Why do anti-evolution fundamentalists always resort to lies and distortions?

Question

I've never met someone who was anti-evolution who could actually ACCURATELY describe what evolution even posists.

They usually make up things (e.g., "men didn't come from monkeys" "the 2nd law prohibits evolution" "it's just a theory") that are either factually wrong, or reveal such an ignorance of science that it's shameful.

Watch! We'll probably see some things just like this in response to my question.

Answer 1

I also liked D-Dawg's answer! Hysterical.



It's a classic situation that shows why creationism and 'intelligent' design are not science... they make no predictions whatsoever, and so they can be used to explain anything, but only AFTER THE FACT.



The guy says that macroevolution has not been demonstrated (and you're right to point out that it HAS BEEN), but then goes on to say that if it ever WAS demonstrated, that he wins in that case, too.



It's like flipping a coin with a child who calls heads AND tails while it's up in the air, and then concludes when they get it correct, that they have ESP!

Answer 2

I have a degree in Anthropolgy and I'm a Christian. I understand Evolution and what it posits. I also know where its scope ends!



If you have a question of spiritual matters that needs an answer why don't you ask the wise and all-knowing Spaghetti Monster?



It seems to me that your mind is made up regarding Christianity and you will find the facts that you need to fit your theory. Why even ask these questions if your mind is closed?



I don't see where Intelligent Design and Evolution even have a scope that overlaps. Its wasn't until fairly recently that BIologists began to assert that Macro-evolution was more that the process of speciation. Now its seems to mean that life originated on Mars and floated here on a piece of ice.



In my view the world was created, and evolution is a mechanism by which it continues to live. I also don't buy the new world theory of my fellow Creationists. The bible does not emhatically state that the world is only 7000 years old.



But really what is the point of your question if you come to the table with a full cup? What ask the question when you mind is made up?



Hey, Debunking Spin, How exactly has Macro-evolution been demonstrated?



Dvls Advocate! If you read my statements I never claimed to attempt to disprove evolution. My only statement was state Macro-evolution used to be defined as speciation. Now it is defined as the origins of life. The fact is that while you have 29 pieces of "Evidence" for it, there is no proof. I have 29 pieces of evidence that against it. But, I did not come to refute macro-evolution, I don't have to....its not an accepted fact...like micro-evolution. I came to state that both side of the debate are using tools that are inadequate. Evolution never posits "How it all began," and Intelligent Design makes no attempts at real science. Thats it for me.



I do not believe in Macro-evolution because of one word; speciation. That is what macro-evolution states is fact. However, it has never been observed throughtout its entire process. It has never been proven to occur. The only thing that Scientist have been able to show is that the a species will begin to form different traits from one another after several generations of isolation. This is like saying computers are so close to artificial intelligence that we might as well say that it is fact. The reality is that no ones has observed speciation, and no one in this generation will because the process takes far too long a period of time even in short lived species.



Micro-evolution is fact. Macro-evolution is plausible and there is evidence to support it, but it has not met the criteria of being biological fact.

Answer 3

The Evidence

As “evidence” to support their theory, most books on evolution include a reference list (bibliography) of other books and articles that also support the theory of evolution. We spent a great deal of time examining these sources and saw only a “circle of information,” with each document pointing to the next source as their “proof.” In college, we cynically called this procedure the “tower of babble.” (Yes, “babble” is the right word—this phrase is a pun.) To perform this procedure, the graduate student wrote their thesis based on the work and assumptions made by a previous graduate student. Of course that previous student did the same thing using the material of a still earlier student. By adding plenty of scientific terms and classifications, you not only sounded scholarly, but the thesis looked impressive to your family and friends!



Unfortunately (and we really do mean unfortunately) we found that the writings on evolution are the same. We could not locate any with testable, scientific, first generation evidence. (We will discuss the scientific facts later.) The bulk of the material was based on the assumption that evolution is the only mechanism though which present day life arose. Ultimately, each document traced its beliefs back to Darwin’s theoretical writings. If you think we are exaggerating, examine the documentation yourself. By the way, the web contains many online versions of Darwin’s book. Why is this theoretical book so prominently available (and always recommended reading) if it is not the primary foundation of (and evidence for) the theory of evolution?



By the way, we realize that many of the writings that support the Bible’s creation account also have flimsy or questionable evidence. We are trying to break out of that behavior pattern.



We are not proposing that every science book should throw out the evolution model and stick in the Bible’s creation account instead. We propose that the Biblical model should be mentioned and given “equal time,” with an unbiased treatment showing how it agrees with the facts. If you want to find someone who can compose the biblical side, write us.



In Christ in Love,

TJ57

Answer 4

There are some subtleties at work here that seem to escape the notice of most people. They have to do with the nature of 'belief'.



A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.



For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."



See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."



But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.



And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight. However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode... for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down. And, ultimately, it will.



So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies and misrepresentations that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... figuring out how nature works.



No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded, intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a certainty that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.



We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.



When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are seeking VALIDATION... of their beliefs, and hence, of their self-description.

Answer 5

Because there is two phases of reality - where the word Two stands for a relative amount in comparison to the actual reality that you see.



For every person, there is one singular universe. That means yours is different than theirs.



So, to an anti-evolutionist fundamentalist they point out their truth. To them, the words they are saying are true, and are not things said specifically to demean you, or words "made up." They are saying exactly what they've learned - the truth of their universe.



It isn't that they're making them up. I know it feels that way. Once you learn the fact that it is Their Truth, you can be patient and try to get past the thick layer of misunderstanding in your communication - and truly begin to communicate. In there, you will find a way to show them your truth.



Be careful though, because if they get through your layer of miscomprehension first - they will show you theirs - and depending on the strength of your position based on knowledge of what you preach; you may be converted.



Good luck, patience will give you many beautiful conversations. Just open your eyes at the process of discussion.

Answer 6

I agree. They hate it and don't know what it is. They listen to some hillbilly preacher on TV who says evolution is the devil, and they believe him. They ask questions that they think prove evolution wrong, when that is addressed in basic evolution books. I could go on. They feel threatened. I find them amusing till they do things like try to get creation in schools.

Answer 7

This has come up before in here and their have been very interesting answers very few were like the ones you just put down.

Personally I'm weary of the whole subject as it goes against my nature to be at a constant impasse with people.



Why don't you just read up for yourself here:



http://www.icr.org/

Answer 8

I'm anti-evolutionist and i agree with you, people shouldnt argue if they dont know what the hell they are talking about, ive read the theory, its amazing, but it lacks too much...like macro-evolution, they still can't do that in a lab, and if they could, then they would prove that a greater being had to have interfered with it. but ya, people shouldnt say anything if they dont know what they are talking about.....





PEACE OUT!

Answer 9

Fear....Thats as simple as it gets....If they could admit something that went against the basis of thier religious beliefs then they would in effect be admitting that thier beliefs are fake...and what person wants to do that. WWFSMD?