Evolution Primer #7: Why Is Evolution Controversial Anyway?

[ruffgreens]

Why would we check our evidence requiring brain at the church door? Look, if the creation story is metaphorical, then vicarious redemption through faith is metaphorical. Ergo heaven, hell and the biblical god are all metaphorical. Just because people can create a dichotomy in their mind and exercise specious reasoning so they don't have to unravel the bullshit their parents taught them at an age when they also believed in santa does not make evolution and RELIGION compatable.

[DianaLovesTacos]

interesting. . .

[skully068]

I'm a Christian, and I am aware that evolution exists. When God flooded the earth, Noah was able to fit 2 of each species on the Earth in a relatively small ark considering what was in there. There are currently approximately 5-100 million species on the Earth. Of course there's evolution on Earth. What I will not believe is that all life evolved from one organism. This is not true at all and has extremely minimal evidence to support it.

[PatchesRips]

@skully068 "This is not true at all and has extremely minimal evidence to support it."

And yet you believe that a 600-year-old man put such animals as raccoons from North America, jaguars from South America, kangaroos from Australia, and penguins from Antarctica on a big wooden boat in the Middle East, floated them around and fed them for a year, and then somehow got them all home again once the water was gone... on what evidence, exactly...?

[nintendude695]

evolution is composed of the natural selection of organisms who survive due to advantages obtained thru genetic mutations. thus species change over time with the survivors passing on their traits. nothing in religion really contradicts evolution. u just hav to interpret genesis in a different way. day could also mean era. at some point God could hav put a soul in man. God has a way of manipulating nature and using it to fit his will. so where did those "random" mutations come from? well maybe...

[PatchesRips]

@nintendude695 "day could also mean era."

It could also mean "day" -- which is what it MEANS when we use the word. We have a word for "era"... it's "era". There's also month, year, decade, century, millennium, eon... If you take the view of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland and decide words means whatever you want them to, what's the point of having a language with agreed meanings at all? In other words, if this god spent billions of YEARS instead of six DAYS making things, why not say so?

[Leivinn20]

A argument in favor of anthropocentric principle: the human self-consciousness is the natural origin of science, therefore we assume that our consciousness is objective regardless where or when we observe the universe. Also, we assume that our reasoning aren't determined by natural laws, it means, we are able for real objectivity.

[Leivinn20]

The creationists start analysis process on universal principles which can be observed in the nature, don´t on experiments, per example: if you ask to any creationist about the possibility for finding extraterrestrial intelligence, - likely he/she will answers: it's impossible, the universe is made in function of mankind...however, if you doubt about the anthropocentric principle, only look around, even into the outer space. Do you want know why is not possible finding any planet like this?.

[lebannerfan65]

Evolution is not controversial. It is 100% factual.

[f00tstep]

@lebannerfan65 Facts can be contriversial just like the earth being round. Fighting evolution is a fad that will ware down pretty quickly just like it did with the round earth.

[Hrimpurstala]

This video is (unfortunately) a little inaccurate - the controversy isn't about evolution, evolution is only preferred battlefield. The conflict is really between different branches of Christianity and is primarily centered over issues like social conservatism or the separation of church and state.

[puncheex]

@Hrimpurstala: Beg to differ. The main conflict is between a naturalistic view of the world, and a religious-centered view. Science is certainly not thought to be another sect of christianity. Some branches have a more tolerant view of science than others do, indeed can even find ways to make then coexist, but conservatives, locked into a literal interpretation of a book that was never thought to be literal by anyone until the 17th century, see science at the chief cause of harm in our world.

[Hrimpurstala]

@puncheex

Well, I suppose, what I meant to say was: The dispute is between different religious interpretations of what questions science should be allowed to research and whether some 'results' must be motivated by evil temptations or false branches of the faith.

So, basically - we are saying something very similar.

[puncheex]

@Hrimpurstala: OK. I agree.

[alfuentesev]

Great series of videos - will definitely pass this on.

[puncheex]

@Soulfree2008: Not sure. I had something in mind last night when I wrote it, but cannot make the connection. Ignore it.

[puncheex]

@Soulfree2008: a little Bible History. The Bible was not definitively ordered until an RC council in the 14th century. There were disagreements, but the RC managed to keep it under a lid by keeping it in Latin until Gutenburg and the Martin Luther decided it should be read by everyone. Some, but not all of Luther's fellows went further, deciding that the Bible was sacred rather than just learned.  Later some determined that Christ spoke king's English, so the KJV is the only true wisdom.

[PatchesRips]

@puncheex "The Bible was not definitively ordered until an RC council in the 14th century."

Long before the 14th century. The Western biblical canon was formalized in 393 CE at the Synod of Hippo Regius.

[PatchesRips]

@puncheex (cont'd) It's true though they did not want common people interpreting scripture or mistranslating it for fear of heresy, apostasy, and potential schism... all of which, essentially, occurred (at least from the Catholic point of view) once people like Wycliffe and Luther began translating the Bible into various languages, where shades of meaning in one language were either lost, or drawn out of nothing, in another. At least the Vulgate was a single standard all had in common.

[puncheex]

In the full version of this video (this is episode 7 of NOVA 2001 series "Evolution") it explains that a Wheaton prof, back in the 30s made some fairly innocuous statement that prickled some eminent Christian alumnus, who started a controversy which caused Wheaton to add a Christian loyalty statement to their requirements for all teachers. That had been finally overcome, at least in the Biology department, by inviting Keith Miller (no relation to Ken), a biology prof at Kansas University, ...

[puncheex]

... to deliver a statement of sorts about how he integrates his fundamentalist faith with evolutionary biology. That seems to have settled Wheaton about the problem, if not a lot of its alumni and other fundies. The conversations between the geo major and his family members are enlightening. This series raised a lot of ire among creationists.

[diuryl]

i like the way she says the bible is not a science text book, because it is NOT! many anti-religious people or atheists seem to think that it is, and that it should explain in detail how everything came to be. the bible was not written for that purpose. it gives general explanations but not detailed.

i also agree that it is laughable to critisise evolution without knowing much about it, and how laughable it is to critisise theology/religion without understanding that either.

GOD bless!!

[starlogic99]

lol

[xKRUSHx10]

Evolution isn't a theory , its a belief. Just like Faith. Some people believe that man evolved from apes and some (including myself) believe that we were made ingod's image not sum retarded ass monkeys.

[puncheex]

@xKRUSHx10: That is mistaken. There is physical evidence for evolution; there is no such evidence to back up your ingod's image theory. As you regard your putative ancestors as "retarded ass monkeys" I think you have expressed some of the unmistakable signs of bias in your thoughts and a sucking-up attitude towards religious intolerance. Your depth of criticism has been out there for 150 years and has not shamed those who find the evidence strong.

[PatchesRips]

@xKRUSHx10 "Evolution isn't a theory"

It is, in fact. A scientific theory is a formal explanation for a set of related empirical observations. It can be tested and falsified. So far, evolution has survived falsification.

"Some people believe that man evolved from apes"

We still ARE apes. "Ape" is the colloquial term for "hominid"; hominids are a biologically-related group including orangutans, chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans. Chimps are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.

[GoblinXXX]

@PatchesRips At the risk of being pedantic-- "Evolution" is not the theory. The mechanism of NATURAL SELECTION is the theory that explains the observable fact of evolution. (There's obviously a lot more to it than that, now, but that was how Darwin put it.) I know you know this, but the common phrasing bugs me, almost as much as hearing people call Leonardo "DaVinci", like that was his last name and not where he was from.

[chessplayer100]

if Evolution is in accordance with the faith, then convince this stupid world who believes in 50 thousand faiths all differing form each other!! this is bullshit! humans are not capable of answering Evolution correct!

[croxleylad]

you want to try and write more slowly and read it back before you post it?

might mean people can understand the point you are trying to make?

[patricknelson]

Reconciliation of faith and science is no different than the typical Christian person cherry picking what they do and do not want to believe/practice about the Bible. In science, we say we "don't know," but in faith, they say they do know and the answer is "Goddidit!"

[puncheex]

@patricknelson: No, just in faiths which preach Bible inerrany. Most Christians don't believe that. So the typical Christian is not the problem.

[Omid45]

i think that religion was once important for earlier humans when they just branched off their common ancestor with apes, but now that need is gone, and i think that natural selection is favoring and choosing ones now that don't believe in religion. So atheists are the ones being picked now by natural selection cause there is no need for religion anymore. It's just a waste of money, energy, time, and brain activity. So if your an atheist your the new better modified version of human.

[patricknelson]

Yay, I'm hooman two point oh! Or, H20 for short. Funny because we're mostly made of water, which is H2O and not a zero.

[jazzx251]

I think there's a massive difference between science and faith.

Although I respect anyone who chooses science to be their life's work - I can't respect their religious beliefs which are bound to come into conflict, if not in their actual scientific work, but at least in their approach.

Science starts from the standpoint of "we know nothing" or "we know the following established facts". Religious hocus-pocus claims to know the, as yet, unknowable.

A complete contradiction.

[puncheex]

@jazzx251: I agree with your views, and yet maintain that people can harbor distinct philosophical views in their lives.  Believing in Bible inerrancy would be a problem, as then the conflict is at a very basic level. Without that requirement, it is certainly possible, as Jesuit priests, religious who also are among the world's foremost scientists, have done it for hundreds of years.

[Bombur86]

If the bible really was a history book then why isnt the earth flat?? The bible surely has philosophycal value but it is not a history book!

[walkanator1]

do you mind telling me where that is in the Bible? I sure dont know where it is and I disagree with you.

[Bombur86]

Ok let me rephrase that.If it is a history book where are the pillars of the earth, or the 4 corners??

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

saiah 11:12

12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.

[patricknelson]

SURELY that must be metaphorical?!? They didn't actually believe the Earth had four corners, did they?? Maybe they knew it was an oblique spheroid (just didn't have such a fancy name for it) and classified it into 4 gigantic regions.

[Bombur86]

Thats kind of the point, the whole book is metaphorical and not a book that should be taken literally.

[puncheex]

@patricknelson: there are fundamentalists who believe in a flat earth due to these passages. Nephilimfree is one such.

[just2w4tch]

LOL this is an infomercial for "Teach the Controversy." The message is 'see? look how good it works when you let students decide for themselves.' If there's one thing I do know after years of study, it's how advertising works, and this is really up there.

[patricknelson]

Walk before you run. I'd say ease them into it and THEN pounce it on them. If you can convince all religious people about well established scientific facts (like evolution) that contradict their religious belief system, then you are one step closer to debunking the unprovable ideas of religion which science must dismiss because they are non-falsifiable.

[puncheex]

@just2w4tch: No - you're wrong. This is a condensed version of one of a series of seven hour long documentaries by NOVA / WBGH called "Evolution". It was released in 2001, starting a week after the 9/11 disaster.

[Promatheos]

Why doesn't it seem to strike Christians that every time there is a scientific discovery, it's religion that has to give ground in the reconciliation? The religious doctrine must change to survive. Science just is what it is. Is it really that difficult to see which is the weaker world view?

[elnauhual]

Not al christians. Catholic Church acepts evolution, and declares creacionism and ID pseudociences. Next year will celebrate Darwins 150 aniversary witha big reunion fo scientst and philosophers.

[patricknelson]

Again, Catholicism had to change to accept evolution. Originally, the Catholic Church rejected outright any notion of evolution. It even originally rejected the theory that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe!

[croxleylad]

I am not a Catholic but they have never officially rejected evolution. By the time Darwin's book was published fossils evidence had already meant that Genesis could not be literally interpreted.

[Wasserkaktus]

I am a practicing Catholic and Evolution is one of the main fields of theory which my work revolves around. The Catholic Church has an officially neutral stance on evolution (which I personally consider not good enough). Science and Religion are NOT exclusive against one another; it just takes an amount of understanding and personal reconciliation in order to make peace between the two.

[puncheex]

@Promatheos: Well, it's like this: the aim of science is to explain everything in the universe in terms of the natural. It is working its way down the pike doing that. The religion that has served as the official explanation for 5000 years has found that some of its authority is being challenged where science has made progress. Science doesn't bother "dethroning" religious explanations; it merely asserts its own, with evidence, and moves on, not caring what religion thinks about it.

[ozpowermo]

I agree with that :), spot on :). It's a great book to read, it shows us many things about the cultures at the time.

[ozpowermo]

"Not very many people in the most civilized societies are religious, honestly."

While that's true, the policymakers elected are catering to conservative evangelicals. Ted Haggard claimed that he talked to Bush and people form his administration once a week. When it comes to global warming, evangelicals think that it's all just a big leftist political hoax.

As far as the foundations of religion, I don't think that they're bad, but the part about religion that I disagree with is the brainwashing!

[ozpowermo]

I agree, nature is a big part of us that is being ignored and mostly because of religious beliefs. People view the earth as a vessel in which they're residing until they go to heaven (or whatever), and they assume it's a limitless resource... it really isn't. Their kids will have to live in the same earth, and on and on...

[ozpowermo]

"Fact is, we as humans with our physical brains are not meant to understand the vast scope that is our spiritual father."

I don't know if that's a fact :), to me that's speculation... if indeed there is a higher power related to us, I don't see why we're NOT supposed to understand it. This sounds like just another reason for us not to question it, and that's dangerous. If we pacify ourselves with the concept that we're not supposed to understand it, then we shouldn't even bother to accept it!

[ozpowermo]

Don't have a problem with the concept of God, but I DO have a problem with it when people try to use the concept of God to deny evolution, that's completely illogical. It's like they're trying to argue another concept of reality, well there is only one reality and in it there is Evolution.

[ozpowermo]

To tell you the truth, when I was young I found it comforting and relaxing to believe in God and go to church. But what turns me away is the ignorance, hypocrisy, materialism, the lies and perhaps the most repulsive is the effort to suffocate science. Science is the essence of who we are, it embodies our purpose and our lives from a NATURALISTIC perspective; without science we can hardly be called humans!

[ozpowermo]

I suppose atheism is trendy, but it has been theism's own fault. Christians, amongst other theists, have created a war against science and the side-effect is atheism. People are fed-up with the ignorant sewage being spilled out of the churches every day... theists have resorted to the most outrageous methods to try and battle knowledge and the result is not helpful. I find that Catholics have got the best grasp on how to preserve religion without interfering with science and knowledge.

[ozpowermo]

God and spirituality are not threatened by science, nor atheism. No atheist will come to you and try to convert you to be an atheist yourself, but theists do that ALL THE TIME! If you run into one and you happen upon the conversation, you will be challenged on your ideas, but you will not see an atheist knock on your door with a science book in his hand and try to convert you... if you have seen that, then let me know :)!

[Joddit]

Well actually, you're the one making all kinds of assertions without backing them up... I call you on them and that would make me limited?! You must be joking!!

If you don't believe me about the limitedness of the scholars we were talking, just read the bible (mostly the old testament, but not exclusively)... Until you do, this discussion is effectively pointless...

[Joddit]

There's nothing to show for that so-called wisdom you keep referring to... If anything, they were very limited, "eye-for-an-eye" people with a vendictive attitude...

[Joddit]

Well, a lot of Christians would disagree with you on your "word of god" statement, but that's a matter between you and them, I suppose...

And as for the question you posed: I didn't respond to your earlier statements and neither did the person you were responding to, so there's no need for you to feel hard done by.

The scholars who wrote the old testament can hardly be called enlightend and the omissions in the text were summoned by early christian church officials themselves.

[Joddit]

Also, I find it remarkable that you would know the aim of the limited bronze age minds who wrote the bible, whereas most people don't even know who they were, exactly...

[ozpowermo]

Not at all... atheism is treated like a scourge, but that's only because Christians have brought it onto themselves. If Christians stopped attacking mainstream science, then they would get a lot less negative response from the rest of society. Accept science and your ideas shall survive, else natural selection will take care of your ideas, they will become extinct... only the better idea will survive if you try to have a direct competition :).

[Joddit]

So the opinions of other people sicken you? That's a very enlightend state of mind!!

Although his wording left a lot to be desired, the core of his remark is a very good one: If God is omniscient and the bible is the word of God, then you would expect all this to be in there or one could at least pose the question as to why it's not in there...

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[s4stem]

Faith is a belief without evidence. If you have evidence then it is not faith. So, in a great sense it is based on ignorance.

[johnnierah]

i gotta agree with the last few comments. i've studied both theology and science and a few other things.

the bible is a great book but not because there is a god. for there is not. but there is language and the book has help form and preserve it. it is not god's word however. most of it is from babylonian writers.

great book, but don't try to believe it.

faith is for the ignorant. and we must move on to the knowing. for the love of life. our own.

peace

[coleneil1]

"I don't look for, you know, DNA mutations and you know stuff like that, thats just, you can't expect that..."

You can't expect the infalable word of god to mention DNA? WTF is this not an omniscient god we are talking about? Is she fuc*ing stupid?! Your damn right I expect god to know about and talk about DNA, atoms, evolution, and the right shape of the Earth! he better know sh*t god should know!!!! Stop making excuses for god he made the s*it right? he should be able to talk about it!!!

[EinonvanTassel]

@coleneil1 Perhaps god follows the prime directive...

[skully068]

@coleneil1 The bible is an anceint sacred religious text. It was written almost 2000 years ago. You think that religious texts will be telling the peoples of 100 CE about DNA and the chemical makeup of humans? The Bible isn't some document or report. It's a Holy Book.

[nakmax]

@skully068 Old testament (which is half of the bible) was written centuries before Jesus. At least it should have the facts about the heliocentric system right.

[JOESGONNAKILLY0U]

god gets in the way of the human brain evolving to a bigger capability.

religon is for power and money.

[bobx2x2]

The Bible is full of lies, false scientific claims, violence, insane disgusting miracles, and boring stories. God just gets in the way of understanding the natural world. People should grow up and throw god and the bible into the garbage.

[numnums21]

the idea of evolutionism and creationism = natural selection at work. one idea will win in the end. the truth will prevail in the end.

:)

[johnledgerwood2007]

ken hamm is a primitive ape that can talk

why religion needs to accommodate? Evolution and science has shown that religions are stupid, man made constructs to explain things that people could not explain.

[lostn65]

He looks bizarely like a Homo Erectus. Ironic. Ken Miller's comments in this vid are very powerful, and every religious nut really ought to listen to him. He reconciles his faith with science, you can too.

[BobbyFromNJ]

Or you can just face the fact that religion is a ball and chain.

[rovrola]

well... if you can understand that the bible was just joking when it said plants were created before the sun, i don't see how you can take anything else in it seriously. of course she won't look for explanations for how we came to be in the bible; it's nonsense.

[raquelxoxo]

this is agreeable.

[smaakjeks]

"dipshit, i know that. it's the point of allowing himself to be taped in church--you may be too simple to understand, but church was considered a holy place, not a space used to promote one's religiosity."

He's promoting his religion by being filmed in a church? So much so that it makes him pathetic? You just hate Ken Miller because he's christian and still accepts evolutionary theory.

[smaakjeks]

He's a christian, moron.

[hanzo138]

What I find funny is that the countries that accept evolution are the countries that have better education systems and lower murder rates... hmmmm?

[KasparHauser4]

The new Pope is re-opening its investigation on evolution.

[voiceoftruth2006]

That'll be a good use of his extensive qualifications in biology, I'm sure.

[tranhn]

What evidences are repeatable by evolutionists? All they say is from eons ago things evolved into what we see today or in fossils. Repeated experiments of the fruit flies have shown no sign of evolution, haven't they?

[smaakjeks]

"What evidences are repeatable by evolutionists?"

What is an evolutionist? Do you also say big bangist? If you mean scientist, say so. The evidence is readily available if you care to look. But you don't care to look. Maybe you're afraid it will be too convincing.

[Diactadon]

Very well done vid series; enough with the polemics already...

[deliwrek]

Actually, they make these threads interesting. I like hearing enlightened peoples rebuttals to the more close-minded (or mislead) of us.

[tranhn]

I just read Dr. Walt Brown on-line book. I doubt anyone can refute the reasonings and arguments he put down, noting that many of them have been mentioned by yours truly in discussions years ago.

[smaakjeks]

Ah, Walt Brown.. a creationist who has a PhD in mechanical engineering. Yes, I'm sure he is more than capable of refuting the cornerstone of biology and 99.9% of the world's scientists.

[TheGreaterSatan]

"I doubt anyone can refute the reasonings and arguments he put down"

It's been done.

[tranhn]

btw anyone who calls himself catholic yet studies evolution loses my respect, given all the facts and evidences about catholic doctrine and deeds. fyi catholic doctrines are against the true teachings of the bible, so are evolutionary theories.

[raquelxoxo]

it's called being OPEN-MINDED..da da daaaa

[tranhn]

Evolution is useless science. All body of knowledge about evolution has no application

[turkeyjurker]

you're an utter fucking retard

[voiceoftruth2006]

One word. Antibiotics.

[smaakjeks]

Another word: agriculture. Some more: gene therapy. And more: recombinant DNA in bacteria.

In conclusion tranhn, shut up.

[voiceoftruth2006]

No, no, let him keep talking! He's stupid enough to reject evolution; there's a good chance that if he's busy talking he'll forget to breathe.

[raquelxoxo]

hahah niice

[voiceoftruth2006]

Thanks :-)

[zeldarooles]

There's a video in this series explaining why evolution matters... For example, pathogens evolve to become resistant to medical treatment. Where would we be if we didn't know the reason? There would be no way to try and prevent resistant strains from evolving.

[renegadesx]

Its just a small number of fundamentalist fucktards that reject evolution. the majority of Christians embrace evolution. all the different christian sects all added together still come nowhere near the number of Catholics and Anglicans in the world.

[2LegHumanist]

It's true you can have your reality and believe in fairy tales. both beliefs are compatible... as long as you don't try to believe both at the same time.

[kurtilein3]

religion really slows down science.

[dacherx]

Awnww ... A fuzzy feel good closing message of reconciling religion and science. That's nice.