Defending Evolution: Tips & Strategies

[Chrono]

I was talking to one of my friends earlier and somebody remarked that she wasn't an ape (I don't really remember how that came about). Anyway, I replied that by saying that our ancestors were. After that, she quickly responded that Adam and Eve were and began to say how she totally didn't believe in evolution. I wanted to try and defend it, but I was pretty much speachless. Have any of you ever tried to defend evolution? If so, how'd you do it?

 

[O Great One]

How do you take something which isn't true and try to convince someone that it is true? Good question. Maybe somebody has an answer...

 

[False Prophet]

WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES! We evolved from earlier primate species, that had more ape-like features than most other primates, modern humans included. We are not monkeys, orangatans or baboons either. Each of these primates, including apes, took separate evolutionary paths. That's like saying a bird is a lizard, just because birds likely evolved from earlier reptiles.

Here's the evolutionary path of homo-sapien (human):

Australopithocus Aferensis---> Australopithocus Africanus---> Homo Habilis---> Homo Ergaster---> Homo Heidolbergonsis---> Homo Sapien

If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, and they bred, then the children must have bred with each other to make more kids. That means that ALL of Adam and Eve's grandkids are inbred, and we are all products of incest.

 

[Chrono]

How do you take something which isn't true and try to convince someone that it is true?

Why do you say that it isn't true?

 

[brandon.irwin]

It sounds like she believes in God. Since you probably won't be able to change her beliefs on that, you could try encorporating evolution into the picture.

I have tried showing people how it could be possible that God used evolution to create Adam and Eve. Maybe they were the first species that had the ability to carry out His wishes/fallow His rules. From what I have seen, they seem to think that this somehow belittles God. I ask them which is more amazing, building a house out of wood, or planting some regular tree seeds in the right places to have a house grow to your exact specifications after some amount of time. You have to show them that believing in science doesn't mean God can't exist. There is a lot that is not covered in the Bible. We can't assume something didn't happen just because it wasn't covered.

 

[False Prophet]

Brandon, that is an excellent idea, and it depends on her religion. If she's a christian, it will be tough, as the bible pretty much says God created man.

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

 

[anti_crank]

This really depends on what you are trying to do. If she offers no rational reason for disbelieving evolution, there is nothing that you can do. Live and let live. If she does try to argue 'scientifically' against evolution, odds are she will use some form of creationist argument. In that case, you may find this page useful for refuting common creationist claims. There are plenty of web pages out there for defending evolution, but I must emphasize that there is little point in pursuing this.

 

[russ_watters]

Brandon, that is an excellent idea, and it depends on her religion. If she's a christian, it will be tough, as the bible pretty much says God created man.

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Its getting more and more common among young Christians (me) to objectively view the bible as what it is: a collection of separate books with varying accuracy/relevance. The Genesis story is an interesting fairy tale, nothing more.

This really depends on what you are trying to do. If she offers no rational reason for disbelieving evolution, there is nothing that you can do.

And that's the real rub - most creationists aren't interested in science, logic, facts, or other raional discussion of that particular subject (and I know people who are quite logical about everything except where religion is concerned). So its pretty pointless to try and argue it. Only argue it on your own turf (science).

 

[Chrono]

It sounds like she believes in God. Since you probably won't be able to change her beliefs on that, you could try encorporating evolution into the picture.

Yep, she does.

I doubt we would go into this again. I was just curious as to what some of y'all might have done in similar situations. Basically, I was going to tell her that the physical evidence is in favor of evolution.

 

[brandon.irwin]

Brandon, that is an excellent idea, and it depends on her religion. If she's a christian, it will be tough, as the bible pretty much says God created man.

Genesis 1:27 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Yes, the bible says that God created man...but like I mentioned, it doesn't say HOW he created man. You could suggest that he created man using evolution.

 

[False Prophet]

Genesis 2:

In the day that the LORD God made the Earth and the heavens, [5] when no plant of the field was yet in the Earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; [6]but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground-- [7]then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. [8]And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. [9]

 

[bross7]

Evolution in no way disproves or disallows evolution.
One of the leading questions is "Is a week to God the same as a Week to Humans?". Just take a look at what we have dog years versus human years. It has been set up in a manner that time moves "faster" for dogs than humans. Why could this not be so for God.

One of the neatest things I have seen is when the scientific belief of the creation of Earth and the evolution of man is sqeezed into 1 year to get a relative picture of just how short of a time humans have existed on Earth according to a generally accepted scientific belief. Why could the concept of the creation of the Earth by an all powerful God not follow a similar shifting of time.

If there is a God their intention could have been to have a scientific study of what would happen. What if our God is the offspring of a greater God. Maybe the Earth God did not know how to create directly and had to develop the life. Who knows.

I have no problem with people believing in only Creationism or believing in only Evolution, as long as you don't try and force the ideas on anyone. And if you do want to discuss then back it up. Don't use weak arguments like because the Bible says so. If the Bible was as Holy a book as it is made out to be, then it wouldn't have been edited several times by man if it is supposed to be the Word of God. And if you are arguing for Evolution don't just say well have you seen this so called God. Well then he doesn't exist because it is the same narrow minded stupid argument that makes Creationists look like fools so often.

 

[False Prophet]

bross7, I wouldn't say your theories about God aren't plausable, but it would be difficult for a christian who accepts the old testament as truth to be convinced. The time it took God to make man isn't relevant, it's just that the bible says he made man from the dust on the ground, not from earlier primates.

 

[selfAdjoint]

bross7, I wouldn't say your theories about God aren't plausable, but it would be difficult for a christian who accepts the old testament as truth to be convinced. The time it took God to make man isn't relevant, it's just that the bible says he made man from the dust on the ground, not from earlier primates.

But life may have started with clay, there's quite a theory about that, prebiotic evolution of molecules in a clay matrix. And what is clay but wet dust?

 

[False Prophet]

Life may have come from clay scientifically, but I'm just saying according to the bible, God made man directly from dust (or clay then). First dust/clay, then man. Not dust/clay to single celled organisms to complex organisms to early primates to man. The steps that science/evolution took to make man were skipped by God, based on this scripture.

 

[bross7]

I just see it as, religion has been wrong before, and it will continue to be wrong about stuff in the future. I think it would be fair to say that if there is a God that his actions would be at such a level that would be far beyond what the human mind, at least in its current state, could comprehend. So maybe the stories in the Bible are toned down in the same way that all human literature is written for specific age groups. You wouldn't hand a University text to a kindergarten child, so why would God hand us his blueprints.

 

[justinteresting]

I was talking to one of my friends earlier and somebody remarked that she wasn't an ape (I don't really remember how that came about). Anyway, I replied that by saying that our ancestors were. After that, she quickly responded that Adam and Eve were and began to say how she totally didn't believe in evolution. I wanted to try and defend it, but I was pretty much speachless. Have any of you ever tried to defend evolution? If so, how'd you do it?

Explain to her how evolution is proven by other means than just the evolutionary progress of humans. You can explain the horse fossil record, the geology of the earth, or even the process of natural selection and speciation on species today. If none of this works you can try to persuade her using the religious argument that God wants us to understand life and not be afraid to question His methods of "creation."
Overall I don't think the mass population will ever accept evolution on their own. This means more scientifically minded people need to get involved in politics.

 

[Dru2k]

hah a fundy :rofl:

 

[False Prophet]

I just see it as, religion has been wrong before, and it will continue to be wrong about stuff in the future. I think it would be fair to say that if there is a God that his actions would be at such a level that would be far beyond what the human mind, at least in its current state, could comprehend. So maybe the stories in the Bible are toned down in the same way that all human literature is written for specific age groups. You wouldn't hand a University text to a kindergarten child, so why would God hand us his blueprints.

If God's mechanism is so much beyond a breath of life into man's nostrils, then the bible should NEVER be taken so literally. But it is by a christian who accepts the old testament as irrefutable proof. Do you want to explain molecular changes and complex chemical DNA changes, speciation, etc. to this person? If otherwise, from this perspective, then God couldn't have been ANY more specific in his wording?

 

[False Prophet]

I totally believe in evolution. But I also totally believe in how hard it is to prove to a creationist.

 

[Chrono]

I totally believe in evolution. But I also totally believe in how hard it is to prove to a creationist.

How true that is. Whatever piece of evidence you give them they have some sort of rebuttal for it.

 

[Janitor]

I have spent a good bit of time listening to Creationists on Christian radio and TV. I often get the feeling that they believe that Evolutionists know better than to truly, deep-down, believe in Evolution; it is just that Evolutionists are anti-social people working to tear down society, starting with the poisoning of the minds of public school students. Professing a belief in Evolution leads one to a pro-abortion stance, they say, and various other dominoes fall over from there.

 

[Chrono]

I have spent a good bit of time listening to Creationists on Christian radio and TV. I often get the feeling that they believe that Evolutionists know better than to truly, deep-down, believe in Evolution; it is just that Evolutionists are anti-social people working to tear down society, starting with the poisoning of the minds of public school students. Professing a belief in Evolution leads one to a pro-abortion stance, they say, and various other dominoes fall over from there.

I don't like it when people just bash the opposite side like that, and even more when they have no proof of it.

 

[Janitor]

Speciation is one of the aspects of the evolutionary process that Creationists point to and say, "Look, there's no evidence that it is going on in the world today. Show me a new species." I would think that a reasonable person who was, maybe as a result of upbringing, a Creationist, would be amenable to the argument that since allopolyploidy (look it up!) is a fact of the plant world, it is not unreasonable to think that wheat, for example, being polyploidal, evolved from something more grasslike, through a process that increased the number of chromosomes. And once they concede that speciation happens in the plant world, it is not at all bizarre to think it also happens in the animal kingdom. (I may have mentioned elsewhere that I am pretty sure donkeys and horses are an example of one species being caught in the act of splitting into two.)

 

[Phobos]

Have any of you ever tried to defend evolution? If so, how'd you do it?

In these and other forums...frequently. How? Line by line rebuttles of creationist "evidence" (which usually consist of an inappropriate attack on evolution's evidence rather than presenting any new evidence of creationism). Eventual exposure of the bottom line faith vs. evidence world views.

In the "real world"...rarely (rarely comes up). How? Something less confrontational because it's usually family/coworkers...usually something like "can you show me evidence of that [creationist] claim?" or "but then how do you account for X?" (where X is a bit of well known evolution evidence) or "you might want to look into Y" (where Y is a bit of lesser known evidence that they'll need to read up on).

The World View angle is an important one. If a creationist's axiomatic philosophy is that scripture is literally true, no questions asked, then you won't get too far presenting a scientific view. You may have some luck pointing out that a literal interpretation of scripture is not possible...some level interpretation is required.

But certainly many religious people do accept evolution.

 

[Chrono]

But certainly many religious people do accept evolution.

Oh, I don't doubt that. But they may accept it and just not believe in it, you konw? It like they accept that it's out there and people do believe it, but not necessarily themselves.

 

[PIT2]

Ive had this discussion with one of my friends who turned out to be a creationist. I remember some things he couldn't explain:

-if all animals were created at the same moment, then why do the bones/fossils of different animals lay on clearly separated sedimentlayers.

-if we lived side by side with the dinosaurs and all other animals, then why didnt we die when the meteor hit. And why are dinosaur bones found in different sedimentlayers.

-if Earth is only 6000yrs old, that would mean thousands of meteorites decided to hit Earth in the first few years of its existence. How could humans(adam and eve) have survived this?

 

[Janitor]

The Christian radio station this afternoon was playing a taped sermon. The minister brought up photosynthesis, and induced a chuckle in his audience by saying sarcastically, "Plants have this marvelous chemistry involving chlorophyll, which allows them to take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Yeah, evolution made that." The other example he gave to poke fun at evolution was to claim that all whales around the world sing the same song, and four years later they are singing some new song, but again they are all on the same page.

 

[Chrono]

The other example he gave to poke fun at evolution was to claim that all whales around the world sing the same song, and four years later they are singing some new song, but again they are all on the same page.

I'm not sure how that would poke fun at evolution. For some reason, I hear a lot of creationists doing that, making fun of evolution. Saying things like they aren't "apes" and such.

 

[Janitor]

I'm not sure how that would poke fun at evolution...

I suppose to his way of thinking it is ridiculous to believe that 'mere' evolution could result in whale songs working that way.

 

[Mazuz]

People who don't believe in evolution always don't understand it. All she needs is exposure to good material on natural selection. If you believe in time and in the past, and you believe that our features, or our traits, are past down to our children than you have evolution. Niether of these two things would anyone refute. I guarantee you if you were to ask her to try and explain the process of evolution to you she would fail. She also won't want to learn about evolution most likely, so you should start by telling her she should at least understand it whether she choses to believe in it or not. That is always a good approach.

 

[Janitor]

Natural selection and mutation are sometimes said to be the twin pillars on which the theory of evolution rests. And then there are subdsidiary issues such as genetic drift and the colonizer principle, which can come into play in certain situations.

 

[Chrono]

I suppose to his way of thinking it is ridiculous to believe that 'mere' evolution could result in whale songs working that way.

Kind of a premature statement from him, isn't it? I mean, I kind of doubt he knows how evolution works and the biology of whales.

 

[Janitor]

Kind of a premature statement from him, isn't it? I mean, I kind of doubt he knows how evolution works and the biology of whales.

You are likely correct about that.

It would be interesting to read an anti-evolution book or article by a writer who has had training in biology to the level of a professional biologist. I wonder if there are any such writings out there? I do know that a law professor (not the same as a biologist, I know!) wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. I have not read it, but I just located it at Amazon:



Has anybody here read it? Maybe you can comment on its worth.

 

[Chrono]

I do know that a law professor (not the same as a biologist, I know!) wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. I have not read it, but I just located it at Amazon

The only thing I can think that that's about is the Scopes trial in Kentucky, I believe it was. When Clarence Darrow defended him and he got off on a technicality.