It seems that most Creationists attack only Evolution, or as they like to called it 'evilution', and I wonder why. Evolution only explains the diversity of life, not how life began. So why don't they attack physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, or any other areas of science. Why is evolution always picked on?

Views: 100

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

this was when charlie gibson was hosting in the morning; it may be as long as 6 or 7 years ago. I remember it, because i thought it was rude of charlie to interrupt jack. I don't know what's so hard to grasp about all living things evolving from simpler forms. I expected that from charlie though, he's all about being proper, baseball, apple pie, creation, heh heh.
Like has been said before, Creationists in particular don't understand the difference between science and scientific branches. For them, psychology, cosmology, astrology, biology, history, anthropology, psysics, even sociology bla bla bla any -gy/y/ics is the same thing, it's THE SECT OF SCIENCE. Anything which has got to do something with humans trying to understand their world better. Since biology is the part which threatened them the most claiming that humans were not born from Adam and Eve but evolved over time, including this taking millions of years instead of merely 6.000, I guess they feel sort of threatened in their beliefs. It is of course rather funny of how these Chrsitians tend to forget all other technical advancements such as the very race of their own family dog is the cause of serious breeding, which more or less speaks for biology.
From September to June, I work in a public elementary school.

I spend the summers teaching camp at a small, nearby natural history museum.

Just a week ago, a boy in one of my camps asked "How was the first man made?"

I said, "Have you heard of evolution?"

My co-teacher immediately interrupted me, saying to the boy, "I think that's something you should ask your parents."

I was a bit pissed off and my co-worker and I later discussed it. Although he's an evolutionist too, he was really afraid of how the boy's parents would react to me teaching evolution.

I just said, "Well, he asked me, an educator in a natural history museum, and I wanted to offer him the best explanation."

It's not like scientists are kinda-sorta certain that evolution is fact. It's not something that someone can really have an opinion about. It's just the way it is.

If I can't teach it in a science museum, where the hell can I?
That's really sad to hear. I do understand that he was protecting you, because we've all seen what crazy christian parents do if the word "evolution" is said within a 50ft radius of their indoctrinated child. Then again an educator shouldn't have to fear what the parents reaction is, it is your job to teach what is known about the universe.
They do attack physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, and other areas. I post on a series of forums called ATS, or, Above Top Secret, under the user name OnionCloud. It is filled with people who generally believe in myths and supernatural things, which includes Creationism. I typically post on the Science & Technology, and the Origins & Creation forum. They will do whatever they can to attack any part of evolution or atheism.

These attacks are all based in ignorance, because they don't care to educate themselves. A lot of them also attack the fact that science changes, as if we didn't know.

It is often my duty (and the others who are supporters of the scientific method and science in general) to tell them that it's the very nature of science to change, because it accumulates new knowledge that is more accurate over time because of better and more secure methods. Sometimes I also point out that religion changes through time, but only through degeneration, because nothing that's really new ever comes in. I only resort to that if the criticism on the other side is particularly harsh.

Science is also typically accused of being dogmatic as well (they always neglect to point out that religion is dogmatic, so what's good for one isn't good for the other apparently). Yet again, it falls upon me to show that it is only perceived that way by those who get denied by science. They get denied simply because they lack evidence and proof. If a judge were to accept testimony from everyone as 100% correct and 100% accurate, there would be bedlam, mayhem, anarchy, revolt, etc. in society. More so than there is already. Science is public, and falsifiable. If you have a good theory that is proven to be better and/or more accurate, then it is accepted and taught. Of course, you have to get through the rigors of the scientific method, which includes peer review, to pass. This is hard, though, so some people feel dejected and maligned when they don't get in, probably because they are immature.

Anyway, I think I've rambled on enough. I will continue to try and educate those who are less knowledgeable, in hope that there will be at least one person who is sitting on the fence that reads one of my posts. It also helps me keep my wits about me and also to keep me updated with the advances in science.

Also, as a side note, I am new to this forum. Is there a way to see my previous posts so that I can come back and check on the thread to see if it's updated?

Edit: Nevermind, figured it out. The "My Discussions" button was hiding from me. ;)
Closedmindedness & ignorance.
Very well stated Squid.

In other words, in my opinion, most never even studied TOE & don't know what it talks about

+ Believers do oppose some other sciences. Why most E.? Because it directly contradicts with the literal creation story. + it takes away the "God given specialness*" by basically saying people are "just accidents" + then it means people are just animals.
They think god created man and women as is. Evolution completely goes against that and scares///pisses them off the most. Also, most xians don't know enough about abiogenesis to even try and debate it. They don't realize they dont know shit about evolution either, but that doesn't seem to stop them. I think chemistry, biology, and astronomy are not quit at odds with religion the way evolution is. The people writing the bible didn't understand those fields at all, so they didn't put much in the bible to be disproved the way evolution offers such a clear contradiction to their beliefs.
They are afraid of ANYTHING which eliminates "The Garden of Eden" as an explanation of how life began. Because if the Garden of Eden didn't exist, then Adam and Eve didn't exist. And if Adam and Eve didn't exist, then talking snakes and magical fruit didn't exist. And if none of THAT existed, then ORIGINAL SIN didn't exist.

And without original sin . . .

Not only do the Old Testament stories begin to crumble, the entire NEW TESTAMENT is WIPED OUT - in one felled swoop. Because without original sin, there is no need whatsoever for their God to rape a girl named Mary (this was after all, a conception done without her consent), and then give birth to himself (a man named Jesus), in order to save us FROM himself. There is no reason for the Jesus character to have ever existed. Not that there is any evidence he ever existed anyway. But to maintain consistency in the CHRISTIAN story, you need to have some bitch who lived 6,000 years ago - who supposedly fucked things up for ALL of us.

It would have been much easier for this mythical God, to have simply killed the two "sinners" - and started all over again from scratch. He sure doesn't seem to have a problem killing LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, in the Old Testament. But instead, he supposedly makes BILLIONS and BILLIONS of people - the entire present day population of the Earth - and everyone who has ever lived and died - pay for what one or two people did. Sounds like a pretty fucked up God to me.

But that's the Christian explanation . . .

And in my opinion, a large part of why they are afraid of evolution.

It is the Achilles heel of Christianity.

It is the one thread - which if pulled upon - unravels the entire fabric.

At least that's what I think.
Hehe good point. I have an interesting analysis regarding the Fall From Grace, but let's take that somewhere else. Also, I saw some good comment somewhere that the only way for Adam to blame Eve was to eat the fruit first. It just once again proves that we should not take Fall From Grace literary. I have yet to meet a talking snake!



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service