Freedomain Radio

I really appreciate everyone on the last thread and I thanks for pointing out I should not have called it religious.  Here's what I got out of it. 

Evolution claims different lifeforms came to be by a "process" of change in their DNA.

If anyone looks around they see different lifeforms.  And each of those lifeforms have different DNA.  It is completely illogical to argue any other position that that.  So by the definition of the word, it can not be argued against, if we both agree on the terms of what evolution is.

Some mechanics have been discovered and much evidence has been found to support those claims.  There are several other claims that are unsubstantiated like the Cambrian Explosion.  There are other claims evolutionary theory produced in the past that were disproved.  That's great; it's the scientific method and it works.

However, evolution is constantly changing through evidence.  If what defines evolution is just, "what is", then by definition it can't be argued against.   That's pretty tricky.  If another mechanism were proposed that evolutionist fought against, and it eventually were proved to be true, the evolutionist would just accept that position.

So I claim evolution can't be argued for its truth because it's practically axiomatic.  I don't think "evolution" can be responsibly brought up in an argument with an ID or creationist.  Their own claims must be discredited, or specific mechanisms should be spoken of, but not the label Evolution.

I've never met a creationist that say God created all the different dog breeds.

What you are describing is not a “trick” so much as it is a process. Science, by its definition, changes with increased information. That is how it works. A particular theory can be disproved without disproving science itself. This is because science is grounded by reality. A religion on the other hand is NOT grounded by reality and even if the evidence of reality points to evolution as being true those “of faith” will not believe it because it contradicts a book that is thousands of years old.

 

By the way, if it makes you feel better, there are many Christians who DO believe in evolution. They simply believe the process began with a creator. Have you heard the television argument? A television was “created” by a human being but televisions themselves went through a long process of “evolution” as technology improved.

Hey Ryan, thanks for your reply.  You're absolutely right!  My original claim wasn't valid.  I'll call it "media attention" declaring it religious.  However, it doesn't make me feel better that Christians believe in evolution because of the first part of your statement.  :)

I've never heard the television argument.  That is interesting.  What is your retort to that argument?

But the trick is to argue at all.  Evolution is merely the facts around life forms.  So it can't be argued for or against creationists.

I think that there is an excellent response to the "television argument," which is that the theory of evolution is the only known the process which can produce highly complex entities, states or organisms. Since God is the most highly complex entity, an entity that complex can only result from evolution, it cannot be the cause of evolution.

“I think that there is an excellent response to the "television argument," which is that the theory of evolution is the only known the process which can produce highly complex entities, states or organisms. Since God is the most highly complex entity, an entity that complex can only result from evolution, it cannot be the cause of evolution.”

 

That is an excellent response and it makes logical sense to me but I am not sure that it would convince a “true believer.” I am torn when it comes to religious people because I once was one and can see from their vantage point. On the one hand, I want to bring them over to see the light, on the other hand I know from experience that many of them are simply unreachable. In the case of the unreachable ones I would like to convince them to at least believe in liberty. As I say in another post, I would rather have a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Wiccan libertarian as a neighbor than I would a Marxist Atheist. The religious libertarian neighbor at least would be willing to let me live in peace without advocating the government take my property by force.

As I say in another post, I would rather have a Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Wiccan libertarian as a neighbor than I would a Marxist Atheist. The religious libertarian neighbor at least would be willing to let me live in peace without advocating the government take my property by force."

 Very well said.

 Cory