Why do theists reject evolution?

No, it's pragmatic. It's the Abrahamists in charge of religion in the west, middle east and a lot of the south.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oops
119 should read
May I suggest that:
Conflating theists and abrahamists is most likely obfuscatory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one is asking you to hold your breath. On the contrary, everyone is asking you to take a deep breath and clear your head.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While it seems most likely that all/most Abrahamists are theists
Not all theists are Abrahamists

conflating the 2 is just plain lazy,
and, if accuracy is a goal not really pragmatic.

If you mean to say Abrahamists, then say Abrahamists
would it be any more pragmatic to call them fredist?

..................................
oh, and
long ago and far away
I was thrown out of a church by a red faced redneck southern baptist preacher.
(he seemed to know a lot of the words, but, I doubt that he was a theist.)

 

Okay.
Or, I'm quite happy with the designation

for the purpose of the evolution question.
However, if some of my fellow skeptics are too lazy to list all possible combinations of inclusion and exclusion from their questions - because, after all, lots of Jews, Christians and Muslims are progressive or half-hearted, or undecided, or don't give a damn one way or another - I'm equally happy to understand what they mean by 'theists'.

You can doubt their sincerity, much as I'm convinced that only one prelate in a hundred, of any denomination, has ever actually believed in the god he preached, but that's a separate matter.
For purposes of argument against evolution, we have to take their self-identification as the benchmark.

 

I get the impression that all theists are in agreement about the most unlikely scenario and that is a sentient, motivated, jealous God, who sees humans as his favorite creation.

It is the sentient motivated part which is the most unlikely universal scenario. If anything, evolution and natural selection are completely devoid of motive. They are implacable, amoral mathematical functions without any regard to favorite species. It's all part of a dynamic mathematical pattern, no more, no less.

 

Evolution
has direction?
eg: are we evolving toward something, or away from something?
And, how much of evolution is choice?
How much is utility?
How much of our genes are saved but not used in the current environment?

I suspect that:
Mathematics, like language, can be no more than a hollow shadow of reality. They are just perspectives utilized by spectators.

 

No, that's the very argument against a motivated God. Evolution has no motive. It is a mathematically ordered immutable function based on values, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 - 1 = 0

Natural selection has a dual function. The surviving (in-selected) individual organisms are able to procreate. The extinct (out-selected) individuals failed to procreate. It's all very natural.
Evolution is well defined in any dictionary.

Natural selection does not make motivated choices. It is a result of best adapted patterns, but 95+% of all species are now extinct. Why?

Does it matter? Actually, left over non-active genes are proof of evolution. None of them are detrimental to the organism or those organisms would have already been out-selected.

The dynamics of the universe rests on the processing of information. Information uses a language. Universal information consists of physical and meta-physical relative values and orderly interactive functions. The orderly processing language of universal relative values is what we have recognized as the "mathematical function" and symbolized for human use.

Nothing happens in reality which is not a result of the interactions of information consisting of inherent values, via mathematically ordered processes.

Can you think of any condition which does not rely on inherent "relative values" and "mathematical functions"? How then does science work?

 

Of course it does. A process can only happen forward in time, from what is to whatever is produced. It can never unhappen or rewind. It can only recombine what exists, never introduce an element that is not present. It goes only one way >>>

Both, of course. Our species evolves from what our parents were to what our children will be.

That depends on the species and its momentary circumstances.

All of it, from some point of view, even though we're not privy to every possible POV.

We don't know.

They're symbolic representations that humans use to communicate their observation of a shared reality.

 

If allegory isn't their thing to begin with, then probably no surprise that Biblical literalists could also not be adept at metaphysical escape artistry. As an alternative to scripture being figurative or cryptic for Abrahamic theists who do accept evolution.

The very idea of the world they perceive not being historically connected to the one described in a (non-deciphered?) Genesis is either another unacceptable option to them or never occurs to them. (Certainly possibilities like this are not too "crazy" for creationists, given what their beliefs embrace to begin with.)

Thus, with limitations set upon either the Evil Demon's capacity to deceive or God being too nice a guy to cast multitudes of minds or Wachowskis pod residents into an internally consistent sensory illusion... There is nothing left to do but challenge science's investigations and inferences (evolution, abiogenesis, age of the universe, speed of light, etc) about the current environmental experiences which both population groups share as a common source to derive knowledge from.

Tessa B. __ (not a real quote!): "I was married to Philip K Dick, I knew PDK. Philip K Dick was a friend of mine. You people [creationists] are no Philip K Dick." [When it comes to creativity.]

- - -

Philip K. Dick (1978): The answer I have come up with may not be correct, but it is the only answer I have. It has to do with time. My theory is this: In some certain important sense, time is not real. Or perhaps it is real, but not as we experience it to be or imagine it to be. I had the acute, overwhelming certitude (and still have) that despite all the change we see, a specific permanent landscape underlies the world of change: and that this invisible underlying landscape is that of the Bible; it, specifically, is the period immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ; it is, in other words, the time period of the Book of Acts.

Parmenides would be proud of me. I have gazed at a constantly changing world and declared that underneath it lies the eternal, the unchanging, the absolutely real. but how has this come about? If the real time is circa AD S0, then why do we see AD 1978? And if we are really living in the Roman Empire, somewhere in Syria, why do we see the United States?

During the Middle Ages, a curious theory arose, which I will now present to you for what it is worth. It is the theory that the Evil One — Satan — is the “Ape of God.” That he creates spurious imitations of creation, of God’s authentic creation, and then interpolates them for that authentic creation. Does this odd theory help explain my experience? Are we to believe that we are occluded, that we are deceived, that it is not 1978 but AD 50... and Satan has spun a counterfeit reality to wither our faith in the return of Christ?

I can just picture myself being examined by a psychiatrist... --How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later

 

I can't help notice the many inconsistencies in the good book which is why I wonder why would you get your science there...it occurred to me this morning ...yes another inconsistency...ten commandments..do not kill right?

Then not long after slaughter all these folk and keep the virgins for yourselves...is it just me that finds it all a little odd?

J guess I am just too pedantic in that I expect,if one is to base so much on a good book to allow it to dictate your science, that the authority you claim as your reason to reject evolution could be reasonably required to be consistent...don't kill and a little later kill and keep the virgins????...I know that has little to do with creation but really can such inconsistency suggest a reliability that can be trusted?

Well it certainly suggests a general dishonesty which opens them up to a call of hypocrisy...

The terrible thing is they think being dishonest is somehow ok when it seems that the god message is the opposite.
Alexander

 

That thought merited your full name......Alexander.....!......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Creationists...whatcha gonna do?

Alex

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Surly that is not a carrot?

http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/history.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Currently COVID-19 is considered to have evolved from a bat virus which gained ability to infect human

Now if it didn't evolve it must have been present in a bat released from Noah's Ark

Isn't history fascinating

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not sure but if I were that squirrel I would not turn around.

I think we could play a little game...invent a caption...

She is saying to the squirrel "I found out why this fruit is forbidden"

You try.

This is one of those days...just when you think you have heard it all...a carrot museum.

Alex

 

Yes. Particularly if you have a good book.

Do you know how long a human can survive inside a whale? I know check in the book.

A whale is mans best friend.

I have been watching The Athiest Expeience..a good one today..Christian, flat farther and anti vaxer.. she once was a nurse in the navy..I think you and here should meat.

Alex

 

Not man - A whale is a CASINOs best friend

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Moreover, have you noticed the subliminal prurience of the pose?