Is evolution a controversial science?

[McCulloch]

Both religion and controversial science could be taught in elective College courses where they belong.

He was referring to evolution as controversial science. While there may be quite a number of legitimate controversies within the science of biology regarding evolution, evolution itself is not a controversy at all among biologists.

Question for debate: Is evolution as taught at the high school level, a controversial science? Is there any controversy among currently practicing biologists regarding the basic science behind evolution?

[JP Cusick]

Animals do not have any such morals or standards.

Of course we do.

False by counter example: I am an animal who is reasonable, empathic, compassionate and I do show concern for other animals.

Or you can see for yourself that living as animals can mean have a very high moral standard, often higher than the typical Christian standard, which don't tend to be all that compassionate. How does that sound?

I would still like you to justify why you think "not believing in sins" implies "not believing in telling the truth." Be thorough.

I see the above comment as an example that you can tell any kind of nonsense without any regard for it being truth or lies - with no regard of it being sins.

I myself would say that animals do have a kind of moral standard which is implanted by God, but it only determines how they may live as animals.

Here in the USA we all grew up with Christian moral standards whether we followed them or disobeyed, so no one here grew up by animal standards unless they were severely abused by the custodial parent or guardian.

It is absurd to view human progress as animalistic.

Of course there is that racist version of evolution that views white Americans as the higher evolved and other people as lower evolved, and thereby that version of evolution would support our higher values as inherited instead of being from our Christian roots.

[Neatras]

I see the above comment as an example that you can tell any kind of nonsense without any regard for it being truth or lies

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 91 by JP Cusick]

Everything you said, is the result of the presupposition that human are not animals.

Without this presupposition, then your so called Christian moral standards ARE by definition animal moral standards. All human progress ARE by definition animal progress.

All you have is a circular argument.

[KenRU]

The trans-Atlantic slave trade and the genocide of Native Americans occurred well before Darwinism. Looks like racism already existed.

Darwin published the "Origin of Species" in 1859 which was at the very height of the African slavery in the USA, and it was in the midst of the same era of the mass murder of Native American Indians, so Darwinism was a product of his times and certainly fit into that mentality.

Later the same racist mentality became known as "Social Darwinism" which was a polite way of saying racist.

The same old racism still exist today but it takes a new modernized form, as in the scientific version of evolution along with the immoral stance of Atheists.

I was content to just read your posts with both utter bemusement and bewilderment … until this line. Please do elaborate how atheists are immoral. I will wait patiently (like I am still waiting for you to explain how evolution is racist, lol).

That does not mean that all Atheist are immoral or are racist,

How big of you to concede.

but the claim of being an Atheist does strongly imply that they reject the moral doctrines of religion,

This is true. I reject slavery, stoning, homophobia, sexism, and barbarism.

and so an Atheist really needs to put a qualifier to that title, as like saying = they are Atheist but they still uphold high standards of decency.

Ah, the trite belief that religion imbues morality.

Should theists also offer a caveat that they do not believe in slavery, stoning, homophobia, sexism, and barbarism?

An Atheist who pushes evolution would thereby reject any notion of sin,

This is where you show your … lack of critical thinking: any atheist who doesn’t believe in a god would reject sin. An atheist who thinks ppl got here via Ridley Scott’s engineer race would reject sin. NOT just those that believe in evolution. No god = no sin. Simple. How did you miss that?

and so to them it is not a sin to lie or cheat, to adultery or steal, to murder or rape,

I do not need religion to tell me that is wrong. In fact, the bible makes many excuses for why some of those acts are permissible.

as they do not accept sinning as a reality so how can such a person be trusted?

Exactly! So, a theist who espouses morals as derived from the bible may endorse slavery, selling daughters, stoning and homophobia should not be trusted!

As such any person claiming to be an Atheist needs to also declare that they will comply to the high moral standards

I declare that I have a HIGHER moral standard than one espoused by the bible.

- because otherwise we can expect that they will not.

It would be worse to espouse one derived from the bible.

Evolution is a controversial science because it tells people that there are no sins and no moral standard and the highest survival is for the bullies.

Close. Evolution offers no basis for forming morals. One attempting to find a moral code in evolution is both highly confused and foolish.

[KenRU]

What is so dangerous and untrustworthy with animalistic standards such as "be reasonable, be empathic, be compassionate and show concern for other sentient animals."

So believe me when I tell you we are kind, generous and trustworthy animals.

You need to explain why you think "do not believe in sinning" implies "do not believe in telling the truth." Be thorough.

Animals do not have any such morals or standards.

False. Patently and demonstrably false.

Animals have been known to share food even with creatures not of its species. Animals have been shown to mate for life, grieve, play and get angry when seeing unfair practices of others.

You. Are. Wrong.

An animals is not reasonable nor empathic nor compassionate and animals do not show concern for other animals.

You are soooooo wrong, it is not even laughable.

Please, read some books on animal intelligence. I can recommend one if you like., It will show you how wrong you really are.

[Kenisaw]

As has been pointed out to you in various conversations at this website, you do not get to determine what is the standard that everyone should follow. What you think is moral only matters to you. Your standard does not and will not apply to any other human being on Earth.

This is why if a person says that they are Atheist then we can thereby expect them to be immoral and untrustworthy.

Who said I was talking about atheists? I wrote specifically that your standard "does not and will not apply to any other human being on Earth". That includes members of your family, your congregation, and your neighbors JP. Your standard only matters to you. Every single person you go to church with has a different moral code than you. Can you understand this? Each person has a set of values that is unique. They may think a lot like you, but I guarantee that there are differences. There always are.

If you want to impose your theology as law on everyone else, start your own caliphate somewhere. I'll stay here and keep living under the Constitution...

To lie is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

Please show me where you have the authority to speak for every atheist on Earth. Oh no a cultist does not need to follow that as they can just lump people together via fabricated claims.

To commit adultery is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

Please show me where you have the authority to speak for every atheist on Earth. Oh no a cultist does not need to follow that as they can just lump people together via fabricated claims.

To cheat is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

Please show me where you have the authority to speak for every atheist on Earth. Oh no a cultist does not need to follow that as they can just lump people together via fabricated claims.

To steal is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

Please show me where you have the authority to speak for every atheist on Earth. Oh no a cultist does not need to follow that as they can just lump people together via fabricated claims.

So thereby an Atheist can not be trusted to behave in a civilized manner.

And a cultist can state sweeping generalities about a group of people who have nothing in common besides the fact that they lack belief in god creatures...

The Atheists believe in an evolution where if they can defeat or trick or manipulate any other person then they are just surviving as the fittest.

Glad to see you didn't comprehend a single thing I wrote in my previous post.

But it would make a difference in trust if one gives a qualifier as in = they are an Atheist but say that they will still follow the higher moral standards.

What would make a difference is if you get off your high horse and stop pretending that your moral code is superior to anyone else's...

[Kenisaw]

To lie is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

This nonsense deserves deeper inspection. Let's do a thought experiment here JP. If a Christian is held captive by ISIS, and ISIS knows that he has knowledge about a water treatment facility that distributes to a million people, and they ask him where to inject poison into the system so they can kill all million people, and he lies about what they should do so that they fail, is that lie a sin?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 83 by JP Cusick]

... but the claim of being an Atheist does strongly imply that they reject the moral doctrines of religion ...

An Atheist who pushes evolution would thereby reject any notion of sin, and so to them it is not a sin to lie or cheat, to adultery or steal, to murder or rape, as they do not accept sinning as a reality so how can such a person be trusted?

You had already proven conclusively that you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution (the scientific one), and now you have proven that you know absolutely nothing about atheism, or what the word even means. It means that one is not a theist ... just like atypical refers to something that is not typical.

Sin is only relevant in the context of belief in a theistic god. "Sinning" isn't a realty for an atheist, but basic moral judgement is. This doesn't come from religion ... it is inherent in all social animals which includes humans. The understanding that it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder etc. is shared by humans of all stripes (the huge majority of them anyway), and is not dictated by any religion that classifies certain actions as "sins." Atheists understand that basic human decency and good morals are necessary for a society to exist, prosper and advance, without any religion to outline for us what is basic common sense.

[H.sapiens]

To lie is a sin - oh no an Atheist does not need to follow that as they do not believe in sinning.

This nonsense deserves deeper inspection. Let's do a thought experiment here JP. If a Christian is held captive by ISIS, and ISIS knows that he has knowledge about a water treatment facility that distributes to a million people, and they ask him where to inject poison into the system so they can kill all million people, and he lies about what they should do so that they fail, is that lie a sin?

Every creationist or IDer who has approached evolution with the the statement that it is "just a theory" is, in point of fact, a liar. Consider what that means to their "salvation."

[otseng]

This is why if a person says that they are Atheist then we can thereby expect them to be immoral and untrustworthy.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make generalizations about a group of people.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.