On 8/2/12 5:33 PM, Nivalian wrote:
> On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM UTC-4, Richard Norman wrote:
>> If you want to learn about a real dispute in evolution with two very
>> distinct views on how things work, look at the NY Times article,
>> "Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human
>> Origins" from the July 26, 2012.
>>
>>
http://tinyurl.com/d3sw48p
>>
>> Two very different techniques, those of paleoanthropology and those of
>> molecular genetics, give very different perspectives on human
>> evolution, the possible inbreeding between modern and archaic humans,
>> and the timing of the move out of Africa. Arguments and disputes over
>> different types of data and how to interpret them are not at all rare.
>> Time and further investigation will resolve the errors. If there are
>> two contradictory interpretations, one (or both) will eventually have
>> to yield to the other (or some intermediate or third option).
>>
>> When creationists yell "teach the controversy" in dealing with science
>> and evolution education, this is the kind of controversy that should
>> be taught; controversy within science.
>
> The problem is they "assume" evolution to be true.
Sorry, no. Your position fails a simple sanity check.
The theory of evolution by natural selection came on the scene
relatively suddenly, in a society that, for the most part, did not want
it (and still does not), and yet it rose to dominance quickly and has
eclipsed all competitors so completely that most people cannot even name
any alternatives, excepting magic. That does not happen because people
"assume" it to be true.
For something to be accepted simply by assumption, two conditions must
hold: First, the position has to have been around a long time, probably
centuries. Evolution might qualify on that count today, but it
certainly did not when it was first proposed. Second, the position has
to be non-controversial. Evolution is not even close to qualifying there.
> The problem goes away when you don't.
That's why you assume others assume. You want your problem to go away.
At some level, you know the evidence is far and away in favor of
evolution, but you have an emotional need to deny it, so you look for
excuses outside the evidence. In the process you make up false
evidence, such as your claim of assuming evolution to be true. God
would not approve.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume