Why do theists reject evolution?

[Vociferous]

I've already explicitly discussed the views of moderate theists in a previous post. You know, the ones who don't insist on a literal interpretation of the bible and whose faith isn't threatened by the idea of evolution.

Are you trying, then, to blame atheists for modern religious fundamentalists' rejection of evolution? Was that the point of your post #16? If not, what was your point?

And what would make you think that my answer is in any way limited to literal-minded fundamentalists? Do you think those comprise "most" theists? Can you offer any stats to back that up?
In any case, I would hazard to bet that any that explicitly identify themselves as "theists", as I said in post #16, are the more nuanced or theologically oriented.

That's hard to say without conducting some kind of survey of presentations of evolution by scientists and/or atheists. I'm assuming you haven't done that yourself, or you wouldn't be asking me.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the answer is "yes", if only for the reason that I've seen a lot of presentations of evolution that make no mention at all of abiogenesis. In my experience, abiogenesis is discussed as a separate topic by scientists and atheists, except when religious fundamentalists are involved who don't understand the difference.

I my experience, when both are brought up together zero effort is made to distinguish the two and often evolution is used to argue in favor of abiogenesis. Your mileage may vary. Regardless, evolution has long been used to argue against God and creation. I doubt you can deny that.

I recently corrected Jan Ardena on a similar point. Evolution is not presumed. It is inferred based on the evidence. Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem in science. The only presumption that scientists make there is that it is amenable to scientific investigation. Certainly, there's no good reason to assume science won't crack the problem.

There are presumptions that need to be made to accept a theory of evolution that explains as much as most purport it does. That doesn't mean that aspects of it are without evidence. No need to get defensive over it. If abiogenesis did not occur, there is every reason to expect science will not crack it. Again, unless you believe in scientism.

 

[exchemist]

I've already explicitly discussed the views of moderate theists in a previous post. You know, the ones who don't insist on a literal interpretation of the bible and whose faith isn't threatened by the idea of evolution.

Are you trying, then, to blame atheists for modern religious fundamentalists' rejection of evolution? Was that the point of your post #16? If not, what was your point?


That's hard to say without conducting some kind of survey of presentations of evolution by scientists and/or atheists. I'm assuming you haven't done that yourself, or you wouldn't be asking me.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the answer is "yes", if only for the reason that I've seen a lot of presentations of evolution that make no mention at all of abiogenesis. In my experience, abiogenesis is discussed as a separate topic by scientists and atheists, except when religious fundamentalists are involved who don't understand the difference.


I recently corrected Jan Ardena on a similar point. Evolution is not presumed. It is inferred based on the evidence. Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem in science. The only presumption that scientists make there is that it is amenable to scientific investigation. Certainly, there's no good reason to assume science won't crack the problem.

I'd have thought there is little doubt that evolution and abiogenesis are largely separate subjects, for at least a couple of reasons:
- the mechanisms of evolution cannot begin to function until there is reproduction of inherited traits, whereas abiogenesis studies the epoch before any of that was in place,
- abiogenesis is a field of earth science, chemistry and early biochemical building blocks, whereas evolutionary biology is mostly biology, palaeonotology and genetics.

There's obviously an interface, but the methodology and areas of expertise are largely separate.

 

[Michael 345]

specific mechanisms whereby genetic changes occur.

The original sin is failing to obey with unquestioning faith

By listening and to being taken in by the nasty snake

This has me now thinking about reproductive organs and how a fundy fits them into their picture...now coming at it thru their eyes god builds Adam and Eve both with reproductive organs

Has anyone got a answer as to why men have nipples? god (myth) made man in his image (myth) so even in a myth does no one care to keep the story straight. So god has nipples (inferred) so Adam has nipples

Now to make Eve, ummmm those decorations on the chest can be repurposed to feed offspring. We'll just beef them up a bit

Theists only dislike evolution to the extent that atheists have erroneously convinced them that evolution is contrary to creation

Why would we do that? Made the claim please provide a link thanks

 

[Jan Ardena]

Theists who do, don’t reject evolution, they reject darwinism. In a nutshell.

 

[Jeeves]

Theists who do, don’t reject evolution, they reject darwinism. In a nutshell.

Since there is no such thing as "Darwinism", their rejection is of their own creation.
Not unusual in theists.

 

[Jeeves]

Has anyone got a answer as to why men have nipples?

Artistic license.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin(1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth.

Darwinism, theory of the evolutionary mechanism propounded by Charles Darwin as an explanation of organic change.

Darwinism, the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Darwinism: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent

Darwinism, the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary ... of features that belong in a definition of species (Rheins 2011).

Darwinism, a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection. Also called Darwinian theory .

 

[(Q)]

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin(1809–1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth.

Darwinism, theory of the evolutionary mechanism propounded by Charles Darwin as an explanation of organic change.

Darwinism, the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.

Darwinism: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent

Darwinism, the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary ... of features that belong in a definition of species (Rheins 2011).

Darwinism, a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms have developed from other species, primarily through natural selection. Also called Darwinian theory .

Bravo Jan! How very pedantic of you to help us all understand that when we refer to evolution, that we are referring to Darwinian evolution and not these other failed theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_evolution_by_natural_selection

So, now that you have made that sparkling, crystal clear, can we move forward in the discussion and refer to Darwinian evolution as just "Evolution" or are you going to continue with the childish, pedantic, trivial and completely irrelevant labeling of evolution as 'Darwinian', the one to which everyone here is already referring?

 

[Jeeves]

The theory of evolution most clearly laid out in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, accurately termed Darwinian theory, and since developed by thousands of other scientists, is not and never has been a dogmatically held belief or "ism" as some theists prefer to describe a very large body of scientific endeavour, of which they understand mere sloganized snippets - and insist on misrepresenting even the very little they do understand.
This:

Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth.

is just such a typical misrepresentation. If "Darwinism" is all those above cited entities, it does not "designate" anything. It may encompass, include, consist of or comprise, but "to designate" means to assign or appoint. A scientific theory has no designatory power.
Therefore, the above statement would more accurately be phrased:
A distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth is called/ termed/ named/ labelled Darwinism.

 

[exchemist]

Bravo Jan! How very pedantic of you to help us all understand that when we refer to evolution, that we are referring to Darwinian evolution and not these other failed theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_evolution_by_natural_selection

So, now that you have made that sparkling, crystal clear, can we move forward in the discussion and refer to Darwinian evolution as just "Evolution" or are you going to continue with the childish, pedantic, trivial and completely irrelevant labeling of evolution as 'Darwinian', the one to which everyone here is already referring?

I presume your question is rhetorical.

 

[(Q)]

I presume your question is rhetorical.

God, I hope so!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Another reason I reject darwinism is because of be blatant denial, that is required.

Bravo Jan! How very pedantic of you to help us all understand that when we refer to evolution, that we are referring to Darwinian evolution and not these other failed theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_evolution_by_natural_selection

So, now that you have made that sparkling, crystal clear, can we move forward in the discussion and refer to Darwinian evolution as just "Evolution" or are you going to continue with the childish, pedantic, trivial and completely irrelevant labeling of evolution as 'Darwinian', the one to which everyone here is already referring?

Just showing that darwinism is alive and kicking, contrary to some folks belief.

 

[(Q)]

Another reason I reject darwinism is because of be blatant denial, that is required.

And, few here deny it more superfluously, ignorantly and consistently than you.

Just showing that darwinism is alive and kicking, contrary to some folks belief.

Yes, and your continuous childish, pedantic and irrelevant distinction has been noted, over and over and over, again.

 

[Jeeves]

Strawmen do not kick. Not even if you give them names.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes, and your continuous childish, pedantic and irrelevant distinction has been noted, over and over and over, again.

There is such a thing as “darwinism”. I showed that.
Why accuse me of being childish and pedantic?

 

[billvon]

There is such a thing as “darwinism”. I showed that.

Darwinism refers specifically to the theories of Darwin. Evolution encompasses Darwinism and everything we have learned since.

You could coin a term "Ampereism" to talk about Ampere's theories, but they are contained within electromagnetics - they are not separate.

 

[Jeeves]

There is such a thing as “darwinism”. I showed that.

No: you cited a list of definitions to which such a word is applied.
The "thing" to which you refer remains unclear.
Suppose there were such a self-contained body of ideas as could accurately be called "darwinism" - of what would it consist that can be rejected, without rejecting any other aspect of evolutionary science?
A short summary of the central concept would suffice.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No: you cited a list of definitions to which such a word is applied.
The "thing" to which you refer remains unclear.
Suppose there were such a self-contained body of ideas as could accurately be called "darwinism" - of what would it consist that can be rejected, without rejecting any other aspect of evolutionary science?
A short summary of the central concept would suffice.

There is such a thing as darwinism.
The dictionary has spoken.

 

[Jeeves]

There is such a thing as darwinism.
The dictionary has spoken.

Now, you have a talking dictionary to prove that a word exists. Would you like a list of words in the dictionary which refer to things that do not exist?
The "thing" to which you refer by that label continues to remain unclear.
Suppose the "thing" did exist, of what would it consist that can be rejected, without rejecting any other aspect of evolutionary science?
A short summary of the central concept would suffice.

Theists who do, don’t reject evolution, they reject darwinism. In a nutshell.

What, exactly, do you reject? In a nutshell.

 

[paddoboy]

There is such a thing as “darwinism”. I showed that.
Why accuse me of being childish and pedantic?

You have showed nothing more then what you showed in that other thread you turned into a debacle.And in that thread you were shown to be far more then just childish and pedantic.
Darwinism and the theory of evolution are fact. It's that simple, and whether you accept that is neither here nor there. You don't really matter in the greater scheme of things and what professional experts over more then a hundred years have determined, based on many many aspects of overwhelming evidence..