Dear Evolutionists – We Don’t Disagree!

_{Jonathan Bartlett

March 10, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I watched this amazing video. What is amazing about it, is that I think that they are trying to make a point against ID-based theories of biology, but it does no such thing.

Note that the first part of the video focuses on the definition of evolution. Is there anyone on the planet who disagrees with evolution as they have defined it? They say that evolution is the study of the change of gene frequencies over time. Who doesn’t disagree with that? This is ridiculous, because there is no one at all who disagrees.

I find it amazing that the people who obviously spent a lot of time putting this video together didn’t manage to grasp the concept that the definition they put at the front of the video means that they will be preaching to the choir everywhere they go.

Comments

bevets - It is true that it would have been more accurate to substitute "genetics" for "evolution". However, to many materialists, genetics = evolution. When I am teaching young students, I tell them that if they tell someone "I don't believe in evolution", what the other party will *hear* them say, in all truth, is "I don't believe in genetics". The idea that evolution = genetics has become so ingrained that people make this logical connection even when the subjects can clearly be differentiated. However, on the converse, it can bring down some walls, too. Instead of railing against evolution, one can simply say, "I believe in evolution, I just disagree with X". This can make the discussion more fruitful and less flameful. I think the Darwinists have been playing word games with the word "evolution" so long, they are going to be quite surprised what the theory of evolution starts to look like when people take them seriously when they say "evolution is just the study of how gene frequencies change over time".johnnyb_{March 11, 2012
March
03
Mar
11
11
2012
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Shogun, Saying the ID is anti-materialism just doesn't have the same affect on people as saying ID is anti-evolution...Joe_{March 11, 2012
March
03
Mar
11
11
2012
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

Back to the trojan horse. The following comments are carefully vague. I would like the opportunity to ask followup questions. Its the true story of where we came from, who we are, and gives us insight into where we're headed. 4.40 We need to give them the full and constantly evolving story. 4.54 Teaching children about evolution -- like teaching them about language, math, and technology -- means giving them the keys to understanding the world around them. These kids will be tomorrow's doctors, lawyers, business people, soldiers, and politicians. Evolution is important to all of these professions. 4.58 If we tell our children the stories that evolution tells us, we can instill in them an appreciation and respect for nature. 5.28bevets_{March 11, 2012
March
03
Mar
11
11
2012
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

bevets, I totally agree, it is remarkable how most of those so-called observations or examples of "evolution in action" can be explained simply be genetics or epigenetics. Biology is slowly beginning to discard that old fable of random mutations plus natural selection.Shogun_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

In most cases, the speaker could have used the word 'genetics' instead of 'evolution', however if they had used the former, the absurdity of the video would be apparent to all. 'Look at this beautiful trojan horse we are offering to public education. Why would anyone oppose our gift?'bevets_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Joe, Even if intelligent design was an ally of evolution, it is an enemy of materialism. And this is the main reason why those typical Darwinists with their devotion to materialism oppose ID.Shogun_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Darwin argued against the strawman of the fixity of species and evos have just kept it going. There really needs to be a stronger approach to this issue- meaning there needs to be an emphasis on the fact that Intelligent Design is not anti- evolution. Imagine how the NCSE would react to a textbook disclaimer that started out with "Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution...", and support it. It will tell students that ID argues only against blind and undirected processes having sole dominion over evolution. And it will provide a list of resources for the students, as well as informing them that the design inference extends beyond biology. Sounds like a plan...Joe_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

What a pile of propaganda - and yet I'm sure it might impress some people. Who produced this? I'll tell you. It was the cheerleaders of the Darwin fan club. This little gem really stuck out as I watched the video:
"To teach science without evolution is kind of like teaching sentence structure without the alphabet. Without those building blocks, you don't have the tools to understand how all these major disciplines work."
This gal was trying to be really excited about evolution and put a lot of positive emotion into her message like a cheerleader. A lot of broad sweeping general claims mean nothing. I guess if you are convinced that evolution is what they claim it is, then they are right, but the evidence they use to support their claims doesn't fit the conclusion. Now if they were to switch the words "natural selection" for "evolution", then it might be a bit more accurate.tjguy_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

They say that evolution is the study of the change of gene frequencies over time. Who doesn’t disagree with that? This is ridiculous, because there is no one at all who disagrees. Exactly. I'm a YEC and I accept that type of evolution occurs. The problem is, they use the old bait and switch and try to sneak in the unsupported belief that mutations + natural selection = wonderfully, complex traits.Blue_Savannah_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Thanks! The fervour of some of the interviewees is funny. Who produced this?Gregory_{March 10, 2012
March
03
Mar
10
10
2012
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply