Anti-Evolution article, How do you respond?

Question

Today in my crap newspaper, for reasons other than this viewpoint, there was a publiushed view that spouted trash about evolution. The main "areguments" of this viewpoint were

1-we have so many people delighted to come from pond scum
We accept the fact that evolution accuretly and correct describes, how we came about. Simply because we do not want to think something happened, does not mean it did not happen. As much as Americans would like to forget about slavery, the fact is it happened and wishing for it not to happen, does not make it any less real.
2-Evolution does not answer what "power/force/agency allthe nessicary changes take place to make all this happen"
Ironically some1 wrote a letter descibing the hunting of deer and talked about passing on of traits in the very same issue.
3-Evolution is just a theory
4-Wait until you have a prayer answered, and see God's power
5-Everything is a result of a Intelligent designer

3-Just a theory
In the respected scientific community a theory is not simply an idea that someone has made up and has put in a book. Hypothosis are weeded out by experimentation. The hypothosis that make in through rigerous testing, are unifed into a theory. This theory is more than "just a theory" but rather a knowledge that is able to explain unknown phenamon. Evolution has done just this, predicting where in earths 4.5 billion life, certian fossil should be.
4-God and evolution are perfectly compatable. There is even evolution mass once a year apart of (the name of the project, ill look it up)
5-Inteligent design has been disproven, by the science community. And if one watched the NOVA on the issue one would see that Intelligent Design, has no scientific background.

The letter itslef needs to be short so it fits into the paper, i just need help condesing my ideas.

In responding, im not trying to get the author to change his mind, i wish to ensure that the reading public is not misinformed on the issue

Answer 1

That is called a false dilemma. They try to "disprove" evolution, thinking that in essence they are "proving" their weird views. It is like me arguing that you are not the Emperor of the World, and thinking that the argument against you is proof for me being the Emperor of the World.

Answer 2

{I'll just address one of these points (you seem to have a handle on the others):}

>"2-Evolution does not answer what "power/force/agency allthe nessicary changes take place to make all this happen"

Actually evolution does answer this question ... and creationism does not!

Specifically, the entire brilliance of Darwin's theory is that it describes the *mechanism* that drives evolution. Call that mechanism a "power/force/agency", if you want .. the point is that it *explains* what *causes* evolution to happen. We understand the causal agency (the mechanism) for evolution far better than we understand the causal agency (the mechanism) for gravity!

But creationism precisely does NOT "answer what power/force/agency" caused creation. Just giving that power/force/agency a name (God, YWEH, Allah, The Creator, The Designer) explains precisely NOTHING about it.

This is why creationists fail to understand science! They are so used to being asked to believe things without need for understanding (as an acceptancy of mystery, is a legitimate path to many legitimate questions ... but not this one), that they have no real concept of what a true *EXPLANATION* even looks like! This is why they can also *reject* things without real understanding.

--------------------------
{end of my main answer ... the following are additional details you are free to use if you want}:
--------------------------

This inability to understand what constitutes an EXPLANATION, is why creationists use phrases like "just a theory" ... or "unproven", or "has not risen to the level of 'law' or 'fact' "... they utterly fail to understand that the goal of science is not to "prove" things, but to *EXPLAIN* things. A 'theory' is the highest rank an explanation can obtain. Namely, a theory is an explanation that has been tested on so much evidence that it has huge explanatory power ... it explains a lot of things.

------

Science always puts *understanding before belief*. Religion puts *belief before understanding*. This is not to say that religion is bad ... belief-before-understanding is a good thing for some issues (like issues of your own morality and mortality and the questions of purpose and behavior ... all of which can be addressed by believing in things without need to fully understand them).

But belief-before-understanding is the exact antithesis of science.

The only good news is that, because they are arguing against things they clearly don't understand ... they are not very formidable opponents.

Answer 3

I have trouble understanding all your points - are you trying to paraphrase what the article said, or to outline what your counter-arguments would be? It seems to be a bit mixed up here.

It would be more helpful if you actually quoted the article you wished to refute, rather than putting your interpretation on it. It is difficult to form a reasoned argument based on an angry interpretation rather than the facts.

Why do you bother to read your newspaper if you think it is crap for several reasons? Hmm?

For your newspaper letter you may also want to use a spellchecker! "areguments" and "nessicary" just make YOU look like the ignorant one!

Best wishes!

Answer 4

one million. the place we originated from 4 billion years in the past does no longer cut back what being a human is immediately. 2. i do no longer understand what you're soliciting for this one. 3. In technological understanding the term theory has a diverse definition than it does in standard use. theory in technological understanding is an explication of ways and why of a actuality. Evolution being the reality, the theory being the explication of ways it happens and why it happens. 4. no you may teach with empirical records that a prayer has ever been replied. 5. there is no medical records that's peer reviewed to help identity.

Answer 5

Here is your answer in an essay. You have my permission to copy all of this at your will. No credit need be assigned to me.

Pond scum and people? ... As those deep in the belief that there is a grey haired old man who floats in the clouds and will damn you to an eternity of torture in hell if you don't take his son into your hear but loves you do, they choose to make an incredible FACT BASED SCIENCE (not belief) such as evolution sound as if it is disgusting (pond scum??) when, in reality, it is an incredibly intellectual and exciting academic adventure.

Keep in mind, that unlike those grey haired believers who learned about their belief system at the same time they learned about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, those who are learning about the science of evolution do so as they are becoming thinking adults.

There is nothing wrong with understanding that WE, as humans, are the pinnacle of an amazing and logical biological process. That process inculdes a fossil record that, BTW, is virtually complete regarding links connecting humans to apes. That process includes DNA similarities, some of which is common amongst every living thing on earth from bacteria to humans.

Since DNA is common between organisms and all organisms get their DNA from their ancestors, then the only way to have the same DNA is to have had a common ancestry.

Just as the author of the newpaper said, "We accept the FACT ... ". Well, the author is correct, based on the EVIDENCE that is presented to others via publication in PEER reviewed scientific journals (and there are scientists who would LOVE to disprove other scientists), evolution IS FACT. Actually, evolution is evidence looking for an explanation where creationism is an explanation looking for evidence.

Those who live in the denial of those facts and instead choose to retreat to their world of unvalidated belief, retreat due to their incredible ignorance of the evidence of evolution. That evidence is overwheming and, as time goes by, not a single challenge by the creationists has been supported by anyone other that their own.

In every challenge, evolution has won 100% of the time ... Creationism has lost 100% of the time.

The ONLY source that says creation is how life began is the bible and the only validation of creation is the bible. THAT is circular reasoning and is NOT science.

Even IF evolution was not correct, it being so does not mean that creation is correct. THAT is simply NOT science.

It is time for the creationists to understand that it is their RELIGIOUS BELIEF and not others. Hindus, Buddists, and other religious groups do not hold the same beliefs that Christians hold and it is damn time that Christians STOP their evangilistic propaganda program designed to inculcate others to their belief system.

See, it is not really a question of evolution vs. creation. It is a question of FREE THOUGHT regarding belief. You creationists don't have to believe the facts as the facts speak for themselves and only your ignorance of the facts drives you to your beliefs. However, you have no right whatsoever, as you do, to force YOUR beliefs on others.

Evolution deals with the SCIENCE of how life has come to be at this time on the Earth. Belief deals with the human spirit which, at this time, no one can explain.

So, if you Christians want to use YOUR belief system to deal with YOUR spirit, do so in your fashion in your place worship.

But, DON'T force YOUR BELIEFS in your spiritual leader on me and I'll do the same for you.

Thank god for Darwin.

Answer 6

Why does the writer think that God could not and would not have Evolution as one of the processes in the universe that He created? Would God create a stagnant, unchanging universe? It seems like he would get bored with that. Is God afraid of putting the process of Evolution in His universe? Is God not powerful enough to put the process of Evolution in His universe? I don't think the writer would admit to those last two possibilities.
.

Answer 7

same ol' same ol' creationist drivel. And the slavery analogy is ridiculous and hardly the same thing (did that come from the newspaper or from you?) It doesn't prove anything, there is more evidence to support evolutionary theory than the god hypothesis.

In short, ignore it, who cares?

Answer 8

I probably wouldn't respond at all. The author has already made up his/her mind and nothing you say will change it.