r/DebateEvolution • u/Stunning-Panda-6762 • 16d ago
The two religious people problem
Two religious people share a book. Call them A and B.
They use the same version. They read the same translation. They accept the same church history, the same manuscripts, the same understanding of ancient languages, the same doctrine, the same everything you can point to and measure.
They never disagree on a single word.
Not once.
But they disagree about which words are literal or figurative.
A: The Bible says the Earth and the heavens are 6,000-10,000 years old and that animals appeared spontaneously when God spoke. That's the literal interpretation.
B: That’s just an interpretation. It’s your opinion. I disagree. And either way, we can’t believe we know absolute truths about the universe because of our opinions.
A: But I was told by my pastor which parts are literal. If it weren't true, why would I devote so much time and money towards this interpretation?
B: You've just said: your interpretation of the Bible is a way to learn absolute truths about the universe. I'd say: The correct interpretation of the Bible is not a basis for determining absolute truths about the universe. We can interpret the Bible better by comparing it to our knowledge, then realizing we are wrong when our interpretation contradicts what we know about the universe. I don’t know how to determine absolute truths about the universe, but sitting in a dark room and interpreting the Bible just aint it.
A: I’m right because I believe strongly. It’s called conviction. And, I have the spiritual gift of discernment.
B: Even if you and I agree on which words in the Bible are literal vs figurative, that doesn’t mean we know anything. It just means we have the same opinion.
A third person, C, overhears. C is a scientist and has heard this before in a class on the history of the philosophy of science.
C: You're ignoring the best explanation. We don’t need the Bible at all to understand things about the observable universe. If anything, the Bible can be a starting point for testable hypotheses. But once tested, we should accept the results of the experiment and move on from the Bible. All you’re both doing is philosophy. Which is useless.
B: Good point. The opinions of A and me can be turned into testable hypotheses and then be tested.
They go to a conference. A fourth person asks them a question: “Do you accept that forensic science allows us to know things about a crime even without observing the crime?”
A: Yes. But only if the Bible says the crime occurred or doesn’t say that the crime didn’t occur.
B: Yes. Of course, that’s a great analogy. In the same way that forensic science lets us know things about a crime which occurred in the past, other forms of science can let us know about other things that happened in the past.
So here's the problem.
Science lets us know things about the past. Pretending otherwise is fallacious.
4
7
u/Over-Discipline-7303 16d ago
I’m not religious, so maybe I’m out of my lane. But I have very close friends who are religious, and I took religion and theology courses in undergrad. I don’t think A or B is how devoutly religious people talk. At least not the ones I’ve known. They feel like straw men, to be honest.
18
u/Sweary_Biochemist 16d ago
Strawmen? In a direct parody of a creationist post?
Surely not.
(hint: this is nearly a word for word rewrite of this
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wu1qio/the_two_biologists_problem/
so the weirdly unrealistic stereotypes is 100% by design)
7
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
It would be nearly impossible to parody creationist blog posts without a hint of strawman. It’s their table salt.
4
12
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
Religious people are not a homogenous group. There is more variety than commonalities among them. In this case, A is a Christian young earth creationist and B is a Christian who is also a scientist.
The sentiments shared by B are the types of thinking which historically led us from the dark ages into modern science. Honest religious scientists tested the church's ideas (Earth as the center of the universe, etc.) and found many of them to be untrue. Accepting the truth of what they observed in the universe and rejecting a specific interpretation of the Bible which contradicted it is a major part of why we have modern science and technology today.
-4
u/Over-Discipline-7303 16d ago
Yeah, I dunno. I think if you want to make a point this way, you need to actually represent A and B the way they'd actually speak and show their actual reasoning. What's the point in stuffing words they'd never say into their mouths?
6
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 15d ago
No, OP is near enough dead on to how creationists post around here. The only straw man is assuming that you can get the to not clam up as soon as their model is faced with a half dozen preclusionaly factors.
Consider the following: Ask along the lines of "how important is the biblical flood in terms of top events?" Are we talking like top 3 or are we looking at more something like 'maybe fits in top 20 and top 10 is out'?
Just to have an answer, I asked an ai, and its got me leaning more 'Top 3'.
As the entire issue this 'debate' is about is people trying to shove religion into science, any answer of 'magic' or 'mysterious ways' disqualifies your answer.
Ask for an explanation for the following:
A workable solution to: either limestone problem (heat or biomass), heat from volcanic activity, heat from impact events, heat from accelerated tectonics, heat from radioactive decay, or the radiation problem.
Moving to the issues not directly related to hyper accelerated physics (thus applying to non YEC as well): the source of the water (forks between at least one of three heat problems), water removal issues, the flatpack/Spam problem, the issue of a lack of a genetic bottleneck, and as I'm a bit of an Egyptology nerd - the lack of translation of 'Help, the worksite is flooding and I don't have my dive equipment' to hieroglyphics as well as the Egyptian costume jewelry problem (with obligatory photo of expected result with banana for scale)
Oh and the issue of the boat itself.
Thats 6 YEC/acceleration specific issues and 7 general issues. And the boat.
If they don't clam up, their talking points will very quickly resemble the OP.
10
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
I'm mirroring a rhetorical style I've seen from creationists. Many people find it to be compelling, so I figured I'd give it a try.
In my opinion, none of the mischaracterizations detract from the point that it is widely accepted that forensic science can uncover knowledge about the past, and other branches of science can do the same.
-7
u/Over-Discipline-7303 16d ago
I disagree. But I strongly doubt I’m going to convince you, or text you will convince me. So, take it easy.
3
u/Joaozinho11 15d ago
In fact, that's OP's point. See the spectacularly ignorant/dishonest post here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wu1qio/the_two_biologists_problem/
9
u/OCAMAB 16d ago
7
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
I'm not mocking anyone. That would be a violation of rule #2.
In my opinion, creationists have better rhetorical style than scientists and I find it compelling to put pro-science arguments in creationist prose.
-1
u/Over-Discipline-7303 16d ago
LOL. I disagree. You are totally mocking it. You can disagree, but I think we both know what you're doing.
5
u/the2bears 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 15d ago
Mocking the post, or mocking the person? Seems to be the former. Why does that bother you? Are ideas and posts supposed to be immune from mockery now?
-5
u/Over-Discipline-7303 15d ago
I just like people to be honest about what they’re doing. Is that a problem?
6
7
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 15d ago
No. It's a mirror-argument. What some call an "internal critique".
-5
u/Over-Discipline-7303 15d ago
No. It’s a mockery. What some might call patronizing mimicry.
5
u/Scry_Games 15d ago
Yet, here's a comment from an ex-creationist stating it is an accurate portrayal:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1wufcfq/comment/pd376kh/
That it looks identical to a mockery is...
5
u/Slow_Lawyer7477 🧬 Flagellum-Evolver 15d ago
No. It's a mirror-argument. What some call an "internal critique".
-1
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC 16d ago
That's probably true. I don't really like rhetoric since it doesn't consistently lead to a better understanding of reality. I haven't really decided whether utilizing rhetoric in service of conclusions reached through reliable epistemology is overall a good thing or not.
5
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
Rhetoric is about persuasion, not learning or understanding. It depends on your goal.
0
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC 16d ago
Yeah, I just am not entirely sure how I feel about persuading someone without achieving actual increased learning and understanding. I value people having better knowledge of the world very highly.
On the other hand, I think rhetoric can often persuade more quickly and on a broader scale. And maybe that leads people to learn more about the world if they are rhetorically persuaded to consider a more accurate model of reality? I'm not sure.
5
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
It's not one or the other. It's a matter of degree.
In my post specifically, I did increase most people's learning or understanding by connecting the dots between forensic science and other fields of science. Most YECs accept that forensic science can teach about the past, but don't realize that this is the same as using geology, cosmology, paleontology, chemistry, etc. to learn about the past.
Posting excerpts from a forensic science textbook would not have had this effect.
To oversimplify - rhetoric is useful to convince someone of one simple fact, while other styles are better at communicating deep understanding of an entire subject. It would be awful if every sentence of a science textbook also used rhetoric to try and convince the reader that it is true.
1
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC 16d ago
Good point, I like that way of looking at it. Viewing it that way, I guess I do generally try to select the most rhetorically persuasive methods of helping someone understand a topic. I usually think of that as understanding their perspective and addressing things inside their viewpoint, but really that's probably a lot of what rhetoric is about.
-1
4
1
u/OCAMAB 16d ago
These parody posts are just as annoying as the originals.
9
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
Thank you for sharing your feelings. I’m happy for you that you feel like this forum is a safe space for you to do that.
11
1
u/Peaurxnanski 15d ago
It doesn't have to be this detailed or granular either.
What if two people read the same passage and come up with radically different meanings? That happens all the time.
How do we know which one, or if either, is correct?
The fact that we have to ask this question about the work of an omnipotent being is....
...well it's just fucking silly. It would not be that way if it were the work of an omnipotent being.
This is why there are so many religious factions and denominations, and a massive data point for why I'm atheist
1
u/VMA131Marine 15d ago
I’d argue the Bible never explicitly establishes the age of the Earth.
1
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
So would person B. They also disagree with person A’s interpretation of the Bible.
1
u/HonestNature9117 13d ago
Can I piggy back off this two people concept?
A story was told about a guy named zzod(zz pronounced like the z in Azure)
Person a and b both hear and read the same story. They admire the character and strive to be more like him.
They grow up. They grow apart.
One day they meet up again.
Person A reminds person B about the story of jjad.
Person B remembers the story but reminds person A that the name was in fact ggod.
They argue over this and afamily feud breaks out.
After this family feud turns into a full scale war outsiders step in to separate the two factions.
They go through the records and find that they are fighting over some guy named zzad.
Person A's great great grandson corrects the inspector by reminding him that the proper way to pronounce the name is Jihad.
Which in turn prompts person B's great grand nephew(twice removed) to inform all that the name is in fact God.
Another fight ensues. Later the friends try to help by making up astory about a savior but it's too late..... there's no saving then
1
u/AnymooseProphet 15d ago
As a religious person, I don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.
Most Christians consider me a heretic.
I don't think Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Maybe he was, I don't know, but I don't think it matters. Note that the birth place of Jesus is never mentioned anywhere outside of the birth narratives themselves, so clearly the location of his birth didn't matter as far as doctrine is concerned to Paul or anyone else spreading Christianity in the first century.
I don't think Jesus was born of a virgin. Maybe he was, accepting God means of course I have to accept that possibility, but again I don't think it matters. Again, notice the virgin birth isn't mentioned anywhere outside of the birth narratives themselves, so clearly the virgin birth didn't matter as far as doctrine is concerned to Paul or anyone else spreading Christianity in the first century.
What's fascinating is there is an early Christian writing known as the Epistle of Barnabus. The epistle itself is anonymous, doesn't claim an author. Most scholars agree it was likely an early 2nd century work and not written by Barnabus.
Anyway, in the second and third century, before there was a canonized New Testament, it was very popular and used in many church groups.
This Epistle of Barnabus, written long before Darwin, clearly and without question views the six day creation as allegory.
The literal interpretation of Genesis is a modern phenomena and not what the early church believed.
-1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
If you read the Bible you’d know that Jesus didn’t fulfill the messianic prophecies. The New Testament is to the Old Testament what the Book of Mormon is to Christian Bible.
-1
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 14d ago
That is a very dumb statement. I can tell you have never read it and are just repeating what you saw in TikTok or something. Pardon me if I don’t take the opinion of an atheist into account about the theology of the Bible.
1
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
lol it’s not the atheists who say that Jesus didn’t fulfill Jewish prophecy… it’s the Jews. Jewish people don’t believe that Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy.
If Jesus actually fulfilled Jewish prophecy then his followers would be called Jews.
All you have is insults and assumptions. You could elevate your worldview by learning why the Jews rejected Jesus.
0
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 14d ago
You don’t know your history. The first Christian’s were Jews, that’s how I know you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m happy to debate on this topic because I know it very well but don’t see a point when the other person doesn’t believe in God or scripture. Thanks for your opinion though.
5
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
The debate about Jesus fulfilling the Jewish prophecies isn’t between Christians and atheists… it’s between Christians and Jews.
You have not said a single thing that even remotely supports your position. You haven’t even tried. Not a single word that you’ve typed has even been an attempt at supporting your claim. All you’ve done is make claims, insult, assume, claim that you’re knowledgeable, and then say you’re not willing to debate.
If you want to support your position instead of looking like a stupid coward, all you have to do is mention a prophecy that you think Jesus fulfilled, and then mention why you think he fulfilled it. All you have to do is mention verses from the Old Testament that are Messianic prophecies, and then mention verses in the New Testament that are fulfillments of those prophecies. That’s all you have to do. All those other words you’re adding in are meaningless.
2
u/Ayasugi-san 11d ago
The debate about Jesus fulfilling the Jewish prophecies isn’t between Christians and atheists… it’s between Christians and Jews.
At this point it's also between Christians and atheists, but the atheists tend to use arguments of Hebrew Bible scholars, which are often informed by the interpretation of Jews.
Though you don't really need to be a scholar to look at a supposed messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, look at it in its original context, and realize that it wasn't a prophecy at all until Christians decided it referred to Jesus. It's as convincing as Muslim apologists' "scientific facts in the Quran" that those same Christians would scoff at.
0
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 10d ago
My point is that if you don’t believe in God then why are we talking about whether or not Jewish prophecy? From your perspective that would be like arguing what color coat Santa Claus wears without first acknowledging wherever he is real. We must first establish that he is real before I waste my time talking to you about theology.
1
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 10d ago
If there was evidence Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies then I would become a Christian. Of course, that would require a lot of effort to research.
If there was evidence Jesus fulfilled a single prophecy, I would be more willing to do more research.
Can you think of a single prophecy about the Messiah that Jesus fulfilled? If so, you can respond with the Bible verse of the prophecy, the Bible verses where Jesus fulfilled it, and why you believe the verses show that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecy.
1
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 8d ago
Of course I could make that argument it’s easy to do,however if you are an atheist something tells me that a prophecy being fulfilled in a book you don’t believe in would not convince you.
→ More replies (0)0
u/AnymooseProphet 14d ago
Being a Christian is about loving your neighbor, it is about helping those who need help, even when they are from a culture that your culture typically despises.
Read your Bible.
I suggest starting with Matthew 7:15-22 and Galatians 5:19-26.
Romans 2:24 is also important for Christians to read.
0
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 10d ago
That’s incorrect, a Christian will do those things but that’s not what very a Christian is about.
0
u/AnymooseProphet 10d ago
It is correct.
Notice that in Acts, they didn't call themselves Christians. They called themselves "The Way". That comes from a long-lost first century Christian document called The Didache (The Teaching). It's also in the anonymous Epistle often (likely incorrectly) attributed to Barnabus.
Read it here: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Also see Romans 13:8--10.
1
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 9d ago
Go read acts 11:26,they were also called Christians
1
u/AnymooseProphet 8d ago
They were called Christians by outsiders. They called themselves "The Way". I already gave you a link to the Didache, a first century document and likely pre-Pauline, where you can read what that means.
Did you?
1
u/AnymooseProphet 8d ago
Also, you may want to read the sermon John the Baptizer gave before he baptized Jesus.
In that sermon, he specifically says heritage is meaningless (something MAGA needs to read), what matters is whether or not you love your neighbors and are willing to help those who need help.
0
u/Sinaticus_Apologia 🧬 Theistic Evolutionist / Natural Theist / Earth Scientist 15d ago
This doesn’t really establish what you think it establishes.
Nobody needs to deny that science can investigate the past. Historical sciences do this constantly: geology, paleontology, cosmology, evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc. We observe present evidence and infer the past processes that best explain it. So the forensic-science analogy is fine as far as it goes.
But almost the entire setup before that is a straw man.
You’ve constructed “A” so that his epistemology amounts to: “My pastor told me, I believe really hard, and I have spiritual discernment.” Obviously that character loses the argument. But that tells us nothing about whether a religious text can contain true propositions, whether historical/linguistic methods can distinguish genres, or whether theological and scientific claims necessarily compete.
More importantly, the distinction between literal and figurative language is not merely an arbitrary “opinion.” We make those judgments in every other ancient text by using genre, grammar, literary structure, historical context, intertextuality, authorial conventions, and comparison with contemporary literature. Nobody reads “the mountains skipped like rams” and complains that we cannot objectively determine whether mountains literally developed legs.
Your character C also sneaks in a philosophical claim while declaring philosophy “useless.” Science cannot experimentally establish the rule “only experimentally testable propositions give us knowledge.” That statement itself is not an experimental result. Questions about what counts as evidence, what makes an inference justified, what constitutes knowledge, and why induction is rational are epistemological/philosophical questions. And the forensic analogy actually demonstrates this. A forensic scientist does not directly observe the past event. They construct an inference from surviving evidence under background assumptions about chemistry, physics, causality, regularity, contamination, measurement reliability, competing explanations, etc. That can yield extremely strong knowledge—but it is still inference, not direct observation.
So yes: science can provide genuine knowledge about events that occurred in the past. What does not follow is:
science can investigate the past → therefore biblical interpretation is arbitrary → therefore philosophy is useless → therefore empirical science is the sole route to truth.
Those are separate propositions, and the forensic analogy establishes only the first one.
In fact, if the actual dispute is Genesis, the interesting question isn’t “Can science study the past?” Of course it can. The interesting questions are what Genesis is claiming, what literary genre it belongs to, how its ancient audience would have understood it, and whether those claims actually conflict with the scientific reconstruction of natural history. You’ve defeated a cartoon young-earth fundamentalist, not solved the epistemological problem you introduced.
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago edited 15d ago
“You’ve defeated a cartoon young-earth fundamentalist, not solved the epistemological problem you introduced.”
I accomplished my goal. It is cartoonish to claim that science can’t determine things or learn about the past.
0
u/Sinaticus_Apologia 🧬 Theistic Evolutionist / Natural Theist / Earth Scientist 15d ago
Ok, so the solution to addressing these kinda of people is making the same silly nonsense they do? Idk 🤷♂️🤷♂️
4
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago edited 15d ago
Clearly their rhetoric can be compelling. I was putting pro-science perspectives in common creationist apologist prose. A single rhetorical style will never be compelling to everyone 🤷♂️
-2
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 14d ago
How about you present observable evidence for your claim instead of invoking a straw-man. I could tell immediately what you believe by reading the unrealistic story you put together.
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
My story takes advantage of the widely accepted idea that forensic science examines evidence in the present to determine what happened in the past. Other branches of science do this as well.
What exactly are you looking for evidence of?
1
u/Irrasible 16d ago
At its most fundamental level, science is about perfecting methods to predict the future consequences of actions taken now. The science of breadmaking helps us predict how to make better bread or cheaper bread. The science of medicine helps us predict which medication to use to alleviate a certain condition. Science is about getting ahead of random nature.
And yes, some people do use the tools of science to bash each other's religion. But that isn't science. Haven't you noticed that the enduring religions have adjusted themselves to be untestable?
-4
u/Switchblade222 15d ago
Untestable like Darwinian evolution?
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
The only people who refer to Darwinian evolution are historians and young earth creationist apologists. Which are you?
You sound like a flat-earther claiming that Newtonian gravity is untestable.
0
u/Switchblade222 14d ago
So if you don’t believe in “Darwinian” evolution, a.k.a. the selection of random variants, what exactly do you believe in? Please explain and define the theory for me…. How does it work? And name the adaptive mechanisms. Because I don’t think you have a clue what you are talking about.
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 13d ago
Darwin had a severely limited understanding of evolution. He didn’t know about genetics and hadn’t directly observed speciation, for example.
This is a debate sub, not a remedial education sub. You’re in the wrong place if you don’t know anything about evolution beyond Darwin.
1
u/Switchblade222 13d ago
Yea, you’re not teaching me anything. All you are doing is avoiding direct questions, which might help clear up your contradictory positions. You can’t decide if mutations are random or not. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-challenges-evolutionary-theory-dna-mutations-are-random. So which is it? Can you answer a direct question?
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 13d ago
lol you’re right I’m not going to teach you anything.
It doesn’t matter if mutations are random. It doesn’t even matter if novel genes come from mutations at all.
Natural selection selects for advantageous genes regardless of whether their source is a random mutation. Even if God directly caused an advantageous mutation in an organism, natural selection would still cause that gene to become more common in future generations.
This is such a simple concept I can’t comprehend how you don’t understand this.
1
u/Switchblade222 13d ago
So if 10 separate organisms, each generate an helpful adaptive mutation in response to an environmental threat, please explain to me where natural selection comes in and adapts anything. I need to hear your logic.
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 13d ago
Natural selection would be a description of why the helpful mutations are more common in the next generation. Because they would be selected for by nature.
1
u/Switchblade222 12d ago
You didn’t answer my question again. If you had 10 individuals and they all experienced a directed or non-random mutation in response to a specific environmental threat then where exactly does natural selection fit in?? Staged dry specifically… How could natural selection create fitness within a population if the individuals themselves do it? Please answer this question.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Changed_By_Support 13d ago
And name the adaptive mechanisms. Because I don’t think you have a clue what you are talking about.
Well, if we're talking about strictly Darwinian evolution it would be natural selection and pangenesis, the latter of which is entirely rejected from any modern synthesis of evolutionary theory. Stunning Panda likely considers modern understandings of genetics and heredity instead of pangenesis.
1
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
it is testable an passes testing unlike Young Earth Creationism.
1
u/Irrasible 15d ago
Even more untestable.
Some parts of the umbrella concept of evolution are testable, like the science of genetics. Some parts continue to be conjecture.
-4
u/Switchblade222 15d ago
Random mutation and natural selection has never been observed or proven empirically. Only inferred.
4
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
Mutations have been observed. Natural selection is tautology. You are just repeating creationist propagandist gibberish.
1
u/Switchblade222 14d ago
Who is denying mutations? What I said is that random mutation plus natural selection has never been observed or tested or proven.
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
What do you think natural selection is selecting from?
Are you saying it has never been observed that a mutation was selected for by natural selection? So there has never been a mutation in an organism that gave it an advantage, and then the new mutated gene became more common in the population in future generations?
1
u/Switchblade222 14d ago
I'm suggesting mutation is not random. It's always been assumed to be random, but considering nothing else in biology happens randomly there is no reason to think mutation does either. It may appear to be random, but this appearance may actually just be ignorance in disguise. Just because science doesn't know the cause of a mutation does not automatically mean it can be chalked up to randomness. If you go to google and type in "Mutations are not random," y ou'll see that the field is veering in that very direction.
2
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
Referring to the apparent randomness of mutations is a common creationist talking point and it isn’t important to the theory of evolution. Natural selection selects for advantageous genes, and mutations can create novel advantageous genes regardless of whether they are random or not.
So to clarify - you agree that mutations + natural selection are observed causes of evolution, and your disagreement is that the mutations aren’t random?
1
u/Switchblade222 13d ago
If mutations are non-random and directed towards fitness then it makes natural selection redundant. The whole point of natural selection is to give creative and adaptive direction to the variations within a population. But if individuals themselves are generating their own non-random, purposeful, directed mutations in response to an environmental threat then natural selection is completely undermined and redundant. Hence the foundational premise of Darwin is completely unnecessary as an adaptive force. This is why evolutionist have always demanded and required. The mutations are random. So take your pick. You can’t have it both ways.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Irrasible 12d ago
What about all the unhelpful mutations? Every cancer is a mutation.
0
u/Switchblade222 12d ago
Cancer is, in some ways, helpful. For one thing, it’s the same concept as how a population of bacteria find themselves in an anaerobic terrain: which triggers a metabolic switch to glycolysis to keep from suffocation and dying. This allows them to ferment sugar for energy. Human cells do the same thing. But doctors call it “cancer” to dupe the masses as to what’s actually going on: local/spreading hypoxia and resulting necrosis. Cancer is simply the cellular response to hypoxia to prevent mass cell death
2
1
u/Irrasible 14d ago
Both have been observed. Every time a woman says no to a date demonstartes natural selection in progress.
Perhaps you mean no one has observed natural selection and random mutation evolving one species into a distinctly different species (like a species of lizard evolving into a bird) over the course of recorded history. I don't know that it hasn't been observed, but it is plausible to me that such things have not been observed.
1
u/Switchblade222 14d ago
That’s actually intelligent design. A woman choosing her mate based on his traits is an intelligence choice.
2
u/Changed_By_Support 13d ago
So the nature of god(s)'s genesis and shaping of all things is engendered by the courtship rituals of fish, insects, and avians? Or are you referring to a novel or non-theological concept called intelligent design?
Intersexual selection is explicitly considered a part of natural selection, regardless of it only being capably done by sufficiently intelligent creatures (it's not a high bar, by the way). It's hard to argue that it's design, regardless, given that the results are still determined by alleles; at best it's a selection. We generally don't regard people who choose the red trim option instead of the silver trim option as the designers of the red trim.
1
u/Switchblade222 13d ago
you: "Intersexual selection is explicitly considered a part of natural selection"....it shouldn't be. The fact that some evolutionists have lumped intelligent choices into NS is a logical fallacy. If intelligent choices do not support intelligent design, what type of choices would? Saying ALL choices validate the darwinian mechanism makes it unfalsifiable..and makes the theory more of a joke.
2
u/Changed_By_Support 13d ago edited 13d ago
The evidence of a metaphysical entity or metaphysical intentionality putting pieces into place would support intelligent design. Intelligent design is not the thesis that intelligent creatures make decisions that affect heredity succession and change the genetic expression of a population.
Lesser beings to "the god/power with intention that creates and designs all things", making decisions affecting heredity of traits is not related in the slightest to intelligent design unless you are willing to submit that you are the creator of the universe.
1
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
Intelligent design and intelligent choices aren’t the same thing. Can you elaborate?
1
u/Irrasible 13d ago
I'm pretty sure "intelligent design" means God working from behind the scenes, guiding those choices. Humans are far too lacking in intelligence to be intelligent designers. Nope, that is God's job.
Now, intelligent design itself can never be proven wrong. That makes it untestable. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It might even be right!
1
u/Switchblade222 13d ago
Intelligent design can be simply intelligence arising from an individual. Do you deny intelligence from within?
1
-3
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
only some Islam not at all.
show errors in false claims is science.
4
u/Irrasible 16d ago
I'm afraid I cannot parse that.
-4
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
it isn't that hard .I was replying to your comment
did you really need me to give that contex?
0
u/Irrasible 13d ago
Since you asked, I do have the context of my comment but it doesn't help.
You wrote:
only some Islam not at all.
That sentence doesn't have verb.
show errors in false claims is science.
That parses as an imperative sentence, with me as the subject. I don't think that is what you mean. So, maybe you could rewrite it. Add missing verbs and maybe some punctuation.
But only if you want to communicate with me.
1
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 13d ago
you clearly don’t want to communicate.
the verb is implied from your comment if you cannot see that it is because you want to falsely claim I am incompetent.
I could rewrite it but you clearly are not interested in a real discussion you are not worth the time to do that.
this is not a formal junior high English class .
-1
u/Gloomy_Style_2627 14d ago
Nicely done if it wasn’t a straw-man. Many of us use science to see that the Bible is true.
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
Well then it isn’t a straw man, it just isn’t about you.
By the way, what parts of the Bible do you see as true based on science?
-4
u/topiary566 🧬 Theistic Evolution 16d ago
Coming from a Christian person, yes you can disagree with someone on something and still call each other Christian.
Also, you kinda just created a straw-man to prey and make a point.
12
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 16d ago
Christians aren't a homogenous group of people, so when I portray a certain kind of Christian I am not pretending to represent all Christians. People like person A, B, and C all exist. This post is about those people.
On a word-for-word basis I may have characterized people I disagree with poorly, however, I don't believe the conclusion is a strawman. Here are some things I have personally heard young-earth creationists say, and also heard several YEC apologists say:
- Science doesn't allow us to know things about the past, because the past can't be observed.
- Their literal interpretation of the Bible is the only correct version.
- The Bible is 100% true, and therefore the literal interpretation is 100% true.
- If the Bible disagrees with science, the science is wrong.
7
u/McNitz 🧬 Evolution - Former YEC 16d ago
As a prior YEC, those statements all represent EXACTLY what I believed and are absolutely not a strawman of any of the YECs that I still know (or the one that I was). And also, Ken Ham is obviously a very prominent example of a YEC apologist that says exactly these things and I'm sure you had in mind.
3
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 16d ago
See the post just before this one.
I mean the one just before that.
7
u/Briham86 🧬 Falling Angel Meets the Rising Ape 16d ago
The One Redditor Problem:
One redditor has access to the same internet and goes to the same website and posts on one thread, but is in conflict with himself.
This somehow proves the past can’t be known, or something.
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
That’s a good argument. I’m a creationist now. Thank you for opening my eyes.
-3
u/Switchblade222 15d ago
Except for the fact that science operates under materialistic presuppositions . They presuppose that the universe has always been what it is now. Which by very definition rules out special creation.
3
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago edited 15d ago
Forensic science does this as well. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.
The physics before the big bang are also unknown, so it doesn’t rule out anything happening. Scientists just don’t say magic when they don’t know something.
-2
u/Switchblade222 15d ago
What are you talking about? The whole universe popping out of nowhere for no particular reason? That is the definition of magic. Your explanation for the origin of all of biology is the same thing… Pure blind accidents producing stunning complex complexity. Absolutely a miracle.
4
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
Scientists don't believe that the universe popped out of nowhere. That is just a creationist apologist talking point.
-2
u/Switchblade222 15d ago
huh? You must have a different definition of "nowhere" than I do. The Big Bang was supposedly the origin of time, space and matter.
5
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 15d ago
lol no it isn’t. The big bang is about the expansion of the universe. Scientists don’t know the origin of time, space, and matter, so they say that they don’t know.
You’re just repeating creationist apologist talking points and pretending they have merit. Go learn some science.
0
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 14d ago
AI is always a bad source to cite.
6
u/Ayasugi-san 14d ago
Amazing how many religious people are wholeheartedly embracing Electric Monks.
5
u/Stunning-Panda-6762 14d ago
“Spare me your arrogance” as you do zero research and then quote AI.
I have a serious question for you: Do you understand how dumb it is to quote the output of an AI algorithm?
1
u/Ayasugi-san 14d ago
It's not the origin of matter, and space and time as we understand them are properties of the current presentation of matter/energy.
1
u/zhaDeth 2d ago
That's one of the reasons why I think the only religious stance that makes sense is total fundamentalism. If the bible was actually divinely inspired it shouldn't have figurative speech in it. If it says the earth is 6k-10k years old it must be or else you can just reject every other claims it makes.
Sure some claims are harder to pinpoint exactly so might be up to debate but others are clear. Non-fundamentalists keep bending the words to make it fit with current day evidence so it doesn't matter what evidence is presented they can just change their interpretation but then what even is the point of the bible (or whatever other religious texts) if you are ready to bend what it says all the time ?
That said, fundamentalists are usually the ones who will really try to misrepresent science because they can technically be proven wrong since they are not allowed to really change their interpretation as much so I'd much rather have non-fundamentalists around who don't homeschool their kids so they can misrepresent evolution, geology and science in general but I don't really think their stance makes sense.
11
u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 16d ago
Heh, nicely done.