Y.B

Right on! :thumbs:

zachhanke

The real problem is that there aren't too many totally irrational Evolutionists (don't get me wrong however... they DO exist).

The majority of Evolutionists have believed, at one point or another in their lives, in Creationism. I'd say the majority of Creationists have NEVER touched a book on Evolution, making the majority of their distaste towards it irrational and biased...


Nevermind, looks like buckshot got to it before me... :Cheeky:

Barbarian

I would expect we can find a number of stupid arguments for evolution which are stupid simply because they assume lamarckian, not darwinian, evolution. I do not have the luxury to have explicit creationists around, but it turns out that many evolution-accepting religious people here in Central Europe, especially Catholics, are implicit lamarckians. They actually propose a mechanism for Lamarckian evolution: if an animal species evolved to meet some requirement, it was God who actually changed them, that sort of stuff. They are two masses and one rosary away from creationism, and one good Dawkins book away from darwinian evolutionism, while being apathetic about the whole business.

Plognark

You know, I don't see a lot of stupid arguments for evolution, but I've talked to and met a whole pantload of people who don't know jack shit about it, even if they do support it and have a basic trust in the scientific method. :huh:

buckshot23

Yeah I would agree also that there is alot of stupid stuff out of creationists for the simple fact that because of their belief in christianity they are automatically put into the creationist label. Then feel the need to argue against evolution without knowing anything about it. Which leads to a boatload of stupid things coming out of their mouths. If you are a non believer of christianity and generally accept evolution you don't have a card in the game so they don't argue for evolution as much. Thus avoiding the stupid arguments that plague "creationists". Most people are apathetic to the issue. Unless they are christian or hardened skeptic evolutionist.

patchy

Whatever "stupid" arguments for Evolution there may have been at some time ( I dunno, Piltdown Man? Lamarckism? ) there still remain at least two HUGE differences between the evolutionism and creationism camps:

1) Most evolution arguments which have been found..if not "stupid", but shall we say,"lacking"... were initially found to be lacking by other evolutionists. It's not like Creationists were able to point out some flaw and then "correct" evolutionary theory with something from scripture that better explained the fossil record, geological strata, etc.

2) Evolution theory, since it is based on the scientific method, retains a "self-correcting" mechanism which actually LOOKS for "bad arguments" and weeds them out. Rigorous peer review ensures that an argument is sound before it even has a CHANCE at becoming part of the "officially accepted" version.
The Bible remains locked in time--a Bronze Age document that's getting older and more ridiculously outdated by the year, with no hope of updating itself. The Genesis story (both of them ) we're stuck with is the story we're stuck with...with no opportunity to edit it, to harmonize it with what we now KNOW to be true.

"Stupid arguments" regarding evolution theory don't usually get a chance to hang around long enough to become a real PART of evolution theory. They're zealously stricken from the records as soon as they're exposed, and replaced with something better, in a continuous process.

Stupid arguments regarding creationism get immortalized "as is" for two thousand unchanging years and must be ever more bizarrely defended by apologists who will stretch or ignore any modern-day discovery or fact that challenges "the word of God."

OdysseusTheInnkeeper

I'd have to say the justifications for social darwinism is one of the big contenders. That an ecology is more about competition than co-operative and complementary synergy among its participating species is a major bungle.