Do Evolution Deniers Understand the Difference Between Prescriptive and Descriptive?

Question

If you want to dispute the veracity of evolution, be my guest, but please don't make arguments about the morality of it. That means that any assertions regarding the "cruelty" or "justification of the Holocaust" are completely and totally irrelevant.

Evolution simply explains what animals in nature, in the absence of any sort of moral paradigm, will do. Darwin never said that this was "good" or "bad" behavior, he simply said that it exists. And no amount of disgust or revulsion at this state of affairs makes it any less true. I can't understand why you think it would. Do animals behave reprehensibly toward each other? Yes. Is it unpleasant? Yes. Does this mean it's not true? Of course not.

So, all of that said, why do creationists insist on bringing up moral arguments against evolution? Do they not understand that how warm and fuzzy this state of affairs makes them feel simply DOES NOT MATTER?

Answer 1

OK here we go again on these forums about what creationist believe and understand. First off lets start by explaining why the morality issue is and always will be a major question( and to those who say its because we have no scientific evidence to support our claims that evolution is false is just absurd there is plenty of evidence to show that if the "theory" of is not completely broken then its at the very least flawed). The problem is this if we are animals then how do we judge right from wrong? There is no passing judgment in the animal kingdom. Do what you want as long as it "feels" right. I mean isn't that what it all boils down to? Who judges right from wrong if we are all just forms of primates? and the comment about Darwin recanting on his deathbed even though that would have been a pretty interesting twist there is no actual proof that it happend so to say that proves anything is again a belief.(Sorry)

Answer 2

No, they don't. They're like small children who haven't learned to think beyond basic pleasure-pain responses yet. Not only that, but they believe in the bogeyman too, and because their thought processes aren't up to snuff, they think the rest of the world is insane for not thinking "bump in the night" = "bogeyman."

Basically, their mindset is that their magic book (and more importantly, it's interpreters in the priesthood) tells them to be afraid of everlasting pain and suck up so they'll get eternal creamy goodness, which is only "proved" by their magic book. If you introduce something that proves this magic book wrong on any count, it means it isn't totally inerrant, which means the whole heaven and hell thing is now in doubt.

Hence the moral arguments -- most people agree certain pieces of judeo-christian morality are dead-on, like the Holocaust or murder being mean things to do. So they trot out the morality "arguments" because they're relatively unassailable. What they don't understand is, like you said, moral arguments have no bearing on scientific ones. however, they DO serve a purpose in the "debate" over creation/evolution in that they deflect attention from the factual arguments against creationism.

If they can keep deflecting attention from all the holes in their belief, they don't have to face these holes themselves, which means they don't have to face the fact that they're living a lie, and that when they die there won't be some magical paradise waiting for them.

Which means they don't have to face the reality that they've wasted their lives believing in a fairy tale.

They aren't afraid humans evolved from apes. They're afraid of everything else that goes along with that fact.

Answer 3

thanks Richard O for the link. it is an exceedingly insightful article. i'm bookmarking that one to percentage with others! i imagine there are really wise human beings in both communities. My mom's a creationist yet she also accepts that "evolution occurs". She thinks that technology is imperfect and God is proper. there is genuinely no arguing with her that God made the international and each little thing in it. even as? Now it is controversial and he or she'll admit that the dates are not from now on "set in stone". (No pun meant.) She thinks that carbon courting is faulty and dinosaurs and guy lived together. So is she "stupid" or in denial? properly i don't think of that. She's a wondering individual attempting to stability her faith with technology. yet she also believes that human-brought about climate replace is occurring because she's seen it firsthand. i imagine international warming deniers are a distinct breed. certain, some also are creationists and are only opposite. i imagine scepticism is sturdy, debate is sturdy, as a lot because the point the position you change right into a loony for no longer seeing the truth hitting you intense. even as maximum wise layout/creationists will settle for a minimum of a few present day technology into their wondering, it type of feels that AGW deniers do not favor to provide up, and are desperately protecting, their way of existence: eating aspects, wondering the international is theirs to apply and abuse. it is plenty distinct than an effortless faith that God made the international 6000 years in the past. Denying climate replace at this element is only risky and irresponsible. Creationists do not damage all and distinct till they conflict to instruct "wise layout" as truth in faculties.

Answer 4

Do evolution-promoters understand the difference between theory and fact? The vast evidence supporting the idea that every species evolves does not support the fantastic notion that one species can evolve into another. As to your juxtaposing "Creationism" with Darwinism,you are establishing a false dichotomy. Few Christians are fundamentalists - they are regarded generally as an embarrassing fringe element - and their unsupported contentions regarding the processes of creation are at least as fuzzy as the equally unsupported notions of the Darwinists with their talk of a primordial soup being struck by lightning and so on.

Answer 5

It's because it's their only leg to stand on. And as far as reprehensible behavior, no animal compares to humans.

Answer 6

They don't have any scientific arguments, so sometimes they'll resort to moral arguments.

Answer 7

They also don't get what "theory" in Science means.

Answer 8

I don,t care what Darwin said except right before he died that it was all false, and I don,t feel warm and fuzzy when people call God a liar.