be more likely to get skin cancer on your head without it, and in a cold place, your head would get cold without it, so while you can live without it, it does have a purpose. (I know hair isn't an organ...)

 

[kingcores]

"But, but...that's the only way they can get their kids to believe such silliness. If they didn't spread false information about it and teach their kids a strawman version of the theory, then their kids would see the obvious and accept evolution, which, of course, could then lead to rejection of the parents' entire religion, and that would be a catastrophe."

I am a christian, and I subscribe to an old-earth view of things. When I saw this post, I felt that I needed to say something. When you say "accept evolution" do you mean accepting the idea that we have descended from single-celled organisms, without the work of a creator? That certainly could lead a youth to reject his parents entire religion. On the other hand, if you mean accepting that evolution, as defined in biology texbooks, can and does occur, then I don't see why that would cause anyone to reject their parents' religion.

I should also note that while young-earth creationists do sometimes present a straw-man version of the theory, there are also christian old-earth creationists. These people rarely present a straw man. There is an organization called Answers in Creation, not to be confused with Answers in Genesis. I would post a link, but I am not allowed to do that yet. Just google "Answers in Creation".

You referred, apparently with sarcasm, to the rejection of religion as a "catastrophe". Well, let me tell you that rejection of Christ as Savior is indeed a castrophe, with dreadful eternal consequences.

 

[cardero]

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a kid whose parents lied to you about evolution, sex, and maybe some other things? Maybe someday you would find out your parents were liars. I wonder if it would matter to you?

At the rightful age, I confronted my parents about those very things, they blamed God.

 

[whereismynotecard]

My mom was pretty truthful about everything like secks and all that. The only thing she knowingly lied about was Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. She did tell me stuff about god, but she didn't mean for it to be lies, because she believed it too. It wasn't as though she was just trying to scare me into being good. And she didn't tell me about evolution either. I learned that at school. I wonder if they taught evolution in schools at all when she went to school or if she just forgot learning it...

 

[michaelnicko]

something has to be created to evolve.

 

[whereismynotecard]

something has to be created to evolve.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

When you say "accept evolution" do you mean accepting the idea that we have descended from single-celled organisms, without the work of a creator?

That is another strawman. Evolutionary theory says nothing about "the work of a creator", negative or otherwise.

 

[kingcores]

"'When you say "accept evolution" do you mean accepting the idea that we have descended from single-celled organisms, without the work of a creator?' That is another strawman. Evolutionary theory says nothing about "the work of a creator", negative or otherwise."
__________________
I don't think you can quite call that a straw man. It's true that scientists present evolutionary theories without saying anything about the work of a creator, negative or otherwise. Nonetheless, the absence of a creator is an underlying assumption that most of them have, and it influences what they think and say. Also, there are some people who believe in some sort of evolutionary process with a divine influence, and I needed to distinguish the more widely accepted concept from that.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think you can quite call that a straw man. It's true that scientists present evolutionary theories without saying anything about the work of a creator, negative or otherwise. Nonetheless, the absence of a creator is an underlying assumption that most of them have, and it influences what they think and say. Also, there are some people who believe in some sort of evolutionary process with a divine influence, and I needed to distinguish the more widely accepted concept from that.

That is not necessarily true, and it is absolutely irrelevant. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about “God”. The theory of relativity says absolutely nothing about “God”. The theory of electromagnetism says absolutely nothing about “God”. Quantum theory says absolutely nothing about “God”. The heliocentric theory says absolutely nothing about “God”. Absolutely no scientific theory says anything about “God”. If you reject the theory of evolution because it says nothing about “God” then you must reject all of science, that is if you intend to be consistent.

 

[logician]

Although the theory of evolution says nothing about a god, it certainly needs no god to operate.

 

[fantome profane]

Although the theory of evolution says nothing about a god, it certainly needs no god to operate.

You’re not helping.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think you can quite call that a straw man. It's true that scientists present evolutionary theories without saying anything about the work of a creator, negative or otherwise. Nonetheless, the absence of a creator is an underlying assumption that most of them have, and it influences what they think and say. Also, there are some people who believe in some sort of evolutionary process with a divine influence, and I needed to distinguish the more widely accepted concept from that.

Chemists, physicists, geologists, MD's, meteorologists....no scientists in any field say anything one way or the other about "the work of a creator" in their professional work.

Yet for some strange reason, you only seem concerned about this absence in evolutionary biology.

Also, can you provide a means by which we could test for the presence or absence of a "creator"?

 

[logician]

You’re not helping.

Helping what, push some agenda you want to be pushed?

 

[fantome profane]

Helping what, push some agenda you want to be pushed?

I am hoping to promote scientific understanding and invite people to embrace science. That is my agenda. What is yours? And are you willing to discourage people from embracing science in order to promote your agenda?

What many people don’t realize is that when you convince people that science is incompatible with the idea of “God” (which it clearly is not) many people will reject science. This is why the creationist and I.D. movements are so strong and growing. That is what you are helping. You are not helping science. You are not helping people to understand and embrace science.

 

[logician]

I am hoping to promote scientific understanding and invite people to embrace science. That is my agenda. What is yours? And are you willing to discourage people from embracing science in order to promote your agenda?

What many people don’t realize is that when you convince people that science is incompatible with the idea of “God” (which it clearly is not) many people will reject science. This is why the creationist and I.D. movements are so strong and growing. That is what you are helping. You are not helping science. You are not helping people to understand and embrace science.

Do you actually think minds are getting changed on this board? I have my doubts.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you actually think minds are getting changed on this board? I have my doubts.

Doubt is all that I could hope to ask for.

 

[fantome profane]

Do you actually think minds are getting changed on this board?

Thinking more about this.

Many creationists reject evolution because they personally have not seen major changes before their eyes. But as you well know the theory of evolution predicts very slight gradual changes, the kind of changes that a casual observer might not even notice. But over time these very slight changes accumulate to produce the staggering diversity of life we have today. This is what I would like to invite you to think about, very slight changes.

Perhaps you have not personally observed “macro” changes in the minds on this board, perhaps you have not noticed a mind change from one “species” of mind to another “species” of mind. But minds do change. Every single mind, every single day. Minds cannot help but change. You may not notice it but it just like evolution, it is happening all around you.

 

[TACRN01]

I don't recall exactly, and I don't have the book with me, but I know at one point it was refuting the idea that embryos went through stages of evolution in the womb as they developed, such as a "lizard-like stage" and a "bird-like stage" and there was something else,

How old was the book?

"When Ernst Haeckle stated that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", he believed that the embryo of more "advanced" species actually passed through the stages of evolution of their ancestors. We now know that this isn't quite the case. Rather, related species share similar ontogenies (i.e. embryo development), and more complex (or just different) adults are the result of changes in ontogeny.

For example, all vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal gill arches. But--depending on the vertebrate species that has them--these arches will develop into different structures. Gill arches in a bony fish, jaw bones in a shark, and the bones of the inner ear in a mammal. The ancestral condition was to form gill arches, but mutations changed the developmental pathway of the same structure in different species derived from that ancestor." -Dana Krempels - 7/22/2009

-Maybe that though was held for a while when the book was being written.)(