What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

This thread is about convincing most people, not someone like you, to accept evolution.Actually, to be frank, I don't care if people accept evolution or not.They might be better off not accepting it. It might get twisted around and perverted into another version of "social Darwinism." We don't want that.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

robinrohan Not at all. here is the original question. You need not accept evolutuion to answer the question.

Well, the answer to the question is yes, most definitely they hurt the cause in a political sense. It shows no political savvy at all. It would be like a Democrat trying to get Republican votes by saying, "All you ignorant redneck Republicans living out in the hills need to vote for me."This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-25-2006 01:01 PM

That is a general problem in politics - A lot of people don't want to or can't handle hearing the raw truth. To be running for a political office, and to be up front with an accurate appraisal of the problems we face, is a good way to lose the election.But this is heading towards the fringes of being on-topic.MooseAdded by edit: Evolutionary theory (I just typed "evolutionary theology" and had to back up) is not anti-God, or even anti-all theology. But it certainly is anti-certain theologies.Some religious perspectives (theologies) are willing and able to incorporate the worldly realities of evolutionary theory into their religious theologies. Thus their beliefs include "evolutionary theology"; They are "theological evolutionists".Others may recognize that evolutionary theory is neither against nor in support of their theology. It is not part of their theology. They can be "atheistic evolutionists" and at the same time are theistic Christians.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 02-25-2006 04:53 PM

Accepting evolution on its own, as if it were some sort of abstract belief, doesn't sound very important. But in a wider context, the evolution issue is central to how science is perceived in America. A recent TIME article discussed how the US is losing its lead in science and technology, in part because of a dumbing down of science education and a declining interest in science among the youth. When there's this failure to properly educate kids about science, you create a generation that isn't up to developing the technologies needed to keep industry and the economy afloat. Furthermore, you create a culture that distrusts scientists and their findings, which can be disastrous when it comes to policy making. Today, we already see a large proportion of the public that distrusts stem cell research, and a government and industry that ignore the findings of climate scientists with respect to global warming. And when people don't trust science, it doesn't get funded, which only makes things worse.And an understanding of evolution specifically, and not just science in general, is necessary in certain fields, especially biomedicine:

quote:

---

One answer is that if human pathogens are being intelligently designed in response to the evolutionary pressures brought about by prolonged exposure to antibiotics, changes will be required in the current NIH strategies used to combat infectious diseases. Dr. Zerhouni has a difficult job spanning the political and scientific worlds, but it is crucial that great US scientific institutions like the NIH are unequivocal in their defense of science, especially over an issue that is as fundamental to biomedicine as Darwinism. This is a very important matter because the failure of the leadership to robustly support science will eventually be damaging for the whole scientific enterprise in the US.

---

http://www.cell.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0092...
(emphasis added by me)So I think it's important that scientists develop more effective strategies for making evolution more widely accepted by the public, and especially the youth. It's not just an abstract battle about personal belief.

No, it would also mean that biomedical research would grind to a halt. Opportunities to improve health and save lives would be lost. Not to mention the catastrophic effect on industry and the environment if that kind of scientific ignorance were so widespread.

No such scenario need be envisioned. The few shall take care of the many, as they always have. As far as America "losing its lead," why should we be in the lead all the time? Let somebody else lead for awhile. We got plenty of weapons--that's the main thing--and mighty sophisticated weapons they are too. We're good at that.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-26-2006 02:36 PM

I completely agree. It's not only that ignorance and superstition "win" with the demise of science, with all the implications that entails. Rather, the loss of ability to rationally evaluate claims, or even question them, leads directly to events such as occurred on Nov 18, 1978 and Mar 25, 1997. And no, I don't believe that I'm advocating a "slippery slope" fallacy. When the fundamentalists finish the political destruction or restricting of biology, they will simply move on to the next science that doesn't fit their narrow preconceptions. Geology, paleontology, cosmology, much physics, etc., will slide into the abyss as well. Not to mention, history, anthropology, archeology, and so on - or at least those aspects of the above that conflict with a literal interpretation of the Bible.My two cents.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-26-2006 02:35 PM

Let's not wander too much further from the topic. Thanks.

Of course it would mean that. But that has nothing to do with the issue of whether Science is antithetical to religion.It does point to the reason we need to defend Science, and the front line right now is over Evolution.So the question is how to best support science.IMHO we cannot do that by forcing other supporters to keep their views silent. There will be extremes on all sides, and the best method is to get those who support both science and religion to speak out often, and with reason, logic and evidence.The one area where I do think we need to do more is to actively oppose those who try to legitimize the Biblical Creationist viewpoint as worthy of consideration. It's not. The Biblical Creationists are simply wrong. They are wilfully ignorant.The best folk to stand up and oppose the Biblical Creationist position are other Christians.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

These other Christians would need a case, however, and they have no case.

No case that Biblical Creationism is a joke?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, there's a case for that all right. The only problem is you have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There's no case for Christianity fitting in with evolution.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 02:12 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 02-26-2006 02:13 PM

You've claimed that repeatedly, but so far have never been able to convince anyone but Faith, randman and crowd.Furthermore, it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread or subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There's no case for science not fitting in with Christianity, to be frank.I accept the physical evidence for the occurrence of evolution, but I believe in Christ as our Saviour. I know I have no evidence for this, that's why I call it a belief - it's based on faith, not evidence. I may have old writings, written by man, fallible man, but I believe there is a kernel of truth in there. However, this can be nothing more than a personal and subjective opinion.When it comes to evolution, the physical evidence is overwhelming. I don't say evolution has been proved, since nothing is proved in science, but it fits the available evidence better than any other theory proposed. Not only that, but the predicions of the theory have been borne out.I have no difficulty with being a Christian and accepting science. The trick is to know the limitations of both. Once you allow one to encroach into the territory of the other you have a conflict and have to choose one or the other. If you can accept that the Bible isn't science and science has no place in the religious realm, then the problems don't exist.