Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get your point that it is okay to accept evolution and accept that there could be a God behind evolution. And that trap has snared a lot of Christians, but not me. Not a man of faith.

I didn't say anything about it being "okay"; that's up to you to figure out. All I'm saying is that the theory of evolution doesn't make the implicit claim that no gods exist.

It does make claims about the process by which life came to be, and it's entirely possible for a religion to come up with competing claims. But this is different from saying that the theory of evolution is "godless". It's compatible with all sorts of religious beliefs; just not yours, apparently.

The ToE as it stands is irreconcilable with the Bible. So what Christians have to do is compromise on the Bible in order to accept evolution, which I am not willing to do.

I'd agree that it's irreconcilable with a literal interpretation of Genesis, and whether a literal interpretation of Genesis is actually required of Christians is a question that I'm not going to answer myself, but I do notice that many Christians do reject what you're implying.

And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bible’s account of creation. We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bible’s account of creation. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there.

Two points:

- if you think that an immediate precursor species to humanity is necessary to demonstrate that evolution is true, then you don't understand evolution... or speciation.

- even setting that aside, I hope you're not suggesting that failure to support evolution would be support for Biblical creation in and of itself. Biblical creationism is its own set of hypotheses that need to be defended on their own merits. They don't work as some default answer that we can assume is correct if we can't find anything else.

 

[Draka]

Not to mention the question of why should the biblical creation myth be the default creation myth? That is, there are numerous creation myths from varying religions all over the world and throughout time. If one harbors doubt about evolution, why should the biblical creation myth be the thing that is jumped to first? Why not any other? What supposed evidence is there that actually would validate one myth over any other?

 

[Matthew78]

Nah, I tried my best to believe in evolution in my early twenties so I could justify my sinful lifestyle. The facts led me to believe in Creation and deeper faith in Christ.

I'm curious; what "facts" led you to believe in creation and a deeper faith in Christ?

 

[outhouse]

I tried my best to believe in evolution in my early twenties so I could justify my sinful lifestyle

makes no sense at all.

i dont see a ounce of logic or reason in it

 

[Matthew78]

makes no sense at all.

i dont see a ounce of logic or reason in it

I suspect it's another variation of "since-there's-no-god, I-can-do-anything-I-want-including-lying-cheating-murdering-stealing". The idea is that if evolution or some supposedly antitheistic idea, belief, hypothesis, or what-not is true, then the consequence is moral nihilism. "Without God, everything is permissible" is the thinking of some of these people.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Nah, I tried my best to believe in evolution in my early twenties so I could justify my sinful lifestyle. The facts led me to believe in Creation and deeper faith in Christ.

This is exactly the reason why they should be ignored.

 

[johnhanks]

We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from...

As another poster has indicated, there is a strong suggestion here that your conception of how new species arise is flawed. Evolution is not a linear progression from one species to the next but a constant branching process, with some branches going on to flourish and others coming to an end. There was not, therefore, a single "ape like creature" prior to humans: there were scores of such populations, to one of which (at any given time) we might trace our lineage. Australopithecus sediba is a particularly significant recent find:

Lee Berger, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the team, said the skeletons possessed an extraordinary mix of primitive, ape-like features alongside traits that define modern humans today.
"What is remarkable about Australopithecus sediba is that, as a field, it is a discovery we never thought would be made: a bona fide transitional species," Berger told the Guardian.

 

[gnostic]

If creationists want their creation myth to be taught in science classroom, then definitely don't ignore them. But that problem is actually in the US than elsewhere.

 

[Matthew78]

I get your point that it is okay to accept evolution and accept that there could be a God behind evolution. And that trap has snared a lot of Christians, but not me. Not a man of faith. The ToE as it stands is irreconcilable with the Bible. So what Christians have to do is compromise on the Bible in order to accept evolution, which I am not willing to do.

To your credit, I'm glad that you realize something that escapes the notice of an actual scientist like Kenneth Miller. He is a cell biologist, an evolutionist, and a Catholic. I read his book Finding Darwin's God and while I admire his scientific expertise in cell biology and how he uses it to debunk "irreducible complexity", I regret that he seriously thinks that Christianity can successfully accomodate evolution. I don't think the poor man knows squat about biblical Hebrew and his statements have led me to question his knowledge of biblical scholarship.

And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bible’s account of creation.

Please tell me you're not a fan of Henry Morris, Duane Gish, or the loathsome Jonathan Sarfati. Otherwise, I'm curious as to what "scientific evidence" you think supports biblical creationism.

We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bible’s account of creation. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there.

What "ape like creature" do you believe evolution retrodicts that would link humans to other life? What about the fossils that anthropologists and evolutionary biologists do believe illustrates human evolution?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If creationists want their creation myth to be taught in science classroom, then definitely don't ignore them. But that problem is actually in the US than elsewhere.

That is because in the US, creationists are getting way too much attention and even hostile attention is better than no attention at all in their view. Elsewhere in the world they are generally ignored.

 

[outhouse]

I regret that he seriously thinks that Christianity can successfully accomodate evolution.

I find this statement wrong on a few levels

he is offering a positive view in which everyone is a winner.



Many christians worldwide accept their religion and evolution.



Heres what happens when religion doesnt evolve, it goes stagnent anbd fails, and thats what will happen if you pit science against theology.



The key factor is to let the two merge together or you will build a wall that wil be the beginning of the end of christianity. It cannot compete or survive against science and reality

 

[Oneatatime]

When it comes down to serious scientific debate and some detractors from a certain theory still persist in their steadfast views in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, would be it be best to just ignore them, brush them off and move on to more serious scientific debate such as competing models of evolution theories and hypothesises rather than arguing adnauseum about all this discredited nonsense about young earth creationism. Should these young earth creationists and all creationists be just simply lumped in the same category as flat earth believers and be just simply booed off the scientific stage and just say, next! If they a contributing nothing scientifically IMO I think the best course of action is to just ignore them, period. Evolutionary biology is in itself an evolving discipline and those pesky creationists are contributing nothing.

Depends on who they are trying to preach too. If they are directing their efforts at scientists then they can be safetly ignored but once they start focusing on the public and politics then they need to be opposed because it's easy to get political and public support for stupid ideas through the use of rhetoric and logical fallacies which most aren't equiped to deal with.

 

[Man of Faith]

What "ape like creature" do you believe evolution retrodicts that would link humans to other life?

You mean you don't know? Your theory doesn't tell you? That's real empirical science right there. :areyoucra

 

[Photonic]

You mean you don't know? Your theory doesn't tell you? That's real empirical science right there. :areyoucra

He's not asking evolution, he's asking you, oh one who is educated in evolution.

Why not answer him?

 

[camanintx]

And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bible’s account of creation. We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bible’s account of creation. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there.

Those who have actually studied the evidence believe otherwise.

 

[Matthew78]

You mean you don't know? Your theory doesn't tell you? That's real empirical science right there. :areyoucra

Who says I don't know? What I know or don't know is irrelevant in this case. I am asking you what you think evolution retrodicts. What "ape-like"creatures do you think evolutionary biologists believe to have existed?

In other words, I'm trying to understand what you find so unbelievable about evolution.

If you reply, can you reply without the arrogant sarcasm?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bible’s account of creation. We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bible’s account of creation. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there.

ho hum

 

[Father Heathen]

I get your point that it is okay to accept evolution and accept that there could be a God behind evolution. And that trap has snared a lot of Christians, but not me. Not a man of faith. The ToE as it stands is irreconcilable with the Bible. So what Christians have to do is compromise on the Bible in order to accept evolution, which I am not willing to do.

And I believe that the scientific evidence supports the Bible’s account of creation. We don’t have the ape like creature to look at that man supposedly came from and that supports the Bible’s account of creation. If it ain’t there, it ain’t there.

Not all theists are christian, not all christians are biblical literalists, and god isn't bound to what ancient goat herders wrote regardless.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If we deliberately set out to attack creationists, declare war on them then that would be counterproductive for the cause of evolution. It would only make them look more like a victim than a foe as people would run to them out of sympathy and side with them. It would be best to the simple ignore them just as we do not confirm certain "friends" on Facebook or unfriend them if they are a jolly nuisance rather than post insults on their wall or make status updates that show our displeasure to them.

 

[Man of Faith]

What "ape-like"creatures do you think evolutionary biologists believe to have existed?

I think I see what you are doing. Let me get this straight, the ToE is the teacher and I'm the student. The ToE says that mankind evolved from an ape like creature. The student asks "what ape like creature, show it to me". And the teacher says you show me.

I don't believe that man came from an ape like creature. I'm trying to see the empirical evidence for the so called ape like creature that the ToE says that man came from. Why are you asking me to show it when I don’t believe it exists, evolutionists do, so they should present it as evidence of their claim.