The Dangers of Evolutionary Thought.

[dannyboy]

The Dangers of Evolutionary Thought

(From Monkey, to Hitler, to Columbine)

What is the value of human life? According to the US Bureau of Chemicals and Soils, when broken down to our simplest form, the chemicals making up the average human being would bring a market value of about $4.50. My professor for Human Anatomy once gave me a figure that was considerably lower, valuing the average human makeup at about $2.00. On today’s market, if it came to a jar of you or two gallons of gas, the gas would go first. To be fair though, that is only an average value. Those who are overweight like me are worth a bit more.

Of course most people would not gauge themselves at less than a couple gallons of gas. That’s because we add value to life that goes above our ability to calculate chemical worth; but what does Evolution (capitalized because it refers to a specific theory) have to say about this measure? If Evolution is true we are no more than a pool of chemicals that washed up onto a beach millions of years ago. According to Holt Biology, evolution tells you that, “You’re an animal and share a common heritage with earth worms.” (Johnson, George B., and Peter H. Raven.). What is dangerous about accepting that theory as true? As we shall see, there are deadly consequences.

The generally accepted Theory of Evolution--from amoeba, to monkey, to man (plus millions of years)--was first introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859, after he published his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin wrote this book as he made conclusions about the various kinds of animals he observed while spending time on the Galapagos Islands. Since then it has become the dominant theory of our origin among much of our culture.

Has the world benefited from this theory as a whole? Or, has the world been harmed? For starters, it is important to understand that the Theory of Evolution, in and of itself, has not helped us. The theory has never brought any medical or scientific advancement. The only thing the Theory of Evolution has brought us is more theories about Evolution.

The theory has no practical use in doing anything. Just as a construction worker does not need to know anything about the theory of Evolution in order to do well in constructing a mansion or skyscraper, doctors, nurses, and scientists do not use the theory to actually help themselves or other people get better. For this reason, doctors who believe and do not believe in Evolution are still fully able to continue their profession--it has nothing to do with what they do. And, what is more important than the science that makes us better?

Sure, the construction worker could go on and on about how the lumber he is using evolved over millions of years, and how the brick came after eons of time of rocks smashing together, and chemicals formed around them, brewing up a primordial soup of life. He could go on about how the trees were once chemicals, then amino acids, molecules of water, then onto cells, a plant, and eventually became a big tree. However, if he wasted too much time talking about things that didn’t actually matter, and weren’t actually helping the task at hand, someone might just come along and tell him there is work to be done. Likewise, doctors know bodies like construction workers know houses. Evolution is absolutely no benefit to their work.

Well then, how is Evolution useful to or progression? Think about it. How has Evolution actually improved society? All the theory of Evolution does is suggest a theory about our history, pre-cognitive history, and reason to speculate about how we came to be. It doesn’t teach us how things actually work. It doesn’t teach us new ways to split atoms into particles, or use enzymes to cut apart the nucleotide sequences of DNA codons, or how to use those codons for replication, engineering, or cloning.

It doesn’t teach us anything about machines; how they work or how to build them. It doesn’t teach us anything about the chemical makeup of medicines; either already in existence, or new ones being developed. It doesn’t tell us anything about our anatomy, or the anatomy of any other animal. All of these things are done with good old fashion, hands on, tangible, readable, observable science.

Evolution gives us no scientific data, no scientific method, and no information of any kind that has helped us progress. Consequently, it hasn’t helped us advance in any way, shape, or form. If it isn’t helping us, it only has two places it can go. It can either remain neutral, or it can hurt us. Has it hurt us? We shall see.

What Evolution does offer us, however, is history and a philosophy to life. At best, it is a story about our history. It tells us where we came from and how we got here. It offers us a theory and a philosophy about how we should feel about life, the value of life, and the truth about how we came to be. Is the philosophy helpful or is it harmful to society? This shall be the decided factor in the Theory of Evolution’s worth. As we will explore, the repercussions of believing this theory can be deadly.

As George Santayana said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Our history tells us where we have been, and as we learn from our mistakes it tells us where we should go. Consequently, our history directs our future and tells us how we should conduct ourselves; it helps us tell right from wrong. If Evolution is true, how can we tell right from wrong? Can anyone truly say what right or wrong is if we evolved over an amazingly long, unobservable amount of time?--if we came from monkeys and share a common heritage with earthworms? We will explore these questions as we consider what Evolution has taught others before us.

Though it is true that Evolution is mostly used innocently as a theory taught by the every-day high school teacher, many that lead simple and quiet lives, it is also true that a firm belief and understanding of Evolution has been the driving force behind a number of tyrants. These tyrants--one we will speak of specifically, Adolf Hitler--have taken on the idea of “racial superiority,” “inferior breeding,” and “survival of the fittest” as an inescapable truth that will justify murder and genocide. The philosophy of Evolution was the framework within the rugged walls and hardened mortar of the Jewish gas chambers during Hitler’s reign of the Third Reich in Germany, created to systematically purify the German race of Jews seen as an inferior breed.

The idea of a naturally selective process that allows only the strong to survive as the weak die out has inspired men such as Adolf Hitler to take this natural process into their own hands. If the theory is true, why not speed it up? If you can, why not accelerate our accent into greatness?

Hitler’s writings in Mien Kampf (My Struggle) reveal this philosophy, as he used “science” and “nature” to justify murder. He would insist that the German people not fight against “Nature,” and instead embrace her by submitting to what “she” has decided is best over the past “hundreds of thousands of years.”

Hitler used what he believed to be true about Evolution to explain how we must breed inline with “Nature’s” desires:

No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow. [underlining added] (Hitler, A.)

To justify his cause:

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [underlining added] (Adolf Hitler)

To express his desire to revert back to our more “beast”-like days as a means for usurping a superior race:

My program for educating youth is hard. Weakness must be hammered away. The free, splendid beast of prey must once again flash from its eyes. That is how I will eradicate thousands of years of human domestication. That is how I will create the New Order. –Adolf Hitler [underlining added]

Hitler was a firm supporter of eugenics, a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Hitler’s eugenics programs included human experimentation, torture, and murder. Another strong proporter of eugenics Jean Rostand said, “Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.” If Evolution is true, are we gods as Rostand suggests? Can we say Hitler was wrong for what he did? Can we tell Hitler it was not right to kill? We could tell him, but would we be right? After all, we share a common heritage with earthworms.

If Evolution is true, nobody can tell Hitler he was wrong. Hitler would argue that he was speeding up in the Evolutionary process for the good of humanity. And, if Evolution is true, Hitler’s eugenics programs and attempt at genocide were foundationally right. His methods were right because but if Evolution is true, Hitler, like everyone else, gets to say what right and wrong is for himself. Like Rostand suggests, we are gods.

Evolution does not offer any checks or balances, or moral code of any kind. Hitler would be no more wrong for his actions than would be our ancestors who, over millions of years, killed, destroyed, and struggled to ascend to what we have become. What morality does Evolution teach us?--the strongest survive.

Eugenics reached its most twisted pinnacle in Germany after Adolph Hitler and the Nazis came to power in 1932. In trying to create an Aryan master race, Hitler initially killed or sterilized thousands of citizens who were disabled and otherwise deemed “feeble.” He ultimately murdered millions of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and other “undesirables” in death camps during the war. After Germany's defeat, the horror of Hitler's eugenics program came to light, tarnishing the movement around the world (Masci, D).

There is another observation to consider about present day as well. We have experienced a substantial rise in crime per-capita across Iowa; not only Iowa, but the rest of the United States. Why is this? Since Evolution arose as the primary explanation we give to children and people of all ages, about what our origin is, crime has risen. (“United States: Uniform Crime report – 1960 – 2005.”)

Statistics compiled by the FBI reveal this to be true. Crimes have both increased and become increasingly more violent over the years. This statistic starts right around 1960, but why? In Iowa for example, of all crimes committed in 1960, about two percent were violent. By 2005, however, the ratio of violent crime had climbed to nearly ten percent. That is an eight percent increase in the violence of crimes since 1960.

Understand that in 1960, violent crimes were only two percent of all crimes committed. If the “violence ratio” was two percent lower in 1960, no crimes would have been violent at all. Point being, the ratio of violent crimes had not been rising for very long before 1960. A shift in the violence of crimes was not the only thing to change. Likewise, crime per-capita began to rise across the United States in 1960. Why is this? Perhaps a short survey of history will help explain.

In 1925, The Butler Act prohibited “the teaching of the Evolution theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.” See, in the early 1900’s, laws actually prohibited deviation from Biblical Creation in public schools. Biblical Creation was accepted as truth by the vast majority of millions of American citizens, citizen scientists, and politicians.

Things began to change, however, in the early 1960’s. By this time, contrary to the Butler Act of 1925, Evolution was now being taught in public schools. However, daily prayer stood right along side it as a daily practice among students and faculty. In the early 1960’s, prayer was removed from school and Evolution immersed as the only link to our origin still recognized, taught, or practiced therein. Like any investment, as one into education, it accrued interest. We decided to teach exclusively, one theory about our origin to our children. It is the same theory that Hitler used to justify the genocide of millions of Jews. That decision has had drastic results.

In 1999, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris walked into Columbine High School in Colorado, murdering twelve students and one teacher. Isaiah Sheols was murdered for being black, Kassie Bernall was murdered for believing in God, and it was done on Hitler’s Birthday on purpose. From footage of a video recorded prior to the massacre: “He (a football player at the school) doesn’t deserve the jaw evolution gave him.” (The Dangers of Evolution)

Consider this: You know that this is the last day you will live. You’re going to make a statement. You’re going to tell the world something about who you are and what you want to say. How will you get your point across? How will you make your statement? A local newspaper covering the events at the high school asked this question and suggested that a look into the boys’ clothing may give us an idea about their philosophy to life, as well as what they wanted to say that day; consequently, what beliefs attributed to this massacre.

The article from the local newspaper revealed that the clothing of the day displayed “natural selection” on one shirt and “wrath” on the other shirt (Denver Rocky Mountain News; Rpt. The Dangers of Evolution. DVD.). Holt Biology, as aforementioned, a common high school text book in the days of the Columbine massacre, understood the link between natural selection and Evolution. According to Holt Biology, 1994, Evolution was the result of “natural selection.”

The Theory of Evolution is either true or it’s not. Does Evolution gauge us and the ones we love where we believe they should be? Does the philosophy supplied and understood by men like Hitler and the murderers at Columbine High School align with the beliefs of most people who say they accept Evolution? Probably not, however, the danger is there, and it will always be there so long as we choose to teach and believe it.

Works Cited

Denver Rocky Mountain News. July 25, 1999; pp.4A. Resourced from The Dangers of Evolution. DVD. Presented by Dr. Kent Hovind. Published by Christian Science Evangelism, 2002. 120 min.

Hitler, Adolf. “On Nation and Race.” From Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, translated by Ralph Manheim. Copyright 1943 and renewed 1971 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Reprinted by permission of Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Canadian Rights: Used by permission of The Random House Group Ltd. Rpt. In Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2003. p. 297.

Hitler, Adolf and Norman Cameron. Translated by R.H. Stevens. Hitler’s Table-Talk. Published by Oxford, 1953.

Johnson, George B. and Peter H. Raven. Holt Biology: Visualizing Life. Published by Harcourt, 1994. pp. 176 & 186

Masci, D. (2001, May 18). Designer Humans. Published in CQ Researcher, 11, 425-440. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online, http://0-library.cqpress.com.libweb.dmacc.edu:80/ cqresearcher/cqresrre2001051800.

The Dangers of Evolution. DVD. Presented by Dr. Kent Hovind. Published by Christian Science Evangelism, 2002. 120 min.

“United States: Uniform Crime report – 1960 – 2005.” Disaster Center Resource. Statistics compiled by the FBI, 1960-2005. <http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm>. <http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/iacrime.htm>.

[SoggyFrog]

Putting aside the absurdities of this essay, there are relevant issues regarding eugenics as we have become more equipped to detect "genetic flaw". Further, there are limits on the resources of the earth and scarcity is at present a threat to the survival of humans outside of the Western world. Hopefully all illusion that evolution is an evil fact will be dispelled.

A truth (Such as the fact of evolution via natural selection.), by its existence, cannot be a dangerous thing. They are a necessary basis for morality, and morality on the basis of a falsehood is a delusion. One truth, alone and disregarding all others, cannot be the absolute basis for morality, and when Hitler declared the Jewish race inferior he did not grasp all the knowledge we understand and respect today. That was a perversion of truth.

Hitler's folly, aside from a misunderstanding of the human species, was the belief that man's duty is to uphold nature's acts. Nature is unbelievably cruel, which is why we have humanity to temper her wrathful soul. What nature gives is not health, beauty, and justice, but survival.

A simplification of natural selection is that " happens". That regards, specifically, survival and reproduction. " happens", beyond that context, is not an excuse to cause . It's appropriately the same regarding evolution.

What we have to appreciate is the fact that human evolution is not merely based on the selection of individual physical or intellectual traits. Social interaction and its responsibilities have been essential to our survival. Civilization has further defined this aspect of humanity.

Evolution is not merely history. It's active today as ever, and it carries real use. Most importantly, we understand there is selection within populations, which happens today within and without human controls.

Domestic livestock and agriculture are within human controls, and much of their historic development the consequence of it. Crops, and their animal counterparts, have changed through centuries. How we manage these resources influences both their continued success and impacts our very survival.

For example, we might artificially select against breeds of a grain resistant to disease or insects. We might fault to trade crop resistance for productivity. An annual or biennial plant might be subjected to this selection (Which is presumably not on the basis of evolution, as you have elected to discard the theory.) on the basis that the visibly successful crops are left standing to mature and their product sent to the market, while the less disease-resistant ones are burnt before maturity for fuel or given to animal consumption.

Foolish, perhaps, but if we did not understand evolution and chose to cast away all suggestion of its truth (Thus the farmer named above presumes that every year, the seeds of the past generation produce the same number of juicy and lesser crops regardless of his action.) then such folly may ensue. Resulting famine will not be fixed to the consequence of his unknowing selection, but as an alternative suggestion that you give some useless plea or prayer to the God or Gods that the pestilence be lifted. Science says that we must regard all facts, and it is well that we have done so.

That is one thing. Another is to understand that while most evolution outside of human selection is slowly paced, viruses (Not wholly a life form) or bacteria with much shorter life cycles are continuously changing. The medicine that addresses this fact may not require evolution to function, but evolution is its justification. Again, if we presumed that a Supreme Being created all living things, and there is no evolution, then an epidemic would be the Wrath of God, and our response in churches entirely unsuitable. We know to adapt flu vaccines every year, that one day a new virus may appear to cause an epidemic, and that we need responses because life is constantly changing.

Two important, but not the sole examples of why evolution must not be refuted as a danger to society. Ultimately, the perversion of any truth carries danger, and it is with fewer facts that we are more likely to do the wrong thing.

Stalin shared this fear of truth, and the Soviets persecuted biologists for their "bourgeois" and "reactionary" science of genetics. I must say he and Hitler were both terrible men.

[dannyboy]

To preface this, evolution by natural selection is fact, and that I do not contest. What I would contest is the ascension of human beings (and all other life forms) over millions of years. God made this world, and he made us able to adapt within it. Genetic degradation, and/or adapting through mutation and transformation, is simply aftermath of a whole product that was once made. All observation of genetics, adaptions, and evolution, are the result of adaption and entropy (mutations which might appear to be helpful at a time and place) from a once fully formed product. The observation of evolution by natural selection by a descending movement is not the same thing as the Evolution Hitler believed in, as monkey to man.

Evolution is not merely history. It's active today as ever, and it carries real use. Most importantly, we understand there is selection within populations, which happens today within and without human controls.

Domestic livestock and agriculture are within human controls, and much of their historic development the consequence of it. Crops, and their animal counterparts, have changed through centuries. How we manage these resources influences both their continued success and impacts our very survival.

For example, we might artificially select against breeds of a grain resistant to disease or insects. We might fault to trade crop resistance for productivity. An annual or biennial plant might be subjected to this selection (Which is presumably not on the basis of evolution, as you have elected to discard the theory.) on the basis that the visibly successful crops are left standing to mature and their product sent to the market, while the less disease-resistant ones are burnt before maturity for fuel or given to animal consumption.

Foolish, perhaps, but if we did not understand evolution and chose to cast away all suggestion of its truth (Thus the farmer named above presumes that every year, the seeds of the past generation produce the same number of juicy and lesser crops regardless of his action.) then such folly may ensue. Resulting famine will not be fixed to the consequence of his unknowing selection, but as an alternative suggestion that you give some useless plea or prayer to the God or Gods that the pestilence be lifted. Science says that we must regard all facts, and it is well that we have done so.

That is one thing. Another is to understand that while most evolution outside of human selection is slowly paced, viruses (Not wholly a life form) or bacteria with much shorter life cycles are continuously changing. The medicine that addresses this fact may not require evolution to function, but evolution is its justification. Again, if we presumed that a Supreme Being created all living things, and there is no evolution, then an epidemic would be the Wrath of God, and our response in churches entirely unsuitable. We know to adapt flu vaccines every year, that one day a new virus may appear to cause an epidemic, and that we need responses because life is constantly changing.

None of that is derived from and understanding of Evolution. Believe me when I say this, we have been learning from our mistakes as we interact with the cold hard facts of the world around us for far longer than men thought to understand Evolution. We arrive at the conclusions you described by the scientific method, not by and understanding of Evolution.

Deciphering our genome has nothing to do with Evolution. It has to do with looking at our DNA. You don't have to believe in Evolution to do that. Like most people, you are making connections between Evolution and branches of science that just aren't there.

[SoggyFrog]

The observation of evolution by natural selection by a descending movement is not the same thing as the Evolution Hitler believed in, as monkey to man.

What is this descending movement and what are you contrasting it to? An ascending movement? It's important in the history of evolution to recognize not only the development of species but their emergence and extinction. Do you believe that it is impossible that man evolved from ape? I will accept, within the confines of the current argument, if you say that is not the history of what happened, but I will not accept the suggestion that it was impossible. That would not be the acceptance on your part of evolution as fact.

The key message is that a truth cannot be denied on the basis of fear. This is the essential argument, and the only reason why this is worth arguing.

What you are suggesting, in the denial of evolution, is the removal of a wholly necessary arm in these sciences that you deem merely "acquired". These sciences, without evolution, lack explanation. That may be fine within a certain set of patterns but eventually you find anomalies.

Consider flipping a coin a hundred times. If you are not allowed to reason that it will land 50/50 within a set of deviations, then you must invest far more effort to arrive at the same conclusion that a simple observation of the coin's nature will reveal (There would be no reason to suspect that a 40/60 ratio, after the first trial, is wrong.). To withhold cause is a great hindrance to science.

Evolution is not something selectively applied, and I perceive your greatest contention is its relevance to man and the base rules that apply to him. Do you seek to limit only man's evolution in the great realm of all other naturally selected life?

+ It is a foundation of evolution that traits are passed from one generation to the next. It is difficult to imagine where genetics would be without the foundations it received from the science of evolution. Additionally, to refute evolution is to suggest (If we knew about traits being passed through genetics!) that there is some Divine boundary or limit to the power of DNA. How does science consider that?

[dannyboy]

Again, you can teach someone everything they need to know about genetics (that is everything), and never even bring up the fact that you believe we evolved over millions of years from apes (and further). How can this be?! How can I know, do, and practice a career in genetics and NEVER be told about a belief that we evolved from apes? It's because Evolution has nothing to do with genetics. The only reason genetics ever has anything to do with Evolution is because people apply genetics TO a theory they have chosen to believe in.

Here is what people do; here is a truth:

A person will observe genetics and then use genetics to explain the how Evolution would happen. That is a choice they have made, but it is not factual. One may choose to speculate (using facts about genetics) how genetically we would have evolved... however, Evolution in and of itself offers us NO data whatsoever. All data we have is attained from observations, and applied to beliefs. The Evolution of man from ape is not observed, nor can it be.

Philosophy is using things not observed to explain that which is observed.

Science is using that which is observed to explain that which is not observed yet.

A subtle difference, but it is key.

Our understanding of genetics (or any other science for that matter) is not
derived from Evolution. No science is, ever. Now, those who believe we evolved by the Theory of Evolution very well may use sciences to explain how Evolution would have happend. I.E., because of genetics (observed), Evolution is (unobserved). Fact is, however, if you turn it around, it doesn't work. I.E., because of Evolution (unobserved), genetics is so (observed)--you have just crossed over into the land of philosophy and dare I say make believe.

You don't need Evolution to explain genetics, or any science that exists, unless you want to talk about a totally OTHER REALM of speculation... that is what you think about our origin.

Scientific method my friends... scientific method.

[Richard]

Never brought any medical advancement you say? Yeah, deciphering our genome was such a waste of time...

The ignorance of some people baffles me sometimes. Amusing piece of propoganda though. Props for making reference to Hitler too. If you want to discredit something, there's nothing like a Hitler referance.

[Cassy]

Oh no! The danger of truth! Because religion has such a history on putting value on human life!

[Tajir]

Oh no! The danger of truth! Because religion has such a history on putting value on human life!

Truth my buttocks..scientific THEORIES are ideas, not truth.

Dannyboy, I agree with you on so many levels that I myself cannot wonder where I was without you!

Good to have an anti-Evolutionist on board!

"We came from monkeys".........stupid idea!

When they find that 'missing link' -- they can call my house.

[Sétanta]

You are a protein bag filled with water!

Nothing more, nothing less. Oh perhaps a very special protein bag filled with water, a divinely constructed one, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you really aren't worth much, and accepting that will only make you a better person.

[Mig el Pig]

Truth my buttocks..scientific THEORIES are ideas, not truth.

Dannyboy, I agree with you on so many levels that I myself cannot wonder where I was without you!

Good to have an anti-Evolutionist on board!

"We came from monkeys".........stupid idea!

When they find that 'missing link' -- they can call my house.

WE and the monkeys both come from the same ancestor.
Evolution is a fact, wether you like it or not.

But you probably have the need to feel special by being created by a divine being whit obscur purposes.

[Cassy]

Truth my buttocks..scientific THEORIES are ideas, not truth.

Dannyboy, I agree with you on so many levels that I myself cannot wonder where I was without you!

Good to have an anti-Evolutionist on board!

"We came from monkeys".........stupid idea!

When they find that 'missing link' -- they can call my house.

You realise that there are 'missing link' species, know in fossil records as traditional fossils, that are alive today?

[Dunecat]

You realise that there are 'missing link' species, know in fossil records as traditional fossils, that are alive today?

*whisper* The truth will enslave you *whisper*

[turtle]

I think a few of you may have missed the point dannyboy was trying to get at. I don't think he was trying to falsify the Theory of Evolution, I think he was trying to shed light on the effects of a socially accepted idea on the level of this.

When a society is introduced to a concept that is such a deviant compared to the commonly believed, there will be negative side effects, whether someone likes to believe it or not. This is common sociology. And once something on this level becomes engrained into the society in question, it may incite behavior, otherwise, not displayed. Like his example with Hitler, Columbine and the increase in violent crimes since 1960; I can see why he mentioned them. When people begin to believe that we are not God's children and that we all come from simple organisms that "evolved" over the millenia, it may bring to front feelings of social/human belittlement. When someone knows there was no creator and everything is just evolution, they know there probably isn't a heaven or hell, so why live by God's rules. I can see the illogical side of this silly way of thinking, but many of us are illogical creatures who think in silly ways. When we have such a widely accepted theory of how things began, why not believe it. And in believing such we bring on a whole new way of thinking about ourselves and our society as a whole, this is and has caused social rifts, that much is undeniable and very clear to me.

I am not a Creationist, nor am I an Evolutionist. I have my own ideas and theories, based off of those two. This is probably the most productive and logical way to think about something such as this. Come to your own conclusions and construct ideas, as a whole, from there. Many people do this, but then again, many do not.

From what I gathered, dannyboy was simply asking a question that many like to deny; as Evolution has, in many ways, become our modern equivalent of religious fanaticism. Many hold Evolution as the one truth and can't answer such a touchy question without loosing their cool. Once someone's firm belief in something has been shaken, even to the slightest degree, they become defensive... which is natural. I would like to say that we need not hold this theory in such high regard, think about it and consider it in your way, but don't hold it as the only way things could have happened. Sure, it may be the most logical way, but that doesn't make it truth. We can no better prove Evolution than we can Religion, in many empirical aspects, for both have much of the same kind of empirical evidence to back up their cases.

The question I think we should be asking ourselves is this: Do we truly need a beginning?:hmmm:


EDIT: OR... perhaps I am the one misconstruing his points.

[Armatus]

The Dangers of Evolutionary Thought

(From Monkey, to Hitler, to Columbine)

What is the value of human life? According to the US Bureau of Chemicals and Soils, when broken down to our simplest form, the chemicals making up the average human being would bring a market value of about $4.50. My professor for Human Anatomy once gave me a figure that was considerably lower, valuing the average human makeup at about $2.00. On today’s market, if it came to a jar of you or two gallons of gas, the gas would go first. To be fair though, that is only an average value. Those who are overweight like me are worth a bit more.

dannyboy! after what, a two year hiatus you've rearmed and come back to stir up the pot on TWC again I see!?

It's certainly good to see you back m8! I'm sure everyone missed your clever spin ...not sure if any members of F.A.I.T.H are still around to back you up, but S.I.N certainly is still here. I try to stay out of these topics, we had our run with them many times on and offline!

Oh and I wouldn't go as far as to say you're overweight brother so don't go inflating your worth! Hah!

Just take a look at his just say Cheese pictures hehe http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...643#post312643

Good luck with your paper. Looks like you're already receiving some contructive critizism! I do think you need to tie in your sources a little better though if I may add my 2 cents

[KingOfTheIsles]

If the aim of the first post was to squeeze as many logical fallacies as humanly possible into one essay, it succeeded admirably. Kudos. Gotta love these gems:

There is another observation to consider about present day as well. We have experienced a substantial rise in crime per-capita across Iowa; not only Iowa, but the rest of the United States. Why is this? Since Evolution arose as the primary explanation we give to children and people of all ages, about what our origin is, crime has risen. (“United States: Uniform Crime report – 1960 – 2005.”)

I think this speaks for itself really. The fact that one could extrapolate such an absurd conclusion by linking these two social trends is mind-numbing. Because presumably the teaching of evolution is the only thing that has changed since 1960? Never has the maxim "correlation does not imply causation" been more apt. I could whip up a facetious graph linking global warming to crime levels to make the point further, but it shouldn't really be necessary.

Basically, the results of believing something are not connected to its truth value, and anybody who cannot see this should, quite frankly, get some help. Even were it proved that evolution caused crime, that is irrelevant to whether it is true or not.

I could pick holes in the rest of the thing (guilty by association fallacy, misleading analogy, and a general misunderstanding of evolution vs artificial selection spring to mind) however it should be clear to even the most ardent of bible-bashers that this house is built on the sand.

[Icefrisco]

in response to the first post:
wow.does that have any intelligence behind it? are you a scientist?no, you have no place to challenge a theory that every credible scientist accepts.
what do you mean what good has come of it?you know what happened to burn vitcims before evolution helped to show the similarities between people and pigs? they died. probably millions of people have benefited just this part of the evolution.up until recently pig skin is what saved many lives. again, this is just one of many examples.

[dannyboy]

you know what happened to burn vitcims before evolution helped to show the similarities between people and pigs?

No, I don't, because the observation that pig skin is similar to human skin has everything to do with the scientific method, and nothing to do with Evolution.

You are a protein bag filled with water!

Nothing more, nothing less. Oh perhaps a very special protein bag filled with water, a divinely constructed one, but that doesn't take away from the fact that you really aren't worth much, and accepting that will only make you a better person.

Preach on.

WE and the monkeys both come from the same ancestor.
Evolution is a fact, wether you like it or not.

But you probably have the need to feel special by being created by a divine being whit obscur purposes.

Though you do not understand or even know about the choice I have made, it is important that you understand Evolution is not a fact.

[mocker]

I'm not gonna debate evolution with anyone who believe crime rates are related to evolution.
No genetic evidence of the evolution?
Ever heard of inactive genes? We even got a genetic code for a tail...

[Dunecat]

I do not understand how you can denounce an empirical study purely based on your own reasoning (and a large amount of fallacies). The Theory of Evolution is not a moral statement.

Seriously, if you WANT to do a sort of scientific exegesis, I will, but there is no winning or losing in this debate. That is because your argument, an argument shared by all conspiracy theorists, rests on circumstances, speeches, and "probability".

Scientists are not trying to "convert" believers to their "side". Evolutionists and "biologists" like you (I assume you study biology because you have alluded to it in your post and sig) have two totally different goals and totally different motivations.

I am not a scientist. However, I have enough wisdom to gather from their experiences and what they have taught me to form the best informed opinion I can possibly make. That is, biological evolution.

But if you want me to explain it on simpler terms, here's what I "believe"/think/have discovered:

[Captain Blackadder]

Oh but all those estimates of how much you are worth fail to account for one thing. The black market value of your heart or kidneys. As a result you are really worth more then 100 grand if your heart is in good nick