Poll: Do you support evolution?

[discrider]

Omniscience plus omnipotence precludes choice. God created everything, and knows how each and every action will lead. God knows what will cause every person to choose right or wrong, all the circumstances and conditions that lead to that choice. Every little niggling issue in a person's life, every glint of sun light in their eye, every movement of an animal that causes the car crash that made them late for work, every gene in their body which determines who they are, who they will be, what advantages and disadvantages they will have in life. Some people are born tall, into prosperity, where making the "moral" choice is easy.

Actually, only omniscience precludes choice. If you can predict the future perfectly then other people cannot act to change it, because you've already predicted how they will react to any information you feed them (and have already predicted and cannot necessarily change what information you feed them.

But this can be resolved if omniscience grants not perfect predictions of the future, but a complete set of all perfect predictions for all futures based on how each person within the prediction chooses to act. It makes prophecy trickier, but not necessarily impossible so long as whatever plan you put in place or whatever direction you want to make history take can be made possible and adapted to every single choice of every single individual.

Then you have those borns in horrible conditions. Growth stunted because of starvation, being fed lies daily, made to think horrible things are good. Take Shin Dong-hyuk, writer of Escape From Camp 14, who was kept in the North Korean Interment camp, camp 14. The guy was born into prison. Interment is a North Korea practice where enemies of the state, plus three generations of their families, are sent to concentration camps for life. There are people living in their camps for a single grandparent supporting the South during the Korean war. To say the conditions in the camp are horrid does not even begin to cover things.

Back on topic, Shin was taught that the Kims are gods, that their imprisonment was just, and he should put the state above everything else. When Shin was 14, he turned his mother in for just talking about escaping. Shin felt it was just at the time, having been told that escaping was morally wrong and he had seen the consequences of the family members who didn't tell on attempted escapees. Shin didn't escape from the camp not because of the daily torture, the eight months he was in solitary confinement (imagine not being able to stand, and only getting to move your knees when you get your daily torture), but because Shin wanted food. Only after leaving North Korea and it's insane double think did he find some sane morals to follow.

This is unfortunate to say the least, but it is necessary to allow the people who are in charge to face the consequences of their actions. People have to be accountable for what they do under their own power. Which is why Shin can't and shouldn't be held accountable for turning in his own parents.

 

[Eddie the head]

I imagine when people say omnipotent they generally mean things that are logically possible. A logically impossible statement is the equivalent of gibberish.

That's fine.

The common example is if you have omnipotence can you make a rock so heavy that you can't lift it? I mean you have the power to do anything right? I can do this down at my local query why can't an Omnipotent being do this? And if he can't do that he is not Omnipotent.

An omnipotent being could make a rock so heavy it couldn't lift it, and then lift it anyway. That's what omnipotence means.

That's not. If you want to look at it as a different kind of omnipotence fine. Or as a specific kind ok. But this expatiation is just self contradictory. I mean he clearly can't make a rock he can't lift, therefor not omnipotent. Or at least no that kind.

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

Why is this a constant issue in America (so it seems to me)? Most religious people in Western Europe wouldn't deny evolution and still have no problem with being religious.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Omniscience plus omnipotence precludes choice. God created everything, and knows how each and every action will lead. God knows what will cause every person to choose right or wrong, all the circumstances and conditions that lead to that choice. Every little niggling issue in a person's life, every glint of sun light in their eye, every movement of an animal that causes the car crash that made them late for work, every gene in their body which determines who they are, who they will be, what advantages and disadvantages they will have in life. Some people are born tall, into prosperity, where making the "moral" choice is easy.

Actually, only omniscience precludes choice. If you can predict the future perfectly then other people cannot act to change it, because you've already predicted how they will react to any information you feed them (and have already predicted and cannot necessarily change what information you feed them.

But this can be resolved if omniscience grants not perfect predictions of the future, but a complete set of all perfect predictions for all futures based on how each person within the prediction chooses to act. It makes prophecy trickier, but not necessarily impossible so long as whatever plan you put in place or whatever direction you want to make history take can be made possible and adapted to every single choice of every single individual.

But, since you would know everything, you would know which of those predictions would come TRUE. You would also know all other possible consequences, but which ones would be picked. Unless the universe works on principles of "divides into multiple universes for all possible scenarios," (which has all kinds of theological problems, since everyone would both go to Hell and Heaven) your version of omniscience is not "knowing everything."

Then you have those borns in horrible conditions. Growth stunted because of starvation, being fed lies daily, made to think horrible things are good. Take Shin Dong-hyuk, writer of Escape From Camp 14, who was kept in the North Korean Interment camp, camp 14. The guy was born into prison. Interment is a North Korea practice where enemies of the state, plus three generations of their families, are sent to concentration camps for life. There are people living in their camps for a single grandparent supporting the South during the Korean war. To say the conditions in the camp are horrid does not even begin to cover things.

Back on topic, Shin was taught that the Kims are gods, that their imprisonment was just, and he should put the state above everything else. When Shin was 14, he turned his mother in for just talking about escaping. Shin felt it was just at the time, having been told that escaping was morally wrong and he had seen the consequences of the family members who didn't tell on attempted escapees. Shin didn't escape from the camp not because of the daily torture, the eight months he was in solitary confinement (imagine not being able to stand, and only getting to move your knees when you get your daily torture), but because Shin wanted food. Only after leaving North Korea and it's insane double think did he find some sane morals to follow.

This is unfortunate to say the least, but it is necessary to allow the people who are in charge to face the consequences of their actions. People have to be accountable for what they do under their own power. Which is why Shin can't and shouldn't be held accountable for turning in his own parents.

Still does not answer the question. Why are only some people forced to face these consequences? What about all the other people in camp 14 that never escaped?

Why did Shin suffer so he could learn to be better, while I have lived a good life and just learned to be good from the beginning?

 

[Sir Christopher McFarlane]

When people phrase it "supporting evolution" it seems you are advocating giving a hand to evolution by killing undesirables before they reproduce. I know it doesn't mean that, but I still think it whenever the phrase is used.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I'll just put this out here- I have never actually seen evidence for evolution. People say it's there, but I've never seen a credible source prove it. I've only heard people say that there is most definitely some evidence somewhere.
Personally, I don't really care either way. I'm an agnostic but as I said I've seen nothing to show me evolution is real. Also, I couldn't give a shit. What we were like in the past doesn't matter to me- it's the future I care about, because it's the future I can change and experience myself. I'll leave with a quote.
'Those who look to the past or present are certain to miss the future' JFK.

 

[Weaver]

I'm kind of curious how this has managed to live in off topic for 10 days without being moved to religion and politics.
For the record, I'm a staunch believer in evolution.

 

[BrassButtons]

I'll just put this out here- I have never actually seen evidence for evolution. People say it's there, but I've never seen a credible source prove it. I've only heard people say that there is most definitely some evidence somewhere.

Here's a good place to start:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

Also, I couldn't give a shit. What we were like in the past doesn't matter to me- it's the future I care about, because it's the future I can change and experience myself. I'll leave with a quote.
'Those who look to the past or present are certain to miss the future' JFK.

Evolution is an ongoing process, which means it's not just about the past or present, but the future as well. And it is pretty dang important for out future, although unless you're in a relevant field (say, medicine) you don't really need to have an understanding of it. Kinda like chemistry--definitely important, but it's ok if some of us are ignorant of it. Can't know everything after all.

 

[Retsam19]

EDIT: Sorry for the massive post. Tendency to go long is another reason I generally avoid these. It's basically two sections, the first section basically gives my position, the second section is why I think the argument over evolution is generally harmful and why OP is a terrible person for starting it. (Okay, only one of these things)

---------------

I really don't intend to get drawn into a major discussion here; I've had enough of these arguments in the past, and I prefer to have these conversations in smaller settings where there's sometimes some meaningful dialog rather than the shouting matches that sometimes occur in forums. (Haven't read the last 17 pages to see if that's the case here)

As a Christian, I'm not inherently opposed to the scientific theory of Evolution, the idea that humankind may have come to exist through a series of genetic mutations selected by the process of natural selection, etc.

The key word in that sentence, though, is "scientific". I do take issue with the naturalistic materialist philosophy that is often bundled part-and-parcel with the theory of Evolution: that a direct consequence of the theory of evolution is that God had nothing to do with it. "Evolution vs. Creation" is a false dichotomy, as many Christians believe in "Creation through Evolution", that evolution happened, but that the process was designed, started, and directed by the hand of God.

The best analogy for this that I've heard is the "pie" model vs. the "cake" model, that many people view the world as a pie, and they're trying to divide it up: "oh, this piece has a natural explanation", "oh, this piece has a supernatural explanation". (Or, more often, they're trying to have the whole pie) But a better model is that of a cake, where natural and supernatural are layered on top of each other. Understanding the natural aspects of this world doesn't need conflict with the supernatural aspects, and only taken together do you get the whole picture.

(If your rebuttal to any or all this is "But determinism!" then, one, props to you for knowing your philosophy, but secondly, it's exactly that. Philosophy. Not science. If you can scientifically prove determinism, you should be sharing this with the Nobel Prize committee, not the Escapist forums. And, for that matter, even determinism isn't incompatible with the idea of God, just ask a Calvinist.)

------------------------

But really, the whole question of Evolution is just too drawn out for both sides. It really isn't that important. The core of Christian belief doesn't rest in the first two chapters of Genesis; it's in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe evolution happened, maybe it didn't. The net impact of that question on my faith in God? Not much. The official Catholic position on evolution, I understand is something like "It probably happened. Maybe" and they haven't imploded yet.

And from the side of science, it's unhealthy too. Trying to make the question of evolution into an argument against religion isn't exactly healthy for science either. For one, it's made the scientific community extremely defensive of evolution in a way that they shouldn't be. It gets put on a pedestal of "you can't question this, because you'll be giving ground to THE ENEMY", which is a position that no scientific theory should be in.

I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics. Imagine the outcry the scientific community would have made if the religious community decided that we didn't believe in Newtonian Physics a hundred or so years ago. It would have been insane. And then, this guy Einstein would have shown up questioning the whole thing, he'd have had his funding revoked faster than you can say "Schrödinger's cat". (Which, for me is a relatively long time, but you get the point)

Yes, I'm slightly mangling my presentation of physics (we'll just call it artistic license), but the point is, no theory deserves to be beyond question, not in the way that evolution is. The documentary Dispelled does a good job showing just how open the scientific community isn't to normal scientific inquiry on this issue.

Okay. Cutting myself off here. Two giant walls of text is enough. (I try to intersperse some bad puns here and there to make it bearable) Feel free to message me, if you have a question you really want to hear an answer to. Anyways, thank you for reading, if you did. If not, and you're the sort of person who just jumps to the last sentence of a post: hello!

 

[Dinwatr]

I'll just put this out here- I have never actually seen evidence for evolution. People say it's there, but I've never seen a credible source prove it. I've only heard people say that there is most definitely some evidence somewhere.

I take it you haven't looked very hard. Try "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea". It's a university-level textbook, and outlines the evidence pretty well.

It really isn't that important.

Tell that to the people who's lives are saved every year by flu vaccines. Or the entire field of agriculture. Or animal husbandry in general. If global warming is to be solved, it will be solved via a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.

I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics.

Said by someone who's obviously never studied it. We have literally tons of evidence--we don't know how many tons, in fact, because no one has ever bothered to measure the weight of the fossils.

Have you ever heard of de Vries' primroses? If not, I suggest you look into them. They're quite facinating--from a historic perspective, a scientific perspective, and as an aid in understanding the actual history of evolutionary theory.

 

[Retsam19]

Snip

Sorry to reduce your post into a snip but I feel this is necessary.

When it comes to evolution most people mix terms and misunderstand large amounts of it. Hopefully this will clear things up.

See, I'm not sure what to make about this. My post wasn't about the terms or mechanics of evolution. I literally had a single sentence summarizing evolution, and it ended with "etc". In fact, I deliberately avoided any more than that single sentence because I was trying to avoid your sort of reply of "You obviously don't understand evolution, let me explain the technical details to you again, until you, by sheer force of repetition see the light and decide that we're right" (The cynicism isn't directed at your post which was quite polite, honestly, but I've just seen many that aren't so much)

My entire point was that it's not the technical issues of evolution that give me trouble. It's the philosophical baggage that is so constantly packaged with evolution that I'm opposed to. It's not the natural selection and breeding that I have problem with, it's materialism and naturalism, which are not part of the scientific theory of evolution.

It really isn't that important.

Tell that to the people who's lives are saved every year by flu vaccines. Or the entire field of agriculture. Or animal husbandry in general. If global warming is to be solved, it will be solved via a deep understanding of evolutionary theory.

I'm not saying evolution doesn't have evidence, but I will say it doesn't have as much evidence as, say, Newtonian Physics.

Said by someone who's obviously never studied it. We have literally tons of evidence--we don't know how many tons, in fact, because no one has ever bothered to measure the weight of the fossils.

Have you ever heard of de Vries' primroses? If not, I suggest you look into them. They're quite facinating--from a historic perspective, a scientific perspective, and as an aid in understanding the actual history of evolutionary theory.

Uhh, my first point wasn't saying that evolution has no application. I said it didn't deserve as much controversy, (and in fact, I was even speaking at the time about religious implications of evolution). I wasn't saying "Scientists should stop believing evolution". But, why the crusade? Why is there such an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge evolution as the one true path to biological-origins-of-man enlightenment? Does it really matter what Joe the Accountant might be *gasp* wrong about a scientific theory?

(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)

The ridiculousness of your statement that there is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Newtonian Physics speaks for itself. But here, I'll help. Find a heavy object; Hold it out in front of you; Let go. Congratulations, you've just generated more evidence for Newtonian Physics! (And probably annoyed everyone around you and possibly below you, you jerk)

But, good job completely taking parts of my post out of context in order to try to win the argument and make me look bad. Gold star for you.

--------------

But... yeah. This is pretty much why I stay out of these arguments. I can post literally anything about my opinion on evolution, and if it's not "I agree with evolution" the response will be "You don't understand evolution, here let me explain it to you more." It get tired of "You disagree with me, you must be ignorant." Honestly, it's condescending, frustrating, and simply not true. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

 

[BrassButtons]

Uhh, my first point wasn't saying that evolution has no application. I said it didn't deserve as much controversy, (and in fact, I was even speaking at the time about religious implications of evolution). I wasn't saying "Scientists should stop believing evolution". But, why the crusade?

What crusade?

Why is there such an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge evolution as the one true path to biological-origins-of-man enlightenment?

Other than the existence of a movement that tries to discredit it via misinformation and lies, how is evolution different than every other scientific discipline? Would you say that there's an effort to get every last person in this country to acknowledge atomic theory as the one true path to basic-building-blocks-of-matter enlightenment?

(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)

Just because vaccinations and animal husbandry predate the formalized understanding of evolution doesn't mean evolutionary theory is important for those fields. That's like saying chemistry isn't important for medicine because we had some medicines before we had chemistry.

The ridiculousness of your statement that there is more evidence for Evolution than there is for Newtonian Physics speaks for itself. But here, I'll help. Find a heavy object; Hold it out in front of you; Let go. Congratulations, you've just generated more evidence for Newtonian Physics! (And probably annoyed everyone around you and possibly below you, you jerk)

I'm too lazy to look up a source right now, but evolution is more well-supported than the theory of gravity.

But... yeah. This is pretty much why I stay out of these arguments. I can post literally anything about my opinion on evolution, and if it's not "I agree with evolution" the response will be "You don't understand evolution, here let me explain it to you more." It get tired of "You disagree with me, you must be ignorant." Honestly, it's condescending, frustrating, and simply not true. Not everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

In the case of evolution not believing in it requires ignorance. The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no way to come to any other honest conclusion. We've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

 

[Retsam19]

In the case of evolution not believing in it requires ignorance. The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no way to come to any other honest conclusion. We've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.

[Exit stage right]

 

[BrassButtons]

Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

First, I am speaking to you with respect.

Second, no, don't trust me. If you look up a little ways on this page you'll see where I posted a link to a good place to start learning about the evidence. Evolution isn't a position of faith. You don't need to trust in the people saying it's true--you can examine the evidence like with any other scientific theory.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.

Because it's true. Though I suppose it depends on how you're calculating it. If you count each dropped object as a different piece of evidence than the existence of gravity has more evidence (though that doesn't help with the theory of gravity at all, since you're not gaining any new information from each object dropped). However if you're going by categories of evidence evolution wins by a landslide. And if you want to talk about which is better understood, evolution again takes the lead.

http://www.enallagma.com/wordpress/2011/12/phenomenon-versus-theory/

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.

You understand that "ignorant" in this context is not an insult, right? It simply means you aren't knowledgeable about a particular subject. And since you're denying things which have been proven to be true, the polite thing to assume is that you're simply ignorant (the other option is that you're a liar).

 

[Aurion]

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.

You (and seemingly almost everyone who brings up gravity and evolution together) are missing a very simple point.

We know how evolution works. And we know why evolution occurs.

We know how gravity works. But why does gravity exist, as a force? We...really don't know.

Or, to put it in picture form: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110922.gif

 

[Taurus Vis]

I evolved into a teenager at level 13, and then into an adult at level 20. Evolution is great.

 

[Dinwatr]

Well, the evidence is overwhelming that I'm not going to get any shred of respect, or really any intellectual stimulation from continuing this conversation. The evidence so far is overwhelming. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Repeatedly.

Anyone who can look at multiple fields of science--including some of the most practical and active fields of science--and say they won't get any intellectual stimulation from studying the subject fundamental to all of them has missed some rather large points.

Not to mention that I've just had two people tell me with (presumably) a straight face that there's more evidence for evolution than gravity.

There's an old joke in fields related to evolution: we all think we have the best evidence. Not because the rest are bad, but because our own evidence is so astronomically good that we simply cannot believe that anyone else has anything to compare. In science in general the data are almost never as good as we see in paleontology, genetics, developmental biology, physiology, et al. supporting evolution.

Secondly, gravity has evidence against it. Dark energy can be interpreted as evidence that our understanding of gravity is wrong, as can the fact that we cannot reconcile gravity with quantum mechanics. Evolution has no such contradictory evidence. At best, specific tempos and modes of evolution have evidence for and against--but nothing in biology, since the 1930s or so, has been taken by any legitimate researcher as evidence against evolution. Biology as such supports the theory of evolution; the universe as such does not support the theory of gravity as currently understood.

So yeah. I think we're done here. As before, if anyone wishes to contact me (for something other than to tell me just how ignorant I really am), private messages are available.

If you are unwilling to see where you are ignorant, you will never learn. It's as simple as that. I currently have someone working under me that is my superior in terms of vertebrate anatomy. I didn't tell him to shut up about anatomy; I've been picking his brain for weeks.

It's not the natural selection and breeding that I have problem with, it's materialism and naturalism, which are not part of the scientific theory of evolution.

You are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Dr. Robert Bakker, an evangelical preacher who was instrumental in demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs, would very strongly disagree with you.

But, why the crusade?

You are very confused as to what's happening, and buying into the Creationist story far too much. There is no crusade for evolution. Most of us would be perfectly happy to study the theory in peace and never bother other people with it. However, we can't. It's really as simple as that--if we want to be free to follow the evidence where it leads, we MUST speak out. What you are seeing is not a crusade, but a rigorous defense. And it is ALWAYS wrong to tell people to stop defending themselves when they are attacked without provocation.

Does it really matter what Joe the Accountant might be *gasp* wrong about a scientific theory?

You've obviously never had to discuss why you're not going to burn in Hell for all eternity for believing in that ebil Darwinism. Some of us have. Repeatedly.

(And I suppose I'm just supposed to ignore that the practice of vaccination is considerably older than the theory of evolution. And for that matter that animal husbandry have been going on for about 10000 years now, without needing to believe that humans evolved. And I honestly don't want to ask about how understanding the origin of man will help us to deal with climate patterns)

These this are older than evolution, yes. However, they were reactionary. Vaccination could only be used against pathogens already infecting people. Hell, the first ones used infected tissue from sick patients. Today, we can pre-emptively vaccinate people. Which is better, allowing corpses to pile up or solving problems before they arise? And as far as animal husbandry goes, it started with primative methods--but we didn't know how or why. Ever wonder why deer aren't domesticated, despite the fact that humans have hunted them for millenia? Ever ask what it would take to domesticate deer? Those are questions that are unaswerable outside of evolutionary theory.

As for climate change, the origins of man have nothing to do with it--but if you think evolutionary theory is limited to the origins of man, you simply don't know what you're talking about. There's no nicer way to put it. Every paleontologist I've spoken with (and it's a fair number) agrees that in order to see what climate changes will do to the biosphere we should examine what similar climate changes did to the biosphere in the past. These concepts require an evolutionary framework to even formulate, much less ask. If you're confused, Peter Ward has very good book called "Future Evolution", and in the first chapter he explains it far better than anyone can in a forum post.

I know you won't read it--and if you do, you probably are going to look for excuses to dismiss these arguments. However, hopefully other passers-by will see just how wrong your position is.