To me the middle ground has always been safer. I can be a believer in creationism and still believe in a plausible version of evolution, yet a Darwinist cannot acknowledge that creationism may be valid because it would disprove his or her “faith”. Let’s face it, Darwin was wrong.
34 comments
Not fundie, in my opinion. The only problems with this post is that they use the term "Darwinist," which I have never heard anyone use this century and not be a fundie, and that they imply that all "Darwinists" must be atheists.
No, let's face it, you're a brainwashed fool. Darwin may have been wrong in some of his particulars, but he got the overall mechanism of evolution correct, and over a century later, science has yet to show different.
"To me the middle ground has always been safer."Safer, that is, less controversial. So, you're more interested in being non-confrontational than in being correct?
"I can be a believer in creationism and still believe in a plausible version of evolution, yet a Darwinist cannot acknowledge that creationism may be valid because it would disprove his or her “faith”."
It is true that as a person who understands and accepts the ToE I cannot "acknowledge that may be valid," but that is because creationist have made no even remotely convincing case for their assertions.
Faith is the belief in an assertion in the absence of any evidence supporting that assertion. I do not require faith to accept the ToE as it comes with mountains of supporting evidence.
"Let’s face it, Darwin was wrong."
No, how 'bout if you face this, you don't understand the ToE, you don't seem to understand creationism, and you are intellectually lazy.
I can live with someone believing God guided evolution. It cannot be disproven. Ultimately, it isn't a problem. The problem arises when they want to teach the unfalsifiable as science.
Again, man, Darwin is not wrong. Actually, you´d not be typing in this computer if he was. Besides, what you said it´s the other way round. Creationist exist because they want to believe that Bible is inerrant, not the other way round. Besides, evolutionist, be it Christian or not, don´t have a particular "faith", it´s a scientific theory which has been confirmed all over again. Period.
I'll say this for what seems like the 1,000th time....
"Daniel-san, you walk left side of road, safe; you walk right side of road, safe; you walk middle, squish just like grape. Here, karate same ting... you do karate yes or you do karate no. You do karate guess so, squish just like grape. Understand?"
"To me the middle ground has always been safer. I can be a believer in creationism and still believe in a plausible version of evolution, yet a Creationist cannot acknowledge that evolution may be valid because it would disprove his or her “science”. Let’s face it, Darwin was right."
To me the middle ground has always been safer. Safer yes but perhaps not correct.
I can be a believer in creationism and still believe in a plausible version of evolution,
Theistic evolution? It is a step in the right direction. But we generally do not call that creationism.
yet a Darwinist cannot acknowledge that creationism may be valid because it would disprove his or her “faith”.
wrong.
Let’s face it, Darwin was wrong.
That's how science works. The writer of Genesis was more wrong.
HR seems to be a bit confused. Creationism says evolution is wrong because it contradicts the bible. However, when asked for evidence in support of creationism, they have nothing to show. If you have nothing to show to support your claims, then they are based entirely on faith and wishful thinking.
Evolution doesn't require disbelief in God; only disbelief in the literal words of the Bible. "Theistic evolution" is the belief that evolution occurred, but was guided by God. It has God "loading the dice" to advance evolution in a preferred direction. It would probably be impossible to disprove. Most Christian sects admit the possibility of some version of this. It's rejected only by those who, like fundie Baptists, insist that the Bible is literally true in every word.
To me the middle ground has always been safer. I can be a believer in creationism and still believe in a plausible version of evolution...
Yes, you can believe in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that evolution is completely factual, but that there's a god on the sidelines loading the dice so that certain mutations appear. Theistic evolution is consistent with reality, but goes against Occam's Razor the meddling god is an unproven assumption that is not necessary to explain the data, therefore it is probably wrong.
...yet a Darwinist cannot acknowledge that creationism may be valid because it would disprove his or her “faith”.
What's a "Darwinist?" You mean a person who accepts that evolution is a fact?
Yes, such a person cannot believe in creationism and evolution at the same time. Since there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and zero evidence for creationism, plus evidence against certain flavors of creationism, only a fool would believe that creationism is true and evolution isn't.
People who accept evolution do not say that creationism is false because they have some "faith" that needs to be supported; they say creationism is false because creationism is false. (At least as far as the evidence shows. If you have some evidence otherwise, bring it in. Sources must be cited. Your ass is not a reliable source.)
Let’s face it, Darwin was wrong.
Yes, Darwin was wrong. Darwin's ideas are 150 years old, and he was one of the first people to really take biology seriously. It's understandable that he made a few mistakes.
You see, HockeyRocker, science corrects itself. Since people are very often wrong, we need to be very good at self-correction. This is why science works and religion doesn't science has a built-in mechanism to weed out errors, while religion proclaims itself to be the Absolute Truth and suppresses all dissent.
Incidentally, many fundie creationists argue against Darwin. Creationists actually do believe that evolution is a religion aside from calling it "faith" ad nauseum, they presume that Darwin is a religious leader who hands down Absolute Truth the way the think their god does. They think that attacking Darwin is a valid argument because they think he's the Truth-Giving Authority for the Acme Religion of Evolution. They believe God hands truth to them, so they presume Darwin hands truth to us, and that if they can somehow prove Darwin wrong in any way, we'll denounce him as a Truth-Giving Authority and consider everything he said to be false.
That's not middle ground, that's clinging on to childish beliefs, while slowly accepting that reality differs from those beliefs.
We grown-ups can't acknowledge that creationism may be valid, no, because there is no evidence whatsoever in its favor.
Let's face it, Darwin was just one of many who STARTED the work in evolution. We have come A LONG way since then, dearie, Darwin would hardly recognize it if he were to see the ToE of today.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
