This is a continuation on the Answering Atheism articles. I encourage you to read the Answering Atheism series to get the background information leading up to this topic.
As Christians we often confuse the evolution argument by pointing to time and chance for every criticism of evolution but time and chance are now introduced only when impossible odds need to be obscured. Most of evolution depends on natural selection. Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas. The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator. Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist. Their primary goal is to remove God so when one argument fails, an alternative version is formed. Let me also clarify that many call themselves atheists because they have only been exposed to the crafty arguments of atheism and are not aware that the evidence contradicts the doctrines of atheism and agrees with the scriptures.
When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence. Many will be open to the truth of scripture when they realize that they have been hoodwinked by the one-sided propaganda that is being passed off as reason and free thought.
We should have a basic understanding of natural selection so that we are not shaken when evolution presents the evidence along with deceptive arguments. Natural selection and micro-evolution are facts of science but do not in any way challenge the Bible – nor do they support evolution. The most popular example of natural selection from the Origin of the Species was the finches Charles Darwin studied on the Galápagos Islands. During seasons when food shortages were a problem, the finches with longer beaks were able to catch insects better by reaching deeper into tree bark or other areas where the food was available. The shorter beaked birds had a greater chance of starving and the longer beaked birds had a greater chance of surviving. Natural selection is the tendency of living organisms to survive because of an increased adaptability or traits that conform to the environment where they reside. Dog breeding is an example of natural selection through intelligent intervention. When a breeder chooses a trait that is desirable, that dog is set apart for breeding and over time the offspring is weeded out to only allow the traits to remain that are desired in the breed. Even though many breeds descended from a common parent, bulldogs will produce bulldogs, poodles will produce poodles, and so on. The reason a breed of dog will produce consistent results is because the breeder has weeded out many of the traits that are not desirable and the genetic code has lost that information. The changes are a loss of information, not the addition of new information. No breeder has successfully transitioned a dog into another species. In fact, over breeding is a serious problem that breeders try to avoid for too much loss of information causes what is known as ‘inbreeding depression’. This can cause genetic diseases and loss of reproduction. Inbreeding depression is a problem found in both animals and plants. Another thing to note is that since all dogs are part of the same kind, cross breeding poses no problem. A poodle always produces a poodle because an offspring can only contain the traits present in its parent’s DNA. Since all dogs are the same kind, there is not a conflict when a poodle breeds with a bulldog. This is one reason why the same kind of animal in one region differs in appearance from the same kind in another region. When a kind is isolated from the common gene pool, they will only maintain the traits that are available in their isolated region. Races of people are from groups of people isolated from each other but when races mix, what happens? Over time, the distinctive look fades into a common ‘norm’.
(Continued on the next Article)
If you have a topic you would like to see or an article idea, email me at eddie.snipes@live.com
I wasn't aware that I had a doctrine as an atheist. I guess all doctrines that are not based on supernatural premises could be considered atheists doctrines...
Anyway, this article is a joke. Do they let just anyone write for the Examiner?
By far one of the most ignorant perspectives on Atheism I have ever read. First off evolutionary theory is just a logical conclusion reached from a large set of observations and studies. It never negates a creator, in fact some religious people have skewed it to be a mechanism of God. Regardless, I'm doubtful a scientists primary concern is negating God, just because some scientific studies do not fall in line with your beliefs. It is not a personal attack, it is simply the pursuit of knowledge.
I would have to argue that most Atheist are well informed about religion, probably more so than the average follower. And if I had a nickle for every piece of evidence that contradicts atheism and agrees with the scriptures, I'd be in dire need of a nickle right about now.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author's tactic of fragrantly misrepresenting evolution and atheism, as this makes them so much easier to attack. While it rarely wins over any evolutionists or atheists, it helps me by confusing the issues for my religious followers.
I often use this same approach and I call it the smoke-screen effect.
Yup, the author takes to lies, deception, and misrepresentation to color the people with whom he disagrees. Don't think Christ would approve with those tactics.
"The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator."
No, evolutionary theory was born of a desire to explain the *diversity* of life, not its origin. Things like why we see the marsupials in Australia but not Iowa, why the fossil forms in the past are different from those that are younger or older, or why the entire set of plants and animals can so logically be grouped in phylum-class-order-family-genus organization.
Evolution is accepted because of what it says about life forms and their history, not because of anything it supposedly says about God. How vain of some Christians to think everything has to be about them!
Halleluah! This is a brilliant article. I am using it in my course on Critical Thinking. I will have the students hunt through the article and locate a single logical argument. Later, I will use the same article and ask students to match 12 fallacies in thinking with a salient example. Thank you, Mr. Snipes. Please keep up the good work!
Your article is so full of logical fallacies it is hard to tell where to begin criticizing it. And it is clear that you do not even possess a high school understanding of science. I do not know why you included a 'debate' tag on this rambling nonsense published above - it is fruitless to debate with someone who doesn't even understand the issue.
"When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence."
So you are referring to yourself as an atheist? You have already told us that scientists change their views to accommodate new evidence:
"Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas."
Creationists, on the other hand, stick with the same tired lies no matter how thoroughly they have been disproven.
My brain hurts having read this article. There is not a single sentence that doesn't contain some kind of ridiculous mistake. Evolution was "born" out of a desire to for a "godless" universe? "Mirco-evolution??" And what is with using the term "kind" as though it is a scientific term? Does this guy work for Ken Ham?
I have to say that in all honesty, I have never read an article as bad as this. You almost have to try to get this much wrong in a single essay.
Oh, and one more thing - I doubt the author knows what the Trojan Horse was, because it has nothing to do with anything he posted.
Grant: Eddie is aware that Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross wrote a book about Intelligent Design called "Creationism's Trojan Horse," so he's lifting the title (thinking it makes a cute rejoinder) without understanding what was descriptive about the phrase.
Scott: Yeah that is probably likely, although, as you know, in that case the metaphor of the Trojan Horse makes sense. It makes little sense in this ramble of silliness. I'm not sure what makes natural selection a Trojan horse here. Is natural selection the Trojan Horse? if so, what is inside? Science as the Greeks? Is Atheism the horse and the natural selection the Greeks? Is Darwin then cast as Odysseus? It's bad enough the author knows very little about science (using the word "kind" as though it has a specific meaning in classification nomenclature.) but he manages to mangle classic myth as well.
No. Evolution was not devised to remove God. It was based on observations which lead to a hypothesis and eventually a theory. On the other hand, the existence of God can not be tested, unlike evolution. Further, if you want to get into "impossible odds", then let's talk about how God came into existence (if he exists). It is reasonable to assume that the odds of God popping out of nowhere or willing himself into existence to be much lower than the functioning of evolution which has been observed to work. It is a comparison of infinitely small to finitely small.
You should just stop with the articles because you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about science or the purposes of science.
"When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence."
So you basically admit that you are blinded by your own misguided biases and we should just disregard anything you say. Great, luckily you got it out of the way early on.
If it was only you that were this ignorant I could write it off but the fact that you and your wife are home schooling your 5 daughters makes me sick to my stomach.
It's ignorance like this that gives home schooling a bad name.
This sentence is key: "Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist"
... it sheds a lot of light on the problem. Not because it's true, but because the Christian author is accidentally revealing his problem with science: "Since the goal is to get closer to God, proving the argument will never change the mind of a creationist”.
The author must be a satirist. Because if that is representative of Creationists and their thinking then `god' help them. They will be the Dodos of the 21st Century.
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!
Comments
"Dog breeding is an example of natural selection through intelligent intervention."
It's called "artificial selection," you ignorant jackass.
<i>“Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist.”</i>
So what “argument’ are you ‘disproving’, then?
Comedy night at the Apollo?
This absolutely must be satire. It is often hard to comprehend that some people are so absolutely dense.
"The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator."
No, the evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to examine the evidence and work out what actually happened.
"Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas."
Yes, I've noticed that religious people seem terribly confused by the notion of changing ideas based on evidence. Why is that?
I wasn't aware that I had a doctrine as an atheist. I guess all doctrines that are not based on supernatural premises could be considered atheists doctrines...
Anyway, this article is a joke. Do they let just anyone write for the Examiner?
By far one of the most ignorant perspectives on Atheism I have ever read. First off evolutionary theory is just a logical conclusion reached from a large set of observations and studies. It never negates a creator, in fact some religious people have skewed it to be a mechanism of God. Regardless, I'm doubtful a scientists primary concern is negating God, just because some scientific studies do not fall in line with your beliefs. It is not a personal attack, it is simply the pursuit of knowledge.
I would have to argue that most Atheist are well informed about religion, probably more so than the average follower. And if I had a nickle for every piece of evidence that contradicts atheism and agrees with the scriptures, I'd be in dire need of a nickle right about now.
This is a fantastic article.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author's tactic of fragrantly misrepresenting evolution and atheism, as this makes them so much easier to attack. While it rarely wins over any evolutionists or atheists, it helps me by confusing the issues for my religious followers.
I often use this same approach and I call it the smoke-screen effect.
Well done!
I just want to know where the author took biology so I know not to send my kids to that school.
Perhaps the most ignorant article ever written on the subject of evolution.
"The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator."
The evolutionary theory was born out of desire for the facts. Deal with it.
Yup, the author takes to lies, deception, and misrepresentation to color the people with whom he disagrees. Don't think Christ would approve with those tactics.
"The changes are a loss of information, not the addition of new information."
Eddie look up these two terms "frameshift mutations" + "insertion"
Any High School Biology textbook should suffice.
"The evolutionary theory was born out of a desire to provide an explanation of the origin of life without a Creator."
No, evolutionary theory was born of a desire to explain the *diversity* of life, not its origin. Things like why we see the marsupials in Australia but not Iowa, why the fossil forms in the past are different from those that are younger or older, or why the entire set of plants and animals can so logically be grouped in phylum-class-order-family-genus organization.
Evolution is accepted because of what it says about life forms and their history, not because of anything it supposedly says about God. How vain of some Christians to think everything has to be about them!
@Mr Green says . . .
"Anyway, this article is a joke. Do they let just anyone write for the Examiner?"
Apparently so. You would think they would at least move him to the Comics section though.
Halleluah! This is a brilliant article. I am using it in my course on Critical Thinking. I will have the students hunt through the article and locate a single logical argument. Later, I will use the same article and ask students to match 12 fallacies in thinking with a salient example. Thank you, Mr. Snipes. Please keep up the good work!
Mr. Snipes,
Your article is so full of logical fallacies it is hard to tell where to begin criticizing it. And it is clear that you do not even possess a high school understanding of science. I do not know why you included a 'debate' tag on this rambling nonsense published above - it is fruitless to debate with someone who doesn't even understand the issue.
@Laicity
"Comedy night at the Apollo?"
Poe's Law...
"When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence."
So you are referring to yourself as an atheist? You have already told us that scientists change their views to accommodate new evidence:
"Part of the confusion is due to the changing face of evolution as they evolve their arguments into new claims as science disproves the old ideas."
Creationists, on the other hand, stick with the same tired lies no matter how thoroughly they have been disproven.
My brain hurts having read this article. There is not a single sentence that doesn't contain some kind of ridiculous mistake. Evolution was "born" out of a desire to for a "godless" universe? "Mirco-evolution??" And what is with using the term "kind" as though it is a scientific term? Does this guy work for Ken Ham?
I have to say that in all honesty, I have never read an article as bad as this. You almost have to try to get this much wrong in a single essay.
Oh, and one more thing - I doubt the author knows what the Trojan Horse was, because it has nothing to do with anything he posted.
I need some aspirin.
This is so dazzlingly inept that not even one xian has commented to defend it. There may be hope!!
Grant: Eddie is aware that Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross wrote a book about Intelligent Design called "Creationism's Trojan Horse," so he's lifting the title (thinking it makes a cute rejoinder) without understanding what was descriptive about the phrase.
Scott: Yeah that is probably likely, although, as you know, in that case the metaphor of the Trojan Horse makes sense. It makes little sense in this ramble of silliness. I'm not sure what makes natural selection a Trojan horse here. Is natural selection the Trojan Horse? if so, what is inside? Science as the Greeks? Is Atheism the horse and the natural selection the Greeks? Is Darwin then cast as Odysseus? It's bad enough the author knows very little about science (using the word "kind" as though it has a specific meaning in classification nomenclature.) but he manages to mangle classic myth as well.
That headache is coming back....
No. Evolution was not devised to remove God. It was based on observations which lead to a hypothesis and eventually a theory. On the other hand, the existence of God can not be tested, unlike evolution. Further, if you want to get into "impossible odds", then let's talk about how God came into existence (if he exists). It is reasonable to assume that the odds of God popping out of nowhere or willing himself into existence to be much lower than the functioning of evolution which has been observed to work. It is a comparison of infinitely small to finitely small.
You should just stop with the articles because you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about science or the purposes of science.
"When I refer to atheism I am assuming that the reader understands that I am referring to those who are in rejection of the truth and will not be persuaded in the face of any evidence."
So you basically admit that you are blinded by your own misguided biases and we should just disregard anything you say. Great, luckily you got it out of the way early on.
Wow, this blogger is a frakking idiot. Wake up dude, your religion is just a hoax.
This article is full of either outright lies, or willful ignorance.
Not that there's much difference morally.
Eddie,
If it was only you that were this ignorant I could write it off but the fact that you and your wife are home schooling your 5 daughters makes me sick to my stomach.
It's ignorance like this that gives home schooling a bad name.
This sentence is key: "Since the goal is to distance themselves from God, disproving the argument will never change the mind of an atheist"
... it sheds a lot of light on the problem. Not because it's true, but because the Christian author is accidentally revealing his problem with science: "Since the goal is to get closer to God, proving the argument will never change the mind of a creationist”.
The author must be a satirist. Because if that is representative of Creationists and their thinking then `god' help them. They will be the Dodos of the 21st Century.
I'd answer the fallacies, but, to be honest, I'm a guitarist, and I cannot afford to develop carpal tunnel.
Is this some kind of joke?!...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!