Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?

FACT: The peppered moth, recapitulation, the false claims on the fossil record, etc, etc,...are or were all used as prima facie evidence for evolution. You know it. I know it, and everyone knows it.To deny this fact is quite absurd and very telling on it's own.

Please check the OP if you are in doubt as to the topic.Whether or not the theories of evolution and common descent are accurate depictions on life on earth are not necessary to establish here. What needs to be established is the need or lack thereof for proponents of evolutionary theories to 'spread the word'.We're borderline right now, but the drift potentiality is evident. Please keep the topic in mind when constructing your responses. Thanks.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---

Good reprimand. Sorry for getting off-topic.On the OP, I think if you look at many evos such as Dawkins, or Wilson and the other guy recently on Charlie Rose, you will see that many prominent evos have insisted on rather far-reaching and dare I say theological implications for evolutionary theory. There is a missionary zeal whether emotionally or intellectually, and the belief is that somehow evolution proves there is no God, or no Designer, or whatever.It comes back to beleiving evolution validates an atheist ideology asserting randomness as the key feature to life and even the universe at times.Imo, the fallacy of such thinking by prominent evos is stupendous and has an undue influence on the thinking and presentation and teaching of evolutionary theory.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

It would be fallacious if they said "Evolution, therefore no God". But AFIAK, they say, "Evolution, therefore goodbye to one of your favorite reasons for beliving in God." Of course, this depends if this is one of your favorite reasons. False. There's nothing about the non-existence of God in any biology textbook I've seen.As for your other misrepresentations, I shall be happy to discuss them at some other time: I see you were unable to debate any of the facts I presented, so I feel we're off to an excellent start.Edited by Dr Adequate, : Still can't speel.

Why don't you try telling them that?

*waves*hi, remember me? you're the ones who keep insisting that evolution demands atheism and we keep telling you how idiotic that is.

I don't know that I would call it "idiotic." There is an argument.But to get to the topic, I don't think an advertising campaign for evolution would work very well.

quote:

---

First, why don't you bring some papers that seek to prove evolutionary theory is true rather than assume it is true.

​

Can you do that please?

---

No.My request had nothing at all to do with the ToE being correct, or assumed, or whatever.Read carefully: What I have asked you to do is point out the shoddy science contained in those papers.Hell, you could pick a Geology paper, or a Population Genetics paper, or any other field of science that you believe puts out crap science, and point out where the researchers went wrong in their statistical analysis, or their experimental protocol, or whatever.Show me how the science is poor.

no. there isn't. evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.

quote:

---

evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.

---

That is not preciselytrue.Anything could have been created ex nihlo, as is with the appearance of having evolved.It's that problem of people assuming they know what God/gods is/are like.

There's a "moral argument," although it might be flawed. I'm speaking of the conventional Western God. And then there's philsophical materialism (everything is physical) which would seem to go along with evolution (that strikes a blow into notions of "soul").
And then there's the factor of determinism.No, I would not call such considerations "idiotic."

Modulous-As you are no doubt very aware this is standard debate format with some around here. Criticize papers and works they have never read and will never read because is is hard. As long as the ToE remains a vague, distant unknown it is easy to pick apart, heaven help us if we actually have to argue the truth.With a high level of ignorance it is easy to label the whole system a belief, a religion. Once labelled as such any discussion about it becomes evangelical.Also, I have composed a new topic to discuss landmark works in the ToE, but as it was your idea wanted to ask if it was okay before I post it.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

Show me the papers then, and I will look at them and critique them.Where are they?

Advertising is usually used to convince consumers to buy something they don't need, and unlike evolution, is often used to convince consumers to buy something that is somewhat detrimental to one's financial or bodily health.On the other hand, advertising seems to work for consumerist-oriented religious sects.Maybe you are on to something, the concept of evolution is too benign in addition to being too self-evident, to require advertising to most rational beings.

Because that's not what they say, AFAIK. If you can show me someone who does say that, I should be happy to tear his arguments to shreds.Feel free.